"The client list of Don West and Mark O’Mara dries up if they perform the way their courtroom adversaries do. The prosecutors won’t be out of a job because of this fiasco. Because consequences rarely attach to actions in government, the state incentivizes recklessness."
This touches on a pet peeve of mine for decades. One, our legal system is fundamentally based on a misconception, ie the criminal cases are "The People" vs. George Zimmerman. Actually, it's the estate of Trayvon Martin vs George Zimmerman. It's any criminal action vs. the actual victim of that criminal action.
Again, off topic, that's why some crimes (prostitution, buying illegal drugs) are called "victimless", because there is no complaining victim. The "crime" is consensual.
So, if we would change the criminal law to reflect the reality of a criminal committing a crime against specific people, we could then privatize the prosecution. So, the Martin Family has Crump and Gang has lawyers, why can't they determine and hire the lawyers to prosecute their case? Why is this a State monopoly?
There are no consequences for the employees of the State, when they screw up. We should limit the number of State employees and get government out of everything we can.
Again, off topic, why not professionalize the jury system. They are the only ones in the legal system without legal advice. Why not have a new career of professional jurors? Their jobs would be dependent on coming to just verdicts, that would be their incentive. Would anyone hire members of the OJ or Casey Anthony Juries?
Given that my neighbors sicked (sick - ;-) ) the local gov’t on me, when I talked to the local gov’t attorney I always referred to my (hegemonic, (running dog)) neighbors as the “not your clients” since the gov’t attorney claimed that they (the gov’t) didn’t represent the complainants when they really did.
My local gov't unit will not let me "serve" anymore. I always ask about jury nullification.
I believe that in the (distant) past in America, that was common.