Let me explain something to you, that I think no one ever has before--though I have tried. Just because YOU believe something to be an absolute truth, it does not mean everyone who disagrees with you is morally bankrupt. But because you see your positions as unquestionable truths, and anyone who disagrees as a flawed person, you naturally attack their character (be it myself,
@Futuristic Eskimo or
@Domingo Halliburton , etc.) and do not see the need to convincingly respond to their critiques.
It is very difficult to prove someone is corrupt, what you just demonstrated shows a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest does not equal corruption, but it is a gateway to it. You effectively supported my argument instead of your own. You even referred to oversight groups in other nations--which once again--supports my point about systemic flaws. If those lawyers were so naturally trustworthy, why in the world would you need overseers? Second, corruption requires individuals to knowingly commit acts that they believe are wrong. What I demonstrated to you is that most prosecutors believe what they are doing the right thing and have a myopic point of view--especially when it comes to cops (their brethren).
And you suffer from the same myopia apparently because in all your anger you failed to realize that my critique of the legal system was much harsher and scary than yours. If it is simply a bad prosecutor, you can hope for better people with a regime change, but if it systemic then the entire structure of the criminal justice system needs to be overhauled. Cops and DAs would be much more comfortable with your analysis than mine.