Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Bill Otis has this post at Crime & Consequences, critiquing Michael Cassidy's argument that prosecutors have an ethical obligation to oppose mandatory minimums. In part:
I have from time to time criticized the increasing tendency of liberals to use muscle when persuasion falls flat. Prof. Cassidy is of course free to hold his beliefs and vocally to argue for them, as others, particularly in academia, have done. One would hope he would accommodate the freedom of those still practicing as prosecutors to think and argue in opposition. But by branding their disagreement asunethical -- and thus necessarily as sanctionable by the bar -- he would, not only besmirch their integrity, but use the power of the court to punish them and coerce their genuflection.