I agree with much of what you say. And certainly you have a more learned, and perhaps legitimate, perspective than I. I offer my theories and beliefs to be examined and found wanting. I would disagree with your argument that prosecutors are not champions of liberty. When a person commits a crime against another, he has in one way or another abrogated her liberty. Our criminal system exists in order to stop this person from committing such a crime again. As a leg of our stool, so to speak, prosecutors are part of the structure that ensures liberty on a mass scale. You note that many criminal defense attorneys earn less than they would were they in civil practice. True. But nearly all district attorneys earn less than their counterparts as well. And let us not forget the public defenders, pro bono counsel, and non-profit organization attorneys. Freedom is both larger and smaller than the individual case. On the larger side (and from a Hobbesian perspective), freedom can only be achieved within limits (as Holmes noted). Plato argued in Crito that each person in our criminal system is part of the larger equation: the state and the ideals for which it stands. On the smaller side, every injustice done unto a defendant – guilty and innocent alike – is an atrocity of epic dimensions. I do not refer to a wrongful conviction – I refer to a handcuff placed too tightly, an invalid executed search warrant, an ex parte conversation. Yes, I say again, the defense attorneys are the last defenders of freedom. But they (you) have friends and allies in the system. The defense attorney's fight for her individual client is only one battle in the war. The battle is part of the campaign for justice, and the campaign for justice is part of the war for freedom. The instant case is the system’s search for guilty or not guilty; the system creates justice; justice is the primary ingredient of freedom. But the instant case cannot occur without the defense attorney, the prosecutor, the judge, and (usually) the jury. In that way they are all parts of freedom’s recipe. Without the defense attorneys we might have a police state; without the judges, we might have absolute anarchy; without the prosecutors, we would live in “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.� Freedom comes from justice. Yes, there is injustice. Examples of overly-aggressive prosecutors ignoring all the facts of a case; too many instances of illegal police conduct; far too many, *far too many* wrongful convictions (one in a century should be cause for an immediate review of our system). And these problems should be solved -- indeed, they must be solved. When habeas corpus writs are restrained or federal court jurisdiction on Constitutional issues limited, the system fails. But when an accused is properly arrested, defended by excellent counsel, prosecuted by a fair-minded district attorney, convicted by an un-biased jury and sentenced by a considerate and deliberate judge, the system succeeds; when the accused did not commit the crime, and he is acquitted or the charges are dropped, the system succeeds. (Initially I wrote “Yes, there is too much injustice.� Any injustice, however, is an unacceptable failure). Neither do the prosecutors speak for me when they pursue the death penalty, or when they fail to discover a 911 tape, or when they over-charge to plead-down. And certainly, absolutely, whenever a DA prosecutes for any reason other than incapacitation or rehabilitation, they do not speak for me (the penal theories of retribution and deterrence should play no role in a civilized society). But neither does the government speak for me when it bombs civilians, practices heterosexism, or monetarily punishes the lower or middle classes to give their upper-class cronies a tax-break. Nevertheless, I recognize that the legislators and presidents (those, at least, who are legitimately elected) play an important role in the search for justice and freedom (I do not here speak of any international . . . action). But, by and large, the prosecutors whom I know care about justice and the rights of all people, including defendants; these prosecutors speak for me every day. More has to be done, much more has to be done, to solve the racism, sexism, genderism, xenophobism, and, more than anything else, economic discrimination that pervades our system of laws. I want the defense bar stronger. The Public Defenders (state and federal) should be the best-funded part of our system. I want the prosecutors, defenders, and judges to be the best attorneys around and better paid. I want justice every time someone is pulled over, every time an intimate partner is slapped, and every time a penny is embezzled. Let me be clear that I am not suggesting that "the end result justifies the means." Such Machiavellian-esque argument has resulted in the justification for nearly every great tragedy our species has wrought upon the world. The end result of using immediately unjustifiable means is the ultimate, and unforgivable, use of unjustifiable means. I am saying that we can do better, but it takes all of us. It takes the defenders, the judges, the legislators, the executives, the juries, and, yes, the prosecutors to create a legitimate system. We all must do better for each other and ourselves. None of us, as individuals or as factions, can create justice, and thus freedom, alone.

A prosecutor's job is not to convict but to see that justice is done. That's not the same thing as championing liberty. In fact, prosecutors are not champions of liberty. They prosecute people to get a conviction and take their freedom away. As for representing the people of the State of Colorado, in theory they do. But that doesn't mean the cases they choose to prosecute represent my sentiments or those of of even the majority of Coloradans. The refusal of the Denver District Attorneys' office to acknowledge the vote of Denver's citizens to legalize possession of marijuana by adults -- and threatening to prosecute users under state law rather than acknowledge the exemption from prosecution that now exists under municipal law is but one example. Prosecutors do not speak for me or for tens of thousands of Coloradans when it seeks the death penalty against any defendant. Prosecutors do have a function in our justice system/ Perhaps you will learn in law school that justice is a three legged stool - the judge, the prosecutor and the defense attorney. When any leg is disregarded, the stool falls down.

"[Defense attorneys] really are liberty's last champions." Such a statement implies that those who work against criminal defense attorneys, the district attorneys and deputy district attorneys, have switched roles from promoters of freedom to advocates of autocracy. Such a statement is inaccurate and unfair. The poster above recognizes that "the justice system would crumble without the dedicated work of defense lawyers." However, the justice system would be non-existent without defense attorneys' foils. Now, certainly, no part of the system is perfect. But surely one can recognize that just as unethical district attorneys exist, unethical defense attorneys exist; just as excellent, vital defense attorneys exist, exceptional and essential district attorneys exist as well. Beyond that, however, is an inherent misunderstanding of the system. Defense attorneys are intended to be opponents of district attorneys. They have different roles in a system that operates dialectically. Our system of criminal justice recognizes that there are different people with different paradigms inherent to their being. A non-adversarial system would lead to the guilty being unfairly punished, because the police do not arrest and the DAs do not prosecute those whom they believe are innocent (the prosecutor in any criminal case is required to prove that the defendant committed the crime charged *beyond a reasonable doubt*; this rightly favors the defendant). This raises another important misconception: that the prosecutors are "out to get people." The prosecutors, by and large, do not want to imprison every accused person who walks through their door. When engaging in plea negotiations, defense attorneys will generally argue one of three things: either their client is innocent, not enough evidence exists to convict their client, or their client would be better served by a lessened or alternative negotiated sentence (community service, driving classes, home confinement, work release . . .). Defense attorneys argue about the best interest of their clients for a reason. It is not the prosecutor's job (pay attention: *it is not the prosecutor's job*) to imprison everyone. While the defense bar is charged with "zealous advocacy," the prosecution bar is charged with "doing justice." Were a prosecutor to convict, or accept a guilty plea from, someone whom she believed to be innocent, disciplinary proceedings would follow. Let us not forget who the attorneys represent. The defense attorney represents the accused; the district attorney represents the People of the State of Colorado (including YOU). It is harder to attack DAs as power-tripping egomaniacs when they are prosecuting child pornographers, rapists, kidnappers and mass murderers. They safeguard us from the dangerous elements of society. When a child rapists moves in next door, Megan’s Laws ensure that you have access to that information. When a child is kidnapped, Amber Alerts activate to find him. And when your intimate partner attacks you, you have access to a victim’s advocate. These laws are promoted by the prosecutors. When the police fail to Mirandize a suspect (‘You have the right to remain silent . . .) or illegally enter a home, the defense attorneys step-up. When you are arrested for protesting against a mega-corporation on the public sidewalks, your defense counsel brings in 1st Amendment case law. And when the police targeted you for some illegal reason, your lawyer is rightfully incensed and advocates for you. And when the DAs think the search of your home was legal but your attorney disagrees, when the 1st Amendment is unclear, when a statute may or may not be valid, the judges make very difficult rulings. They listen to the prosecutor and the defense attorney. They retire to their chambers and perform their own research. And they spend many hours writing decisions and opinions that clearly explain their decision. But let’s not forget about the most important part of the system: our fellow citizens. They take the information into account and consider all the relevant factors. They can spend weeks deliberating, arguing, and voting to convict or not. They rely on the adversarial system to ensure that all of the important admissible facts are presented. Everyone in the system is important. The system is composed of many separate, and important, parts. Yes, the defense attorneys are the last defenders of liberty. But along the walls of our bastion of freedom stand the district attorneys. And the judges. And (usually) the legislators, mayors, governors and presidents. At the front lines of the battle are our juries. To simplify the system to such black and white inaccuracy insults all of those people -- including the defense attorneys -- who work inside it. Moreover, it insults the advocates who, over the millennia, partook in adversarial criminal systems. Our system if imperfect. The guilty sometimes go free and the innocent are occasionally punished. More work should be done, must constantly be done, to struggle towards perfection. Every day there are people striving towards a better system; do not insult them by suggesting that any of them desire anything other than freedom and righteousness.