The reason I would hammer illegals is that I’d want to send a message that if you weren’t born here, and you commit crimes in my jurisdiction, you will get crushed. That goes for gang graffitti. Anything. Plus, illegals often simply flee back to whence they came, making prosecution more difficult and justice harder to come by. The hammer would come down. Big time. Actually, I think any illegal alien committing a serious crime should be death eligible or face LWOP.

Even as a PD, I understand that violence (both the conduct alleged and the defendant’s history) needs to be considered. But immigration status?

Okay, so you’re anti-illegal-alien. I may disagree, but I get it. That said, wouldn’t it make MORE sense just to get ride of the people who aren’t legally here? Under your own rationale, why allocate resources (housing folks in crowded prisons isn’t free) to those who shouldn’t be here?

If you don’t like illegal aliens, wouldn’t you rather ICE ‘em than “throw the book” at ‘em?

But, were I a prosecutor, I would go against the grain with what things are “worth”. I would push for the max on a lot of violent crimes, and I would creatively use the law to ensure that people got hammered. For example, if the defendant were an illegal alien and violent, I would throw the book at him.

On the defense side, to answer your question, yes, ethically, I zealously represent my client and do everything possible to get the best result for him/her. But obviously, my tone, attitude, and conduct will be different when, for example, I feel a case is worth no more than 2 years in prison, and the offer is 10, as opposed to where the offer is 3. I wouldn’t “cave in” on the 3-year offer, but I can tell you that I would have a much more reasonable and productive conversation with the prosecutor. With the 10-year offer, after I laughed, my comments would be something along the lines of, are you f-ing serious?? This is not a negotiation about money for damages - it’s about justice. I have little patience or respect for those prosecutors who behave like there is no difference.

So, while I would pursue what I thought was an appropriate outcome in either case, my behavior and attitude would be very different in the two scenarios, if that is what you are asking. I have had the pleasure of dealing with some very reasonable prosecutors, who I don’t think anyone would accuse of being “soft on crime.” It’s when the system is at its best - I do my job, they do theirs, and everyone ends up with a result we can all live with.

Believe it or not, if I were a prosecutor, I would likely not be a hardass. But if I thought a defendant a real danger to society, I would drive a very hard bargain.

Lastly, and I am well aware that prosecutors and PDs have different functions, but do you as a PD, where the conduct is worse than the run-of-the-mill case with the same charge as your client, ever make yourself easier to deal with? Do you ever cave a little on a case to make your credibility better on others? Ethically, the answer is no. So when a prosecutor acts the same, is that so bad?

You, my good sir, are now officially a troll.