Great post, and I hope everyone on HN follows your suggestions for bringing this to the attention of the public. But ultimately, it's the law that comes out of

Great post, and I hope everyone on HN follows your suggestions for bringing this to the attention of the public. But ultimately, it's the law that comes out of the legislative process that not only enables, but prescribes these prosecutions. Because of this, advocates for reform risk playing right, straight, smack into the hands of the system by resolving to do nothing more than stop one out-of-control public official. Soon enough, others will rise (in fact, they already have). And what will happen when the unlucky victims of malicious prosecutions don't have "the Internet" to back them up? To protect the public at large, the system itself must also be changed. "Seeing her dismissed and disgraced is in fact the only thing that will send such a message to such Javerts, as they have disabled the voice of the people by routing around jury trials and they are appointed rather than subject to elections." Could the real cause be that federal criminal statutes are too broad, and often shoved into bills at the last minute or for no good reason, and that mandatory minimum sentences for poorly-defined crimes litter every major piece of legislation to come out of Congress recently? Before casting blame for malicious prosecutions entirely on prosecutors who are merely enforcing laws passed by Congress, let's look inward at ourselves, and wonder how we could be so stupid as to vote for people whose philosophy it is to write criminal statutes so broad that all justice is left to prosecutorial discretion. It could be argued that it is the American public who are ultimately responsible for malicious, pointless prosecutions. But that's not the whole story. Currently, the public is totally cool with voting for people who write criminal statutes so broad that falling out of favor with the government can mean prosecutors can jail you for the rest of your life for no reason any empathetic person would agree with. It is also the public that is voting for people who appoint prosecutors incapable of using appropriate discretion. "It is incumbent upon us to see that she does not get [to higher office], that this behavior is NOT rewarded." And this is why your post is good and useful. Let's just remember that the legislative process, and therefore voters, are ultimately responsible for the lack of empathy and discretion in our judicial system.