fbpx

The Independent Counsel and the Unfairness of Being Targeted by a Federal Prosecutor

Over the past several years, I have given some thought to the old independent counsel statute.  I have argued that the statute both had constitutional and policy defects.  Here I want to elaborate a bit more on one of the alleged defects.

One of the problems with the independent counsel (IC) is that this official seemed to be too powerful.  The IC would investigate, would usually find some type of violation, and then could prosecute.  The defendant would then be faced with the risk of a criminal trial and a severe sanction or would be pressured into a plea bargain.  Either way, it was extremely problematic and placed the defendant in a horrible situation.

This aspect of the system was seen as part of a system that criminalized policy differences.  The IC was given the power to force many government officers into this horrible situation.  And because the statute gave the IC an incentive to prosecute –the IC was judged as to whether he hauled in the big fish and had no other responsibilities, allowing him to focus entirely on the defendant – this made matters worse.

I have tried to address this problem by offering a fix that would divide the powers of the IC in two, so as to improve the incentives of the IC.  But even if these incentives were improved, people might still regard the IC as problematic.  While the IC would then have no worse incentives than any other federal prosecutor, he would still have the power to impose so much harm on these government officials, without it being clear that they really engaged in criminal activity.

But while the IC would have this power, it is not clear that this represents an important criticism of having an IC.  The reason is that this is arguably the situation that faces all Americans every day.  If for some reason a federal prosecutor decides to target you, then you are in an extremely problematic situation – the same one that these government officials are in.  That is a very bad thing.  Moreover, because high government officials are not normally targeted by federal prosecutors, these influential people are given no incentive to address the problems of this system.

In the end, it is not clear what to do.  One does not want to extend an unfair system to cover more people, but that might be a step in the direction of reforming the system.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on March 29, 2017 at 10:24:49 am

Are you suggesting we eliminate persecutors?

Grand juries are supposed to clamp down on the risk of prosecutorial abuse, but experience suggests that they’re not much of an impediment.

In any event, special prosecutors differ from standard prosecutors in that … well, they’re just special. Specifically, the standard prosecutor is handed a list of crimes and is told to go enforce them. The special prosecutor is handed a defendant, and told to go find any crimes that person might have committed. A standard prosecutor, much like a standard thief or standard hacker, may well be able to get me in the end—but will almost certainly find it more productive to go after targets with higher returns and greater vulnerabilities. Thus, each of us lives like the hikers who encounter the bear: Our safety does not depend on outrunning the bear; it depends on outrunning our fellow hikers.

To ignore this fact with propositions such as “If for some reason a federal prosecutor decides to target you...” is to miss the beauty and power of Supply and Demand.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on March 29, 2017 at 12:59:10 pm

Last two sentences = PRICELESS!!!!

Also, one might read: "Harvey Silvergate, Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"

The problem ain't just with a special prosecutor but with the average prosecutor - just like with the average bear, Yogi, you may find that to escape you have to run DOWNHILL.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on March 29, 2017 at 13:55:47 pm

Oops, forgot:

The problem ain’t just with a special prosecutor but with the average prosecutor – just like with the average bear, Yogi, you may find that to escape you have to run DOWNHILL. Unlike a regular bear, the Fed bear expects that in going DOWNHILL you also knock down some of your fellow hikers in order for the bear to swoop down upon them for an additional snack.

In other words, Yogi doesn't do "plea bargaining," i.e., ratting out your fellow hikers.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.