The thing that's going to disappoint me is if Kerr strictly analyzes whether the prosecutor choosing to bring the charges was unlawful, which I imagine it probably wasn't -- it's standard operating procedure.
Which is its own problem. But the problem with what prosecutors did is that prosecutors are allowed not to bring the charges and did anyway, notwithstanding the epic disproportionality of the charged penalties to the acts.
In other words, the problem is that the law is defective, and prosecutors could have had a conscience and not abused that fact to break this kid, but they failed at being human, and for that they are culpable. Morally and ethically if not legally.
While we wait though, I wonder Aaron's lawyers ever explained to him that thirty five years was an all but impossible outcome of this case, that seven years was a longshot and some type of non-incarceration a distinct possibility. If his lawyers for some reason didn't make that clear they did him no favors.
Now whether pervasive overcharging to extract pleas is itself ethical is another question ...
Which is its own problem. But the problem with what prosecutors did is that prosecutors are allowed not to bring the charges and did anyway, notwithstanding the epic disproportionality of the charged penalties to the acts.
In other words, the problem is that the law is defective, and prosecutors could have had a conscience and not abused that fact to break this kid, but they failed at being human, and for that they are culpable. Morally and ethically if not legally.