The Disgraceful Attacks On Hillary Clinton For Doing Her Job

There is, as you may have heard, a new Clinton faux scandal. (It’s actually an old story.) Clinton is being accused of hating children or not really opposing child rape or something because a client she defended got a favorable plea bargain although Clinton believed he was guilty of sexually assaulting a child. Fortunately, Jamelle Bouie has explained how terrible and dangerous this line of argument is, largely saving me the trouble. The comparison to the attacks on Debo Adegbile is precisely on point.

I did want to make two additional points. First, note the slavering authoritarianism underlying Continetti’s line of attack. When a someone guilty of a terrible offense gets off lightly because the state botches the evidence, we’re supposed to blame…the defense attorney? What’s worse is that this prosecutors-are-never-accountable-for-anything attitude extends all the way to the Supreme Court, and to cases where prosecutors are not merely incompetent but actively malignant. Nor is the principle at stake mere empty formalism. Throwing people in prison, whether or not the state makes its case, because the state just knows they’re guilty and the accused doesn’t have access to a decent defense is really not a good way of proceeding.

Second, this is an excellent illustration of why defending the death penalty or other excessive sentences by citing the preferences of the victim (or the loved ones of the victim) in a particular case is a poor idea. I don’t blame the victim whose attacker got off lightly for being upset with everyone involved, including Clinton. But when we assign responsibility we need to be more detached than a victim can be.