What happens if you elect prosecutors and judges? Perhaps they start to look at legal issues not according to what is right, but rather according to what outcomes might or might not be ‘popular’.

Here is Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz coming down hard on the prosecution case against George Zimmerman for the alleged murder of Trayvon Martin. As he says, to launch the case the prosecution have to put forward facts suggesting firmly that a crime has been committed, noting the case for the defence as well. Here the prosecutor’s case itself is consistent with everything Zimmerman himself has said. Hence it should be struck out. It was ‘irresponsible and unethical’ even to lodge it with such little evidence:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update: here is another leading US conservative pundit who thinks that Zimmerman might well merit a mansalughter charge but who likewise is unimpressed with what the prosecution have put forward so far:

Let’s start with the observation that Zimmerman admits that he shot Martin. The only question is whether he did so in self-defense. I quoted here the Florida statutes on the justifiable use of force, including the “stand your ground” portion of the law, which likely doesn’t apply. To get a conviction, the prosecutor will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in justifiable self-defense when he shot Martin.

Of course it may be the case that Zimmerman is a very bad man who did behave wickedly in confronting and then shooting Martin. It also may be the case that there is not enough evidence to prove that conclusively. In which case he walks free. That’s because we insist on a high standard of proof before the state convicts people, which in turn means that some morally and legally guilty people do not end up being punished.

That’s a key safeguard feature for the general benefit of all of us, not a serious shortcoming or a ‘miscarriage of justice’.