As you can see I'm not a firm believer in the 'this is my job so I do what I'm told' concept.
Everybody - including prosecutors - gets to decide what they do for themselves. If your job is so repugnant that you go after good people you have to question your own morality. Just following orders isn't good enough for me.
That you have a different criteria for what cases to prosecute doesn't make them evil.
Oh, but it does -- it makes them morally questionable in -- at least -- jacquesm's eyes (note, he didn't use the term "evil").
How else would you decide that someone's actions are morally dubious, other than using your own moral criteria? By consulting a lawyer? Running a popular vote?
> They would have been doing what they think is the _right thing_ to do: prosecute suspects aggressively
Or the "thing" that improves their career, or annual review.
Let's see: Essentially defenseless hacker-type, historical success of draconian prosecution strategies, and penalties /way/ outside the realm of reason because of fanned-up hyperbole, fear and misunderstanding in the criminal justice system.
Low-hanging fruit, to a prosecutor. Three before breakfast every day. Aaron probably did not _matter_ once he was in the system.
Cases won versus cases lost. In this one, we all lost.
Everybody - including prosecutors - gets to decide what they do for themselves. If your job is so repugnant that you go after good people you have to question your own morality. Just following orders isn't good enough for me.