Attacking a single prosecutor who was doing her job and obeying the law won't change anything. Attacking the laws she enforced will.
That's definitely wrong.
Prosecutors go after crimes like this in a public way partly to deter others. The theory is that if they make a clear example of one transgressor, it will scare others into line.
If that theory is good enough for hackers, who aren't particularly good at responding to social pressure, I'm sure it's good enough for career federal employees, who are notoriously risk averse. And the government will certainly fire people who have attracted sufficient negative media attention; Shirley Sherrod is a clear example.
I'm with you on fixing the other injustices as well, but that's no reason not to go for a win with Ortiz. Indeed, getting a win here means you'll have a bunch of people feeling victorious who can be motivated to move to something bigger.
Remains the fact that none of the bright minds that congregate under news.ycombinator.com seems to have the slightest idea how "attacking the laws" is supposed to work. Apart from maybe a vague theory of erosion that appears far less convincing than pretty much anything most people here would dare to argue in the context of, say, a business plan.
How do you assure that president will not be corrupted or compromised as well? How will he be able to tell every single person who is invested in the laws you're trying to attack (from corporate interests that are so huge that they're usually awarded cabinet posts to the sheer drag of gigantic bureaucracies invested in existing career paths) to go away? How can he practically reach the most powerful political position without sacrificing this very ability?
Plus: Imagine what would be the smartest, most malicious attacks on your plan. How would you counter them?
(Edit: None of these are rhetorical questions, of course. I do believe these laws have to be attacked. But if you asked me, maybe I'd rather invest in something like the study of political tectonics, earthquakes. Why do they happen so rarely, what makes them so destructive, and how can one provoke them?)
If you tried to change a DA's office from the inside, you'd get about as far as if you tried to change an investment bank from the inside: you'd be fired, because your moral approach would have a definite negative impact on the number they use to measure your productivity.
You'd never get past making copies unless you assimilated. And even if you went 'deep undercover' and didn't assert your morality until you reached a position of influence, you'd simply be bounced from that spot, as you (and now your entire office or division) continued to deliver 'worse' numbers than those who would replace you.
I disagree, if Ortiz was looking for a future in politics, she's finished. At the very least, she'll have to change her party affiliation. This is a good thing. Otherwise she could've possibly carried on at a higher level.
Although the various public reactions have yet to make any change in law; recent events may discourage similar prosecutions, at least in the near term. Also, a good thing.
But just putting a temporary cap on Ortiz' career doesn't seem like a big win to me, in the grand scheme of things. I know nothing about Massachusetts politics. Who knows she's not the "good cop", compared to the person whose career, as a result, will advance faster?
How she compares to the next guy (who won't make the same mistakes) I can't say. There are an infinite number of possible outcomes.
We do: http://hcrenewal.blogspot.ca/2013/01/the-tragic-case-of-aaro...