No doubt. They are all in positions of power, and as such, while not necessarily prone, are at least subject to abuse of power. Not sure that applies to Vecchione necessarily, and I guess he's making more money now than he did as a prosecutor. Of course New Yorkers have been following this one closely. On the other side of it, many prosecutors cut deals simply to close a case and get the numbers up. Which one is worse?
I prefer to take the view that Jefferson's adage about it being better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man argues for a principle of lenity and that exercising discretion to cut a deal on a lesser charge is a species of lenity and not an abuse of a prosecutor's power. The prosecutor's duty is not to represent or advocate for the alleged victim - though many mistakenly do - but to represent the public as a whole, which public includes the accused as well as everyone else. The prosecutor's duty is to "do justice" and, as s/he is not the advocate for the alleged victim, it is not the prosecutor's duty to "do justice" for the alleged victim, it is to "do justice" for the public at large, including the accused. In that instance, if it is the prosecutor's judgment that the case is really not worth pursuing, then cutting a deal and moving on is doing a measure of justice to the public at large and to the accused, precisely the people to whom that duty is owed. It seems to me that the presumption of innocence and the requirement that proof be beyond a reasonable doubt further buttresses this view, inasmuch as they are for the benefit of the accused and, sometimes, work to the detriment of the alleged victim if the prosecutor simply cannot prove the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
In short, the prosecutor's duty to do justice, insofar as it relates to a particular individual, is a duty to do justice to/for the accused, not the alleged victim, which should mean cutting deals when the circumstances indicate, even if the alleged victim feels otherwise.
