Having once had the honor and privilege of being the Democratic candidate for, and serving as, prosecuting attorney, I'm compelled to comment upon the current primary contest for that office.
The prosecutor's office presents difficult and complex challenges, and in my view it is the most demanding of all county offices, including the judicial offices. Any prosecuting attorney must deal with, and sometimes balance, demands from a wide variety of sources and must be able to discharge challenging legal duties at any number of levels ranging from giving legal advice to a wide number of local offices to arguing cases in the Supreme Court. Voters deserve campaigns that honestly, positively and correctly address the real issues for such office.
During his two terms in office, David Warren has fulfilled the core responsibilities of his office in an excellent fashion, although admittedly I wish he would tone down some of his public comments. Notwithstanding his aggressiveness in prosecuting felony cases, which is after all the essence of his position, I always found him to be professional, fair and evenhanded in trying to come to a just resolution of a variety of issues, both criminal and civil.
On the other hand, the highly negative, demagogic campaign relentlessly pursued by Susan Gwinn does not bode well for the type of prosecutor she might be. In order to make mountains out of molehills, she has been slinging mud almost unlike any other local campaign in memory, a campaign that is worthy of only Karl Rove. Beyond its negativity, there are two major problems with her campaign: 1.) It is extremely and unnecessarily nasty, going well beyond any professional standards, and 2.) it is remarkably reckless with its allegations. Neither characteristic is remotely desirable or appropriate for a public officer whose ultimate objective is to see that justice is accomplished.
More to the point, despite its attack mode, Ms. Gwinn's campaign has failed miserably to show how or why she is capable of being, or even wants to be, an effective prosecuting attorney. She apparently thinks that trial preparation is a simple matter of cutting and pasting newspaper accounts, regardless of the probative value, or lack of probative value, of available evidence. In contrast to her campaign materials, prosecutors in the real world do not have the luxury of throwing mud on the wall and hoping that some of it will stick.
Thus I wholeheartedly urge voters to reject the venomous, distorted attack ads and look instead at the candidates' respective qualifications, which clearly and convincingly favor Warren's reelection.
David Frey is a 1961 alumnus of Ohio University and a 1969 alumnus of Northwestern University. He lives in Athens.
17 Archives
Letter to the Editor
