“I can tell you of the cases where I really regret that we were not able to charge somebody that molested a child but the evidence wasn’t there.”
How in the fuck would we want a criminal prosecutor with the sort of mindset expressed here? What is there to regret about not prosecuting a case where there isn't evidence? It's not the place of a prosecutor to regret not being able to charge someone without evidence even if there is some extrajudicial standard that would lead someone to reasonably conclude that the suspect committed the crime. How in the fuck would a prosecutor regret doing her job by the book?
Or let's try this rephrasing: "The evidence wasn't there but (I say) they did it."
What sort of epistemic standard is being used here? Whatever it is, it ain't a good one. If the evidence for X isn't there, then what leads her to say that X is the case? What is she in a position to know that a juror couldn't?
Conversely: had she brought charges without adequate evidence, then would she not have regretted doing so? (Regretting not doing so doesn't imply not regretting doing so, but still. The question needs to be asked, and answered without evasion.)
Civil libertarians revile a certain kind of prosecutor -- exactly the kind who would say something as vicious as the above.
Giving her the benefit of the doubt -- that she isn't a total piece of shit who would give prosecutors a bad name -- we would say that she is merely a sloppy thinker-speaker (on matters of justice, no less).
And this is the candidate currently leading among Democrats in the betting markets? (Let's not forget her and fellow Judiciary Committee Demon Rats' role and complicity in the epistemically reckless smears against Brett Kavanaugh. Perhaps she regrets not being able to help nail Kavanaugh as a sexual predator due to lack of evidence?)
[Addendum: As for Harris's involvement in the smears against Kavanaugh, it gets worse than I had previously thought. In addition to the surreal "gotcha" line of questioning (in the, uh, normal part of the hearing process) that should leave a bad taste in the mouth of anyone with common sense, she leaped off the very same epistemic cliff that other Demon Rats such as Sens. Gillibrand, Hirono and Senate Demon Rat leader Schumer threw themselves off of, and declared prior to a full inquiry that she believed Dr. Ford, Kavanaugh's accuser. This right there damages her epistemic credibility. Recall that the credibility of Ford's accusation boils down to this: she "remembers" her friend Leland Keyser at the supposed party in question as much as she "remembers" Kavanaugh being there; neither Keyser nor anyone else questioned under penalty of perjury shares Dr. Ford's memory of this supposed party. If Sen. Harris regularly conducted herself as a prosecutor as disgracefully and slime-like as she did in regard to Kavanaugh, then that's cause for concern to anyone who cherishes justice.]
[Addendum #2: If you really want to piss off commonsense civil libertarians, one good way to do so is to throw your support behind civil asset forfeiture laws. Harris doesn't disappoint there. Couple this with a "believe the accuser before hearing both sides" and/or "regret not bringing charges without evidence" mentality and you've got a recipe for plenty of legalized scumbaggery. For further evidence of Harris scumbaggery, see in particular items 10 and 15 here.]
[Addendum #3: It has been pointed out to me by a prosecutor (an Objectivist who, qua Objectivist, upholds the virtue of honesty as a life-or-death principle, so there's no room for fucking around here) that there are rules of evidence that make the totality of evidence available to prosecutors wider than the evidence that is admissible at trial. Fair enough. There must be good reasons for such rules to be in effect, to constrain what the state can do against the accused. So how is that cause for regret?]
