In a signed confession in the year 2000, John Gardner admitted he was a child predator. Ten years later he's suspected of killing Chelsea King.
Ten years ago when Gardner was convicted, Paul Pfingst was the district attorney. He doesn't remember the case.
"It's because there were 25,000 cases in the County of San Diego," Pfingst said.
Notice how Pfingst is trying to escape personal responsibility for his decision to lose track of a child rapist. "We're just too busy," he claims. That argument would certainly work for a line prosecutor. If the boss throws ten case files on your desk, you do what you're told. But Pfingst was the boss.
As lead prosecutor, Paul Pfingst had the power to set enforcement priorities. How many thousands of drug cases did his office prosecute? How many thousands of files involving consensual - but paid - sex between adults buried a child rape case?
Pfingst, as much as John Gardner, is directly responsible for Chelsa King's death. Had Pfingst not devoted scarce prosecutorial resources to non-violent drug offenses, maybe someone in his office would have had the time to monitor a child rapist.
It's time to hold prosecutors accountable for irrational enforcement priorities. Why is anyone being prosecuted for marijuana possession when children are being raped? That is not a rhetorical question: How can you justify prosecuting non-violent criminals when children are being raped?
Some might say I'm being hysterical. Hardly. Prosecutorial time - like all resources - is scarce. As District Attorney, Pfingst had the power to rationally allocate that scarce time. Why was he chasing small-time drug users when child sex predators like John Gardner were before him?
Why are prosecutors pursing sex-offender cases involving teenagers when men like John Gardner are on the loose?
Pfingst blames state lawmakers for a lack of focus. Simply speaking, he feels there are too many sex offender dots on the Megan's Law web site that squander valuable police time by tracking low-level offenders.
"For example, someone who is 20 years old and had consensual sex with a 17-year-old is registered as a sex offender. In 15 years, should that person be followed by law enforcement? I think not," he said.
That's great. Pass the buck. But when you, Mr. Pfingst, were District Attorney: Whom did you prosecute? Again, as District Attorney, Pfingst was a shot caller. He could have devoted his Office's resources to men like John Gardner. Instead, he focused on trivial cases to get his numbers up.
Men like Pfingst are worried about numbers. As a former District Attorney who wants to become a judge, Pfingst wants to be able to say: I closed 25,000 cases with a 99% conviction rate. That most of those cases involved people who posed no public harm is irrelevant. That real criminals like Gardner get lax plea bargains as a way to clear the docket is irrelevant. When Pfingst seeks a judgeship, he wants Big Numbers to back him up.
Hopefully Pfingst's failure as District Attorney will prevent him from ever becoming a judge. Someone who refuses to take responsibility for prosecuting trivial offenses does not deserve to wear the robe.
