Editorial

Counties should maintain local control of prosecutions

Saturday, August 29, 2020

The Missouri General Assembly was called back by Republican Gov. Mike Parson for a special summer session on crime.

One of the issues being considered is giving the Missouri Attorney General’s Office concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute cases without local consent, a move that has drawn opposition from some of the state’s elected prosecutors.

The Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys recently came out with a statement against such a move.

Parson has proposed giving the AG’s Office the power to prosecute St. Louis homicides, a move that was widely seen as criticism of Democratic Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner. She’s the city’s first Black prosecutor and supports greater police accountability and using diversion programs instead of incarceration.

No matter the reasoning behind Parson’s proposal, concurrent jurisdiction is not a new topic of discussion.

There have been repeated efforts over the years to give that power to the AG’s Office, but each time, “prosecutors across the state categorically” have opposed “any and all attempts to give the Attorney General’s Office concurrent jurisdiction,” Butler County Prosecuting Attorney Kacey Proctor said recently.

If the state were to elect an attorney general, who is more liberal and has an anti-gun agenda, he or she would have the power under concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute someone here in Butler County exercising their rights to use a gun to protect their home or property.

That attorney general, Proctor said, then could “take authority away from the local prosecutor and use that case to further its anti-gun agenda.”

Is that what we would want? Is that what is best for the citizens of Butler County and Southeast Missouri?

We think not.

If given what Proctor described as “full-blown, concurrent jurisdiction” like some in Jefferson City propose, then the AG’s Office would have the “authority to essentially take over a local prosecutor’s case load if they so desired, and the duly-elected official that the local people put into office would be powerless.”

And, it’s that local prosecutor who is elected to serve by his fellow countians, not the state’s attorney general.

And, it’s that local prosecutor who victims turn to seeking justice in their cases, not the state’s attorney general.

And, it’s that local prosecutor who has his pulse on the values of the communities he serves, not the state’s attorney general.

For those reasons, we agree with the MAPA and its opposition to giving such authority to the AG’s Office. We agree prosecutorial decisions need to continue to be made locally.

Isn’t that why we elect a county prosecuting attorney?

Better yet, would we want someone with more liberal values than what the majority of Southeast Missourians have making decisions we wouldn’t feel comfortable with?

We think not.

With the special session ongoing, what will come of the current attempt for concurrent jurisdiction remains to be seen, but, as of earlier this week, the House hadn’t even held a hearing on the proposal.

We applaud the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys for taking a stance by opposing a threat to local control.

And, we can only hope the issue of concurrent jurisdiction doesn’t gain momentum in the days to come, and the issue dies, at least during this special session of the Missouri General Assembly.

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: