If people broke laws they should be prosecuted. But let's describe the situation honestly: not "why does the government defy the people and not prosecute?" But "why doesn't the government defy the people and prosecute?"
This is kind of an interesting point that I feel has come up a lot in Obama's presidency in particular. Why can the executive choose not to prosecute crimes?
This comes up in another point, which is marijuana legalisation. Under federal law, that stuff is still illegal, yet we've chosen not to prosecute. I'm still not sure of how the legality of the non-prosecution works out
That's a very good question, and in simple terms, one could say "lack of leadership". Isn't the very point of having a representative government to avoid the Tyranny of the Majority? That is, the elected representatives need to do ethical things, rather than just be driven by polling, or special interests.
> Isn't the very point of having a representative government to avoid the Tyranny of the Majority?
No, that's the point of limited government in an otherwise democratic system.
The point of representative democratic government is to institute popular sovereignty while allowing most citizens to do something other than full-time government oversight.
One I don't support your claim that people are in support of torture. Two if they do support it, _they_ also need to see bringing the participants of torture to justice. Popular polls replacing laws? What country is this?
