>So would you prefer the prosecutor alone decide whether there is
>enough evidence to file charges?
That isn't the alternative.
As I understand it, a Grand Jury actually substitutes for an important step in the legal process, what we call here the Committal Procedure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committal_procedure
So the alternative is a preliminary hearing in a normal court, under normal rules of evidence. You know, the usual protections and civil liberties.
>I'd say that in high profile cases where there could be strong
>political pressure on prosecutors, grand juries offer a better chance
>for due process.
It appears that a Grand Jury in the US system is akin to something like a judicial enquiry or Royal Commission in our system. There are standing investigative bodies (Australian Crime Commission?) that I gather have similar draconian powers of investigation. I don't know much about that though.
Anyhow, the point is that comparison between Grand Juries and prosecutors' discretion to prosecute is invalid. Grand Juries seem to be, not only a circumvention of the court process, but a substitute for a normal police investigation. Which is perhaps necessary in special circumstances like organised crime.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas