Grand Juries Are Useless

The argument for grand juries is really pretty simple- prosecutors are able to build a case, using under-oath testimony, without having to put witnesses at risk, or expose their case in it's infancy. This rationalization of this system makes sense for prosecutors who don't want to put it another way- They love grand juries because they can get the outcome they want, every time. If they want to get an indictment, to get a suspect to trial, they can almost always get something. If they don't want to prosecute a case, they can present a poor case that convinces the grand jury it's not worth prosecuting. If they are facing a local official who they probably can't prosecute, but want to embarrass, well, they can get the grand jury to issue a report saying how bad they are, and call for them to step down. Even worse, if they are a prosecutor running for governor, and they don't want to prosecute a case during the election, they can always put it in a grand jury and have it sit there until it's convenient. It's a great system, for prosecutors.

Is the system really fair though? The lack of cross-examination, the lack of transparency, and the lack of any form of fairness in the presentation calls into question anything that the grand jury decides. Sure, grand juries make it easy for prosecutors, but is that a reason for them to exist? I have to doubt it.