Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

Cite as:  572 U. S. ____ (2014) 

19 

Opinion of the Court 

§§2701  (2012)  (simple  assault),  2705  (reckless  endanger-
ment), 2709 (harassment).3  And state authorities regularly 
enforce  these  laws  in  poisoning  cases.  See,  e.g.,  Gamiz, 
Family Survives Poisoned Burritos, Allentown, Pa., Morn-
ing  Call,  May  18,  2013  (defendant  charged  with  assault,
reckless endangerment, and harassment for feeding burri-
tos poisoned with prescription medication to  her husband 
and  daughter);  Cops:  Man  Was  Poisoned  Over  3  Years, 
Harrisburg,  Pa.,  Patriot  News,  Aug.  12,  2012,  p.  A11
(defendant  charged  with  assault  and  reckless  endanger-
ment for poisoning a man with eye drops over three years 
so that “he would pay more attention to her”). 

The  Government  objects  that  Pennsylvania  authorities
charged  Bond  with  only  a  minor  offense  based  on  her
“harassing telephone calls and letters,” Bond I, 564 U. S., 
at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  2),  and  declined  to  prosecute  her  for 
assault.  But we have traditionally viewed the exercise of 
state  officials’  prosecutorial  discretion  as  a  valuable  fea-
ture  of  our  constitutional  system.  See  Bordenkircher  v. 
Hayes,  434  U. S.  357,  364  (1978).    And  nothing  in  the 
Convention shows a clear intent to abrogate that feature. 
Prosecutorial  discretion  involves  carefully  weighing  the 
benefits  of  a  prosecution  against  the  evidence  needed  to
convict,  the  resources  of  the  public  fisc,  and  the  public 
policy of the State.  Here, in its zeal to prosecute Bond, the 
Federal  Government  has  “displaced”  the  “public  policy  of 
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, enacted in its capaci-
ty as sovereign,” that Bond does not belong in prison for a 
chemical weapons offense.  Bond I, supra, at ___ (slip op., 
at  12);  see  also  Jones,  supra,  at  859  (Stevens,  J.,  concur-
ring)  (federal  prosecution  of  a  traditionally  local  crime 
—————— 

3 Pennsylvania  also  prohibits  using  “a  weapon  of  mass  destruction,” 
including a “chemical agent.”  18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§2716(a), (i).  Just as 
we conclude that Bond’s offense cannot be fairly described as the use of 
a  chemical  weapon,  Pennsylvania  authorities  apparently  determined
that her crime did not involve a “weapon of mass destruction.”