There's no reason to turn everything into some "untouchable due to money or politics" angle. There is a simple reason why people perceive that harsh response to crime is necessary: http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/vcrime500.j.... The violent crime rate in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990's at about five times the per capita rate in 1960. Florida's law was passed in 1997 or so.
I'd agree that that "untouchable" idea is perhaps too easy to reach for, but I really do think it's germane to this particular problem. You seem to be well-informed on the subject, perhaps you could comment on this:
It seems to me that for a reasonably well-off person, being incorrectly or even maliciously accused of [random crime] may be inconvenient but you can probably throw comparatively small amounts of money at it until it goes away in the natural course of things (unless you're particularly unlucky). For a regular wage-earner with minimal savings, that same scenario can be a nightmare of missed time at work and incompetent or uninterested representation. If there's any truth to the accusation, the first case probably ends worse for the subject and the second case ends catastrophically.
This, in my mind, speaks directly to why even well-meaning lawmakers would be willing to contribute to the systemic damage that's been happening: their "sense" of how the legal system works is strongly skewed by the experiences they and their friends and family have had. I've had friends in both situations and the contrast was really stark.
On the massive increase in violent crime 1960-199x, wasn't that actually heavily localized in urban areas? We moved near Oakland, CA in the early 90's and it was completely unlike the various areas we had lived in previously. Though I suppose that wouldn't change the effect it had on general perceptions, with broadcast and then cable news delivering the worst of the nation every night.
