I don't quite know how to think about this question. On the one hand, it seems like so much of what we have been discussion is what we would like to believe we will do. In reality, I'm not sure many of us would make the principled choices we are discussing when confronted with a perceived career threat. Perhaps this is overly cynical, but I think we risk convincing ourselves that we are "making change from within" when we are really just enabling a bad system.
I think we need the leaders in the system, the DAs, the AGs, the Police Chiefs, to mandate changes to the system's priorities. If they were to dictate that certain charges should not be brought anymore and certain cases automatically dismissed, that would have a real and noticeable impact on the system.
I think that if George was seriously convicted, he would have quit. It makes me doubt the strength of his conviction that he did go through with it. He should have known that signing up to be a line prosecutor doesn't carry discretion at all. This was what he signed up for. It seems that he made a calculation that the ends justify would justify the means. It's nice that he shares this sentiment/regret now...as a professor at one of the best law schools in the wealthiest part of the country. He made the wrong decision and got lucky on the outcome. What if that woman had been convicted? This may be too cynical (I don't know what George has done since besides write an evidence textbook) but I doubt he'd go back and change his decision if it meant he undid the tenure track. As students at HLS, we have nearly every legal opportunity open to us, he didn't have to be a prosecutor.