"Defendants are being evaluated based on numerical grid without any aggravating circumstances being considered. The effect has been to transfer the disparity from the judge to the prosecutor allowing for a great deal of leeway on indictments"

In this quote, Harold H. Greene resolves a significant concern within the judicial system concerning the procedure and effects of evaluating defendants. The reference to a "numerical grid" suggests making use of a rigid, perhaps extremely mechanistic, set of standards or scoring systems that are used to determine the intensity of an offender's punishment or legal results. This approach appears to do not have fluidity or factor to consider for the distinct scenarios of each case, especially the "aggravating circumstances" that could considerably influence the fairness and suitability of the sentence.

Greene highlights a worrying shift in decision-making power from judges to district attorneys. Typically, judges are delegated to weigh numerous aspects, such as the context of the criminal activity, the accused's history, and wider social ramifications, to ensure a just decision. However, with a stiff grid system, this discretion is lessened. The technique moves a significant quantity of impact to district attorneys, who have the authority to translate and use the law throughout the indictment stage. Consequently, this shift might result in increased variations and inconsistencies in sentencing, as prosecutors have considerable leeway when deciding charges. The crucial issue is that such discretion might be driven by non-judicial elements, such as political considerations, resource allotment, or personal biases.

Greene's critique indicates that this system possibly deteriorates fairness in the judicial procedure, perpetuating and possibly even magnifying variations based on prosecutorial decisions instead of judicial oversight. This could result in systemic inequalities, where sanctions depend greatly on the prosecutor's discretion instead of a well balanced assessment by an unbiased judge considering all important details. Greene's quote acts as a care versus the decrease of nuanced judicial examination and encourages a reconsideration of how justice is administered to ensure equitability and fairness.