laughingdog seems to take this approach when he dismisses objectivity as essentially unobtainable:
Strawman. He hasn't argued anything on the basis of a victim label, or on the basis of dividing people into wolves and lambs. The points he raises, which are a good ones that you've yet to acknowledge, are that the 'objectivity' of the DA's decision is not apparent, and that it might be preferable, and certainly cheaper, to prosecute a case that is unlikely to be successful than to dismiss the case on less than transparent grounds. That you may consider the decision to be objectively correct is not strictly relevant - other people clearly disagree with you, and public policy needs to reflect the need for transparency.
None of these fall into your article's categories of people who not only are not objective, but feel that objectivity itself is inappropriate.
I note that there are arguments on this thread that could fall into that category, such as the one where police officers have to be given allowances for their behaviour due to the stress and relative danger of their job. Whatever the merits of otherwise of such an argument, it is clearly an argument that seeks to provide an allowance for a class of potential offenders, and not for their victims. However, you have not chosen to pursue this.
Can you see how this might, to a neutral observer, suggest that you are not applying these criteria in a neutral fashion?