text: the dissent attempts a variant of luna not so serious argument,but to no better effect.claims the dissent even if congress could not have viewed interstate crimes as worse than wholly intrastate crimes,it might have thought that,say,arsons prosecuted as federal crimes are more uniformly serious than arsons prosecuted as state crimes.post,at emphasis added.but we see no call to suppose that congress regarded state prosecutions as grapefruit league versions of the big show.mistretta united states,scalia,dissenting.in our federal system,states possess primary authority for defining and enforcing criminal laws,including those prohibiting the gravest crimes.brecht abrahamson.for that reason,even when attorneys have jurisdiction,they are generally to defer to,rather than supplant,state prosecutions of serious offenses.see attorneys manual principles of federal prosecution.and still more obviously,the dissent theory fails with respect to foreign convictions.that a foreign sovereign prosecutes a given crime reflects nothing about its gravity,but only about its location.