Break one law break three.

I am a law and order guy but it seems to me that there is a certain piling on regarding how people are charged. One offense seems to create a situation where multiple charges stem from one offense. Eventually, if you have good representation most of the ancillary charges get dropped but why go through the charade? It seems to me that a crime is a crime and the punishment should fit that crime. Why pile on to someone just because they don't have the money for a competent lawyer?

I am a law and order guy but it seems to me that there is a certain piling on regarding how people are charged. One offense seems to create a situation where multiple charges stem from one offense. Eventually, if you have good representation most of the ancillary charges get dropped but why go through the charade? It seems to me that a crime is a crime and the punishment should fit that crime. Why pile on to someone just because they don't have the money for a competent lawyer? Originally Posted by oden

In part to bludgeon defendants into taking a plea deal.

Cheers,

bcg

Ever hear of prosecutorial discretion? Ever hear of a prosecutor's need to rack up unreasonable stats for the next election? You can run on a law and order ticket when you charge every possible crime, and you can avoid baseless charges that you are soft on crime.

There's actually a very practical reason for this.

Each charge brought by the prosecution has a separate set of elements (or "facts") that need to be proven in order for the defendant to be found guilty. The elements of the different crimes can overlap, but each one has to have a at least one unique element that isn't shared with the others.

By bringing multiple charges the prosecution is just hedging their bets. Their making sure that if one element is lost (the necessary evidence gets excluded or the judge/jury just doesn't buy it) it will only affect charges that require that particular element. By having multiple charges on board losing one element doesn't blow the whole case. There will still be other charges requiring different elements that the prosecution can fall back on and still win.

I know it seems like it's malicious but it's really just the state doing its job. It's easy to bitch about it when you're the one on the receiving end. It's harder to complain when a DA piles on charges against a serial rapist or child molester in order to make damn sure something sticks and the guy goes away. That is, after all, what we pay them to do. If you're gonna spend tax money on putting people in jail you at least want it spent with maximum efficiency. If you had an attorney in a civil suit you'd want them to pile on the claims in order to make certain you got the win too.

As an appeals lawyer I have no inherent love for most prosecutors, but on this one I have to give them some credit. It's just them doing the job the way it should be done.

Cheers,
Mazo.