Dressed in an ill-fitting jumpsuit and with hands in chains, ____ ____ stood on July 7 before Judge Darold McDade to be sentenced for his crimes.
In late May, ____, 25, pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges: two first-degree felonies of attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child, one second-degree felony of enticing a minor by the internet, and one third-degree felony of dealing in materials harmful to a minor. Needless to say, prison was expected. Full Article
Notice the contradiction? The prosecutor does not charge anything he doesn’t think he can prove… until plea barging, then he says, “Wait, maybe I can’t prove that after all. Let’s make a deal so I can get a conviction.”
Quotes:
The assumption is that prosecutors intentionally charge defendants with more severe crimes in hopes of cases pleading out, saving taxpayer money at trial. Buhman fiercely rejected the notion, saying that practice is a violation of prosecutorial ethics.
“We don’t charge with the idea of plea bargaining to a low level. We charge what we think we can prove at trial,” Buhman said. “Ninety-plus percent of the cases do plea out. … But if we can’t prove it, there’s no reason to charge it.”
—
But when Buhman discussed these cases, each had its own series of hurdles that resulted in the sentences received. Some had issues with evidence. Others had issues with victim cooperation. And a few others had conflicts of whether consent could legally be given to the defendant.
“Plea bargaining is quite intricate,” Buhman said. “A lot of it boils down to the strength of evidence at trial. That can’t always be put in black and white terms. Going to trial is more of an art than a science.”
The only reason i have 2 “counts” instead of 1 on my plea deal back in 2000 is because, if you can believe this, having 1 count means mandatory prison but 2 counts allowed for probation and a treatment program option. I only took the plea deal on the advice of my then public defender because according to him i’d never see prison if I took the deal. Well, I eventually went to prison anyway due to the craziness of how probation works and being at the mercy of a feminist treatment program owner who loved throwing people in prison after milking as much money as they could from sex offenders first.
Why would multiple convictions allow for probation and treatment option, but a single offense does not? I believe this kind of thing only happens for sex offenders, and only offered during plea deals and likely never for those who failed to win at trial.
I’m of the school of thought that plea “deals” serve a few purposes for prosecutors and the courts.
The first is to get you to wave your right to a trial by a jury of your peers where you will be able to present evidence in your defense.
The second reason is that a trial costs time and money; they don’t like it when things cost time and money.
And third; The system in the USA, with the distinction of jailing more of it’s citizens than any other country in the world has obviously turned into a production by way of conviction operation, some would say out of necessity, and plea deals are a way to move things along quickly at a lesser cost.
It seems that a prosecutors success is measured more in convictions rather than truth and justice. If you don’t believe that just read the national news and you will see all the different courts and groups questioning the credibility of prosecutors and police. Either way they usually get what they wan’t, which is a conviction that reflects upon the prosecutors success rate and you in jail or prison. Of course this character never mentioned any of this.
It is common knowledge that prosecutors stack the charges in order to put pressure on defendants to accept plea deals. They add on as many accessory charges as they possibly can. We all know this, so if they say it isn’t the case, they are simply lying. Period!!