I had a few people come back to me on my last blog saying it was wrong.
And TECHNICALLY they are correct – but in net effect my point stands.
Here’s what happens – say your innocent son is charged with:
1. attempted rape of a child in the second degree and
2. Communication with a minor for immoral purposes.
The minimum mandatory sentence for these two are 76 months and 9 months each respectively. So 85 months (just over 7 years in prison)
But the prosecuting attorney can make whatever deals they want (that are approved by their bosses). So they may make a plea deal offer such as:
1. Attempted child molestation in the second degree and
2. Communication with a minor for immoral purposes
These two charges hold minimum sentences of 23 and 9 months respectively. (2 1/2 years in prison)
This is actually the plea deal my son was offered, which we were never informed about. We found out after the trial began that we had a number of offers presented to our attorney that were not passed on to us. Which is on it’s own standing a violation of due process.
But my point is the net affect of this – Jace was charged with Attempted rape which has a mandatory minimum sentence assigned. To avoid that law, the prosecutor just changes the charges applied. The prosecutor can adjust his charges ANY WAY HE WANTS. So he goes for the max up front, to leave himself room to ‘deal’. As if somehow my sons freedom is not more important than bartering the price of a used car at a car lot!
One thought on “The Chicken or the Egg?”
Pile on a ton of charges, so the prosecutor can eliminate one or two that one can be tagged on for no reason, and “Here, we took off this charge that really did not even apply to you,…we are doing you guys a favor” it’s bullcrap. The public eats it, your logic for anyone wondering makes perfect sense. It’s called unfair leverage. Mandatory minimum sentences should be abolished completely. That discretion should be up to the Judge.