Laws are designed to protect people. The basic idea is you shouldn't go to prison unless you break the law. And if you do break the law, the law should be there to limit how long you can be sentenced to prison based on what you did. That's the idea. But the reality is this concept has been breaking down. Because of numerous laws that keep getting passed over the years there is now a lot of overlap, where people can be charged with multiple different felonies and criminal statutes for the same criminal act. This effectively takes away any legal limit on how long someone can be sentenced to, no matter how minor the criminal act. It puts a huge level of discretionary power into the hands of the prosecutors and judges. And it has controversially become a centerpiece of the criminal justice system. Prosecutors routinely tack on as many criminal charges as possible, even for minor criminal acts, to coerce the defendant into agreeing to a plea bargain and pleading guilty. Basically the defendant will have two choices: plead guilty and be sentenced to 9 months, or take his chances in a trial and risk potentially being sentenced to 10 or 15 years. Most take the plea bargain. This is a complicated subject and a lot of facets to this, so I'm not able to cover all the subject matter in this post as well as I'd like. This thread, as long as it is, doesn't really do justice to this topic being discussed. Charge Stacking: Gambling with People's Lives Excellent article: http://www.economist.com/node/16636027 Another issue is the problem of Double Jeopardy. Apparently you can be tried for the same crime twice, if there are two different laws criminalizing the same exact crime! http://lajewishlawyer.com/lawyerblog...charges-crime/ I know some of you may have trouble understanding this, and so to help make the issue more concrete, below I've included several real life examples: Man faces two felony counts for pulling out a banana on police Woman charged with a felony after putting tape recorder in her child's backpack to try to expose bullying One example is a charging someone with discharging a firearm and then murder when the bullet hits somebody, and then on top of that another charge of using a firearm in the commission of a felony. The government can charge a defendant with both a crime and the conspiracy to commit that crime. The U.S. Supreme Court has said this is not a violation of double jeopardy. This gives the government two separate opportunities to convict for essentially the same offense. Another problem is that in many cases judges have used their discretionary sentencing powers to punish people who committed minor crimes for other more serious crimes a jury did not find them guilty of. Because even small crimes can carry long potential sentences. In 2007, after being convicted for selling half an ounce of crack (worth $600), a federal judge in Washington D.C. sentenced a man named Antwuan Ball to 18 years in prison for this reason. College student committed suicide because he faced potential 35 year sentence for making academic articles available to his fellow students without paying for them "The suicide of Internet activist Aaron Swartz, who faced felony charges at the time of his death that could have sent him to prison for 35 years, has provoked an outpouring of debate about the power of government prosecutors. Swartz had been charged with 13 felonies for using his laptop to download academic articles through the school's computer network. According to Swartz's lawyer, the federal prosecutor's office offered the 26-year-old a deal that would have required him to plead guilty on all counts in exchange for a six-month prison sentence." Can juries tame prosecutors gone wild? Charged with five different criminal statutes just for refusing to get out of her seat A woman on a plane complained that she had life-threatening allergies and was having trouble breathing. There were two dogs in the cabin and she demanded that they be removed. Instead, the flight crew demanded that she leave. She stubbornly refused to get up out of her seat and officers had to enter the plane to make her move. One of them wrapped his hands around her waist and another grabbed her leg, and her pants ripped when they tried to physically move her. The incident was caught on cellphone video. She was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, failure to obey a reasonable and lawful order, disturbing the peace, obstructing and hindering a police officer and resisting arrest. http://www.latimes.com/local/califo...st-airlines-woman-removed-20170927-story.html Sentenced for two different felonies for the same criminal act A Connecticut man named Tony Moreno threw his 7-month-old son off a bridge at the same time he was jumping off to commit suicide. Moreno survived after emergency crews received a call from the boy's mother, who said that Moreno was suicidal, and responded to the scene. Two days passed before someone reported finding the child's body downstream. The prosecutor charged Moreno with murder and risk of injury to a minor. The judge sentenced him to 60 years for the murder charge and 10 years for risk of injury to a minor, to be served consecutively, for a total of 70 years. https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news...Murder-7-Month-Old-Sons-Murder-425462724.html Now I'm not going to argue whether the man deserved 70 years for what he did, that's a little bit besides the point here. But is it really appropriate to charge someone with both "risk of injury to a minor" when they're also being charged with the murder of that same person? He's basically being charged with two different criminal statutes for what is the same act. All this man did was buy an orchid. For that he faced multiple felony counts and was forced to accept a plea bargain from the prosecutor for a one and a half year prison sentence. Orchid Kingpin? Mistake Lands Elderly Gardener in Prison | CBN.com Stacking Charges forces the Innocent to Plead Guilty Charged with multiple felonies because charitable donation was perceived to be a "bribe" In 1999, a health care corporation CEO named Richard M. Scrushy made a $500,000 donation to a charitable cause, the creation of a state lottery, the proceeds of which would be used to fund the public school system. This was a cause which governor Siegelman championed. The pro-lottery campaign was ultimately unsuccessful. Later that year, Siegelman appointed Scrushy to the CON board, a state panel that decides if state hospitals may add more services. The prosecutor argued that the donation constituted a bribe of a public official. Out of this one alleged act, they charged Siegelman with violation of the federal bribery statute, a criminal conspiracy, violation of honest services mail fraud statute, and extortion. To top it off, because the indictment fashioned the conduct as a racketeering enterprise, the defendants were subject to the extremely harsh penalties and fines under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization law. There were numerous problems with the prosecutor's case. Scrushy had gained nothing from the alleged bribe. He had already served in an uncompensated position on the CON board before. Yet despite this, the prosecution was still able to convince the jury that Siegelman had violated the laws. The judge in the case demonstrated his hostility against Siegelman throughout the trial, perhaps because he had political motivations to see the governor removed from office. Governor Siegelman sat in prison for 6 years before a Court of Appeals finally reversed the conviction. The problem was that the laws were so broadly worded that it was possible to convince a jury that otherwise completely innocuous conduct constituted violation of not just one law, but several. Combined with the emotional argument of a manipulative prosecutor who was able to sway the jury, and a biased judge who was all too happy to see the governor convicted. Alabama lawyer Jill Simpson later admitted to congressional investigators that she had been involved in a plot, orchestrated by U.S. attorneys in different districts of Alabama, to remove governor Siegelman from office through indictment. Siegelman himself described the case as an "abuse of power". In this case, the huge amount of discretionary power wielded by the prosecutor was able to be misused against a political opponent. Governor Siegelman was convicted in 2006, so this case is relatively recent, and though he has now been temporarily released from prison, the appeal process in the case is still ongoing. Woman charged with 7 different felonies for abandoning her handicap child A woman left her 21 year old quadriplegic son unattended in the woods for 5 days. While obviously absolutely terrible, just have a look at the list of things she was charged with: aggravated assault, simple assault, reckless endangerment, neglect of a care-dependent person, unlawful restraint, kidnapping and false imprisonment. http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...gic-Son-in-Woods-Visited-Lover-299486591.html If we actually stop to take an impartial look at the charges, this is just ridiculous. There should not be so many different laws (each carrying their own punishment) that apply to the same act. Seems many people are simply willing to look the other way because they believe "criminals should be punished". Sentenced to three different felonies for Facebook posts trying to meet an underage girl A 20-year-old in Illinois was arrested for sending a message to a 14-year-old girl on the internet to meet to have sex. The 14-year-old girl accepted a Facebook friend request from the boy. The boy then sent the girl a sexually explicit message and requested to meet the girl for sex. The girl told her father who then contacted police. The police then assumed control of the girl’s Facebook account and arranged to meet the suspect later that day. The boy was then arrested when he went to try to meet the girl. Out of what was basically this one act he was charged with indecent solicitation of a child, a Class 3 felony; solicitation to meet a child, a Class 4 felony; and one count grooming, a Class 4 felony. His bond was set at $200,000. Let's remember that all this boy did was make a proposition for a girl, who was 6 years younger, to have sex with him. And then he went to try to meet this girl. Man charged with 43 different criminal counts for what he had in his home A man has been arrested and charged with 43 counts arising from the possession of methamphetamines, and illegal possession of weapons and gunpowder, Prosecutor Andrew C. Carey announced. John Butterfield, 55, was arrested at his home on Sept. 11, 2013. Investigator Joseph Celentano and members of the of the task force developed information to secure a warrant to search Butterfield’s home, which is located in a quiet suburban neighborhood in Edison. During the search, police uncovered 31 weapons, including shotguns, handguns, rifles and two silencers. In addition, police found 78 grams of methamphetamines, and an undetermined amount of gunpowder. Butterfield was charged with possession of methamphetamines, possession with intent to distribute, possession of more than ½ ounce of the controlled dangerous substance, possession within a school zone and possession within 500 feet of a public library. He also was charged with violating a law that prohibits convicted felons from owning weapons and was charged with 31 counts of unlawful possession of each of the weapons. In addition, Butterfield was charged with two counts of possessing the silencers, which are prohibited devices in New Jersey, and three counts of possessing hollow-point bullets. He also was charged with risking widespread damage or injury by possessing the gunpowder. The amount of gun powder has yet to be determined, but allegedly was significant enough to cause concern for the surrounding residential area. http://njtoday.net/2013/09/12/new-br...ons-gunpowder/ Do you really think someone should spend 30+ years of their life in prison just for possessing things? This man did not hurt anyone. And I doubt there was really a "dangerous amount" of gunpowder. They were probably just looking for anything extra they could charge him with. As for being a past 'convicted felon', all sorts of things are classified as felonies now, as some of the above cases demonstrate, so this doesn't necessarily mean he was a bad man. How long do you think that man should spend in prison? Because with all those 43 charges, this man could potentially be sentenced to several lifetimes of prison, under the law.