The fairness of multiple charges / enhanced sentencing

In many instances, when a criminal is being sentenced for a single crime, there will be multiple charges or enhanced sentencing. Now we might not all agree on how long sentences should be for a crime, but I think we can all agree that the laws should make sense and be fair.

Consider a bankrobber that goes into the bank with a gun with a scratched out serial number and a bulletproof vest, and tells the customers they cannot leave. The robber could be charged with a long list of offences of this single act, including but not limited to: robbery (obviously), theft, using a gun to commit a crime, carrying a concealed weapon, intimidation, assault (even if the gun was never fired), false imprisonment, defacing a firearm's serial number, perhaps possession of a bulletproof vest (depends on state laws), using a bulletproof vest in the commission of a crime. There could be more, if the man had robed a bank before, even if he had not been caught, there could be enhacements for being a repeat offender. Or perhaps one of the Black customers in the bank was being uncooperative and the robber made some threat that included a racial slur; then there would be a hate crime penalty enhancement. 2 extra years could be added on just for that. And all this is assuming none of the people got hurt. Perhaps the robber shot one of the employees in the leg for trying to be a "hero". What are you supposed to do when you are robbing a bank and a big man comes running up behind you?

After all these charges are added up, the unlucky bank robber could be facing 120 years in prison (not that he would live that long). Now, we can all agree the bank robber should be punished. Some of us think the punishment should be more than others. But is it not completely ridiculous that a single crime can result in so many charges? This seems to go against the concept of fairness and appropriate punishment. Even if you think a bank robber should spend the rest of his life in prison, surely you must agree that all these sentencing laws are overcomplicated and ridiculous.

 

I take a pragmatic view of this. Load the crook up with as many charges as you can get - lawfully of course. Then let the prosecution and the defence bargain it out. If the alleged offences are there then prefer them. There are - in my jurisdiction at least - some rules on this, you can't charge conspiracy and the substantive offence for example, which to me is fair enough. Otherwise, load the suspect up with all appropriate charges.

 

I agree that all the charges should be filed...........

 

I think in the situation you described it is likely that the judge would allow the robber to serve his or her sentences concurrently (if the largest penalty of all the convictions is 10 years, then the robber would serve 10 years, instead of 120 years). This is very common. I think it is important that an offender is charged with every crime they've committed.

 

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/2014/07/multiple-charges-crime/

 

Let us look at your scenario.

First off if he destroyed the serial number of the gun that is a crime separate from anything else he does and deserves a separate charge.

Carry a concealed weapon doesn't have anything to do with the crime itself....if he was caught on the street with the gun it would still be a crime.

Robbing a bank does not require holding anyone against their will, that is a separate crime as well.

Owning the vest is again a crime. Separate from his actions and could be charged in some jurisdictions without another crime.

Using something illegal (your bulletproof vest) in the commission of a crime is an aggravating act.

The bank robber was not unlucky he was a criminal. It wasn't a single crime as I have pointed out.

 

Maybe I did not use the best example. The issue I was trying to point out was defendants being charged with three or four different charges for the same exact crime. There are so many laws now, which were passed at different times, that many of the different laws overlap, in ways that those who passed the laws probably never really thought about or anticipated.

Maybe the issue then is excessive punishment. What do you expect the bank robber to do? Go in there without a gun?
He likely would not even be able to get a permit in the first place (prior history).

When we think of a bank robbery, we automatically assume all that. But if there are other separate laws that have each of these elements covered, maybe the crime of bank robbery itself should carry a much much lower sentence. Did anyone ever bother to think about that? I doubt it. Just punish the lawbreakers to the fullest extent of the law—and keep passing more laws!

Again, bank robbery was probably not the best example to use here, but there are many serious crimes now that never used to be considered a crime 50 years ago.

 

This is a major issue. Imagine if they passed a law giving judges the power the sentence people to 50 years in prison for committing the tiniest little crime.
But apparently no one cares when it is in the form of multiple separate laws.

This is the type of thing that could be used against political opponents, in less democratic countries.
The defendant does not even need to commit a crime, they just have to concoct "evidence" that one of countless different laws might have been broken, and then they can basically send the accused away to prison for a long time just for that.

This is bad law, and potentially leaves the door open for abuse.

 

I don't see what's unreasonable about the sentencing above, and doesn't seem to be overly complicated. I guess I understand complication.

- - - Updated - - -

Examples of "serious crimes now that never used to be considered a crime 50 years ago" Five will do.

- - - Updated - - -

Give us an example of minor crimes that can result in a lot of prison time (other than the three strikes you're out laws).

 

It was the policy of my dept. and state's attorney, to file all appropriate charges. This not only gave the defense a more difficult task, but also allowed for some bargaining room on both sides. For example, I once pursued a guy at over 100 mph., through 4 different towns, and he ran red lights and stop signs all the way. I had to write citations for 12 separate violations of the vehicle code, and he was convicted on 7 of them. Again, it depends on state/local law, as well as the charges, judged on the severity of each on it's own.
Enjoy!

 

That is another example. Yeah, the guy should be charged with fleeing from police and running through a stop sign, but in a long-distance pursuit, is it really appropriate to charge him with every stop sign he drove through?? That seems a little ridiculous and excessive to me. Some charges are already so serious, that charge in itself should encompass all the other little charges. That is just going beyond excessive punishment. I mean, what's even the point of the law? Basically the judge and prosecutor have complete discretion over sentencing if they wanted to sentence the lawbreaker to 100 years because of something he did that was not really so horrible.

Weapons charges are a good example:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/1...illy-mother-facing-three-years-on-gun-charge/

 

Yes, because every sign he went through is a violation, and if I didn't cite him for each one, I would be remiss as I witnessed a violation and failed to take the appropriate action. Each violation occurred at a different location and a different time. Even if he went through the same one 9 times (and he did go through the same one 3 times), I would still be obligated to issue 9 citations. If any item on a citation is incorrect, the complaint (ticket) is invalid on it's face and subject to automatic dismissal of charges. The same with speeding. He went through several different posted zones, as well as areas that were not posted, but have a statutory limit (ie; if an area is not posted, the speed limit set by law is 30 mph). Again, and not to belabor the subject, each jurisdiction has it's own unique set of laws and statutes. I can only give you examples of the ones I was obliged to enforce, and my personal experience.
Enjoy!

 

Three years is not a lot of prison time. Your example in the earlier post was "50 years for the tiniest crime", not 3 years.

IMHO, the lady should be suing New Jersey under "Full Faith and credit clause" of the Constitution. IMHO, gun permits from one state should be valid in all states, just like driver's licenses.

 

How many years they are facing is not relevant. How many years they get is. In my states if you swipe someone's checkbook and try to pass 5 bad checks you will be facing better than the same 120 years because you get forgery for signing each one, uttering for passing each one, and larceny for each one you pass. People don't get that though. The Judge decides what he wants you to serve and then suspends the rest on good behavior or defers sentencing on the bulk of the charges. It gives them something to hang over your head in the future should you commit additional crimes or get violated on your parole. As a practical matter, the more charges they can put on you, the more likely you will be convicted for something. If you are going around robbing banks at gunpoint, you are not someone I am going to feel a lot of mercy toward. Whatever gets you off the streets is fine. If they botch the robbery charge and found you as a convicted felon with a gun when they picked you up, then that is 5 years mandatory so works for me.

 

I can see your point of view, but I believe it still gives far too much discretionary power to the prosecutor and judge. Just because someone is convicted of a crime does not mean their fate should be entirely left in the hands of two government officials.
Mandatory minimum sentencing is another big potential problem here. In that case it could basically be just the prosecutor who has all the discretion.

Here is another example, it involved a political conspiracy to remove Alabama governor Don Siegelman from office:

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 racketerring 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.


more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Siegelman#The_2004_trial

http://harpers.org/blog/2008/02/cbs-more-prosecutorial-misconduct-in-siegelman-case-alleged/

 

I do not support mandatory sentencing, but without them, you are leaving it all up the judge anyway so I do not see their elimination helping in that regard.

Your example is not alike what just happened to the former Virginia Governor. Former Governors and I think all the former state attorneys general all said there was no crime, but here he sits convicted in federal court with a year in prison to serve.

 

And I wonder, when a prosecutor abuses their power, do they ever get held responsible?
I mean, all these potential charges are part of the law, after all, so it's not really as if the prosecutor is actually breaking the law. Just behaving very unethically.

 

I would expect the fella to avoid all punishment of any kind by not doing any robbing, else he takes a chance of getting multiple charges. Most of them criminal type fellas understand consequences of action. Then we wouldn't even have to worry about stacking charges...eh?

Wonder how many charges and what kind of sentencing a person should get for killing 3 people in the same act of robbing a bank?

BTK the serial killer actually has an outdate.......2180. Kinda appropriate for 7 murders in the 1st degree, of course he is currently 70 years old.

 

Or, if he does just decide to commit the crime anyway, he might not have any problem killing anyone who gets in his way, since the prison time he faces if caught is already so high.

Kill someone and have a 30% of getting away, or do not kill and have only a 10% chance of getting away. If you make the potential prison sentence high enough, if the robber gets cornered, in his mind he might not see any difference between the potential punishment for murder and the potential punishment for the crime he has already committed, with all those multiple charges.
Excessive punishment can lead to unintended consequences.

But that's not even really what I am trying to focus on in this thread. If you want to have high prison sentences for things like robbery, fine. But some of these multiple charges just start getting ridiculous, at least from my perspective. To commit certain types of crime, an individual pretty much has to break a countless list of different laws, since so many laws have been passed. Example: Bank robbery is illegal. Do politicians really think they are going to prevent bank robbers from bringing a gun with them, by passing another law that says it is illegal to bring a gun into a bank? It just seems absurd to me.

Man faces two felony counts for pulling out a banana on police

Charge Stacking: Gambling with People's Lives

"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?

 

Factually speaking many more criminals do not commit murder to avoid being prosecuted than do. I'm not going to say that is doesn't happen but what you need to weigh is as far a society is concerned, and in particular a community that has had to observe this particular criminal grow up committing crimes is, when is enough enough? Many criminals commit many crimes before actually going to prison and guess what, while in prison for committing crimes, they are not causing issues for society or a community. The length of prison sentences comes from a citizenry tired of seeing a sexual offender serve 6 years for rape while the victim faces a life sentence. Therefore citizens pressure legislators to increase sentences, which they do and viola....said bad guy isn't free to rape for 20 years. I happen to agree with that thought process. If they rape multiple people during the commission of a single crime then multiple hard 20 sentences need to be enforced.

Your stats are not accurate. Be realistic.

Sentences for armed robbery have been climbing for many years due to pressure on legislator from communities tired of repeat offenders and I don't see a huge jump in murder to avoid prosecution, I think this is a false argument.

I don't think it is ridiculous, by the time criminals work up to robbery or armed robbery they have been give many chances to return to the straight and narrow. Prisons do have a rehabilitative effect because recidivism rates have been decreasing over time. This mean 2 things, while in prison they are not committing crimes against law abiding citizens and they are learning prison isn't the place they want to go. The big deal here though is that if you commit a crime of a serious enough nature...you should forfeit your right to live among the lawful citizens and communities.

No, politicians expect that when they pass the punitive phase of a law that the criminal already knows the difference between right and wrong and that if they cannot follow the standards, beliefs, and values of society, they have no business continuing to live there and therefore are put in a place where they do not bother the law abiding citizens.

 

Small Town Guy, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. Although I disagree with you.

The strict laws cannot anticipate all the situations which may arise. They can be used against people who do not deserve that much punishment. Just another way for the prosecutor to be able to put pressure on them to enter into a plea bargain. It gives the prosecutor a tremendous amount of discretionary power, power which one single individual should not have. Especially since the job of a prosecutor is generally not regarded as impartial— they are there to prosecute and win.

 

Another scenario a man molested and raped six teens, filmed it sticking it on the internet and traded pictures of the girls fifty times. I would think six counts of rape, six counts of unlawful imprisonment and fifty counts of child porn dispensing would be warranted likely leveraged for a plea deal and help getting the perverts he traded with.

My niece is a young prosecutor she often tosses in many secondary charges to get a plea on say the main felony at her level armed burglary or an assault.

 

I am not talking about those types of crimes.

And what if it's an ambiguous case and the accused might be innocent ? Really easy to intimidate an innocent man into agreeing to a plea bargain.
A guilty criminal gets a plea bargain while a falsely accused defendant is forced to spin the roulette wheel if he wants to stand up for himself.

 

You are welcome and I disagree with you as well. In the end it doesn't matter though. Lawmakers pass laws about crime and punishment because of the hue and cry of the citizens who live in the communities with these criminal elements. Taking fair or impartial out the realm of this discussion because it is not a consideration for law abiding citizens, it really comes down to the fact that all of us are aware of risks and rewards. Knowing full well the risks they face, the criminal element thinks the reward is worth it. That mind set alone is enough for me not to get too excited about what happens to the average criminal. It's all a matter of choice.

 

He should only be cited for going through a stop sign if there is inherent danger in going through that stop sign. Since on each occasion he endangered potential pedestrians and cars at each intersection, by going through without stopping, it is appropriate that each risk be punished cited.