2007-01-21 11:27:04 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Yet again it is the courts letting us all down if someone admits 80 offences they should be charged for 80 offences it is just a way of clearing up crime lists and making the country looking better then it actualy is
2007-01-21 17:22:44 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You question is not very clear. I am choosing to interpret it as follows: The prosecution considered 80 counts of various charges, but only charged 2 in court. That probably means those were the only 2 the were sure they could prove. By holding off on the other charges, they can continue gathering evidence while the trial for the first 2 charges proceeds. It is possible additional charges will be made later.
2007-01-21 11:59:33 · answer #2 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends what the D.A. thought his chances were of scoring a conviction on any of the charges... If he thought the guy may have gotten off scott free then it would be reasonable to let him plead guilty to two of them... Taking 80 into consideration pretty much means the guy will get the maximum sentence on the 2 crimes he's pleading to, and if they're felonies that means he's going to do probably 20 years or more...
2007-01-21 12:08:21 · answer #3 · answered by Jason 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
initially it is going to purely have an impact in increasing the sentence to an quantity. The sentence will nonetheless stay heavily below if he were charged and convicted of each and every offence one by one. The choose will evaluate the placement until eventually now identifying in spite of if to take the offences into attention or no longer, he's not obliged to settle for the request. Secondly, in prepare he won't in destiny be prosecuted for the TICs. in spite of if, it incredibly is totally significant emphasise that TICs don't have a statutory beginning place and exist on the muse of prepare. As such there is generally no longer something to give up the police from investigating into those admitted offences and charging the guy one by one as quickly as they have been considered.
2016-12-14 08:58:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question doesn't make sense to me. A person is charged because the district attorney believes the person will be convicted of the charge.
Unless his rights were violated, I don't think considering 80 anything would be unfair.
2007-01-21 11:33:11 · answer #5 · answered by tfedge 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It makes crime figures look good, detection rate down
2 crimes, 80 in consideration,
The judge should know he is dealing with a prolific offender,
and give him large, OK
2007-01-21 11:46:42 · answer #6 · answered by oop139gg 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you mean this person has comitted 80 crimes in the past....then yes it is perfectly fair. This person is clearly a complete menace to society and should be locked up.
2007-01-21 11:40:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
consider how much time and effort would go into each offence being presented to the court, it is what is implied, taken into consideration. somebody with 80 t,i,c's would get a more severe penalty than somebody with just 2 offences.
2007-01-21 11:33:54 · answer #8 · answered by sandra m 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
80 what? And you can get charged for many crimes stemming from one event....they might not all stick. And generally, it's fair. That's why you usually can't presecute "lesser included offenses"...(example: murder & attempted murder)...that would be unfair...
2007-01-21 11:36:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
2 crimes makes sense. 80 does not. 80 miles per hour and drunk? that makes sense. you are still hung over.
2007-01-21 11:48:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋