Why are prosecutors permitted to lessen a defendant's sentence in exchange for their testimony? see below?

Question

First, realize the government supposedly sees freedom as being of greater value than money evidenced by the fact that in civil court (where the money of the defendent is at issue) a lower standard of proof is required, namely preponderance of the evidence. While a higher standard of proof is required in criminal court (where the freedom of the defendant is at issue), that being beyond a reasonable doubt. However, district/count attorneys (prosecutors) are permitted to offer a defendant freedom in the form of a plea bargin (pleading guilty to a charge that involves taking a lesser amount of freedom) in exchange for testimony that will likely lead to the arrest of a bigger fish (e.g. a drug supplier). But prosecutors are not permiitted to offer defendents money in exchange for testimony, even though money is supposedly held in lesser regard than freedom. It seems the government manipulates the value of money and freedom to whatever suits their needs without regard to logic or ethics??

Answer 1

The theory is, it is better to let a little fish go, if he tells you how to catch a bigger fish.

The US Sentencing Guidelines established minimum mandatory sentencing for certain Federal offenses; specifically, drug-related offenses.

The only way to dip below the minimum mandatory sentencing, prior to the recent Booker case and its progeny, making th Guidelines advisory as opposed to mandatory, was for the defendant to "rat out" his superiors. Thus, being given less time.

This is legal. However, ethics play a role when the defendant lies about the other person's involvement, and the AUSA still prosecutes the other person, even though he knows the first defendant's statements were not credible. This happens more than the US Attorney's Office will admit...

Answer 2

i be attentive to what this is choose to not be chuffed jointly with your weight. A year and a a million/2 in the past I weightd 105lbs and that i'm 5'7". all of us thought I had an ingesting ailment or ailment yet somewhat it replaced into because of fact i replaced right into a smoker. I stop smoking nd now i'm back as much as 142 and by no potential regarded extra healthy. i think of it would be okay to drop 5 lbs in case you decide on and nonetheless look healthful yet attempt to not loose extra desirable than that. as nicely watching what you devour and workout i'm uncertain what else you're able to do... according to danger your bone shape is inflicting you to not loose anymore... or maybe this is muscle tissue from determining.

Answer 3

don't be fooled by what you hear prosecutors can and do pay for information so do cops , and as far as giving time off or dropping charges on some one if they will rat on some one else is the biggest crime and scam of all, as I know of a man personally who had over 30 charges against him in Tenn, he was a three time loser facing life for any of these charges, he was street smart and had been in prison many times and knew how to play the game so he set another man up unknowing to this man, and set him up on a conspiracy charge so he could work a deal with the prosecutor, he testified against this man and it was the only evidence against this man and the prosecutor who is highly experienced conned the jury and told them this man who was ratting had seen his errors and wanted to do right , and when the subject came up about dropping charges the prosecutor told the jury , quote ( yes there was some minor charges dropped against the rat, but they were minor) hummm
these charges were stolen cars taken across state lines , changing V,I,N, NUMBERS interstate trafficking in stolen cars, over thirty two different charges, this man got 5 years and all of the other charges dropped, is this justice , the man who only had the one charge got 10 years the maximum??? this was in Knoxville tn, federal court and the prosecutor and judge knew this man was not guilty but it happens nation wide, the man lost his family , wife business and freedom, why????

Answer 4

No, they offer plea bargains to free up the court calendar for the more serious cases. If you could find unlimited funding and availability for staffing, judges, etc. then courts could try every case. Since that will NEVER happen the courts try to find ways to ease the burden of courts.
May not be the perfect solution, but it is the best anyone has comeup with so far.

Answer 5

If they could not offer a deal, they would never catch anyone but the lower end of crime.
Offering money would not mean a thing for a guy going to jail for years, but less or no time is important to them.

Answer 6

"It seems the government manipulates the value of money and freedom to whatever suits their needs without regard to logic or ethics??"

In the entire range of government involvement, when isn't this true?