District attorneys and prosecutors throughout American jurisprudence, more often than not, violate the law and good governance of that law, in actions large and small, each and every day. While there are some good District attorneys as well as there being some good prosecutors -- far too many of them are guilty of doing all that they can to harass, convict, and essentially cheat defendants out of fair justice, by utilizing their very effective intimidating tactics of all sorts, to thereby coerce guilty plea bargains, as well as to add excessive charges to criminal trials, and to vacate fair play.
In point of fact, the law as applied in America, can be easily divided into those defendants that are ill educated, impoverished, and poor which are quite often incapable of making bail, when such, necessitates ready cash, as compared to all those that have access to money as well as a good defense attorney, who are educated, and are considered to be of value within their community. One might think that the law is the law and is always equally applied, and therefore is no respecter of persons, but the law as applied is most definitely a respecter of persons, and most certainly demonstrates real disrespect of those not really considered to be persons, though they are human beings in form.
One of the tricks of the very nasty trade of District attorneys and prosecutors is their reliance on padding on and the adding-on of charges onto alleged criminal activity, which does not require that such additional spurious charges be so added. So that, a male that has an altercation with their spouse or girl friend, in which no wounds or deep bruises occur and no weapons are used, instead of being charged with something such as third degree of fourth degree assault, finds instead, that they are initially charged with second degree assault, because the District attorney or prosecutor manipulates the police report and interprets such to make the charge more serious, so as to give the prosecutor bargaining power. As bad as that might be, it often gets worse, because then the District attorney or prosecutor will reach into code book, to add on additional charges such as assault of a female, as well as assault by strangulation, if the perpetrator was alleged to have put at least one of their hands upon the female's neck, in addition to kidnapping, if the perpetrator was alleged to have blocked or impeded the female from escaping, in which, the evidence shows in total, no wounds, no weapons, and no deep bruising.
All of the above in a case such as that means the defendant now has three or four charges that he must contend with, and not too surprisingly is, especially when indigent and incarcerated pending disposition of those charges, in a very bad negotiating position. On the other hand, a far more fair way to address trumped up as well as added-on charges, is that, when such is taken to trial, each charge of which the defendant is found not guilty of should have the typical median sentencing of that charge, subtracted from the sentence so rendered, when that defendant is found guilty of any other charge. That is to say, when a defendant goes to trial and is, for instance, found guilty of one charge, but not guilty of any other charges, each of those charges the defendant is not guilty of, should reduce correspondingly the amount of the sentence of the charge that they are guilty of. This means, using our example, if the defendant is guilty of one charge and receives a sentence of two years, but the other three charges he is not guilty of, in which the median sentence of those combined would also be two years, the defendant would be released.
The point is that trumped up as well as added-on charges should not be made to begin with, but rather the District attorney and prosecutors have a sworn duty to be an advocate of fair and equal justice for all, and not instead to take the law into their own fallible hands.