> It doesn't say anything about "prosecutors are seeking..."
Wrong. It's up to the prosecutor which charges are filed, which are dropped, which are pursued in court.
If they are taking those charges to trial, and they were in this case, it means they are seeking those penalties. Now, they may ask the judge for a lesser sentence ... everyone wants to appear merciful after you beat the guy down, but they most certainly were seeking them to begin with.
Also, this entire "judge decides" is absolute bullshit. And it smells like bullshit to anyone who has been in a court room.
Technically, even if you accept the plea bargain, after you stand in front of the judge and say "guilty" ... the judge can easily ignore your plea deal, accept your guilty plea, and sentence you to the maximum allowed. Now, that almost never happens, since that would undermine the whole system ... but it can, since it's up to the judge.
Judges, frequently, give deference to the prosecutor on sentencing matters, unless they feel the defendant deserves a break. That puts the onus on the prosecutor to act in a just manner, instead of saying "oh, it's up to the judge, don't look at me".
Is it productive to society to convict someone of, say, "hiding one's identity in furtherance of a computer crime" (or the actual legal equivalent of those made up words I just typed) if that "computer crime" wasn't proven?
Not really, but there are statutes - such as "unauthorized access" which become felonies if attached to any (even minor) other crime. So you can take two minor crimes, join them and get a felony. Moreover, if both are of such nature, you can have two felonies now, and if jury returns guilty on any of them, I understand you'd have felony conviction.
Presumably if that particular combination were in question, there would be no way to prove the former without the latter. That doesn't hold for all the combinations the prosecution filed.
Wrong. It's up to the prosecutor which charges are filed, which are dropped, which are pursued in court.
If they are taking those charges to trial, and they were in this case, it means they are seeking those penalties. Now, they may ask the judge for a lesser sentence ... everyone wants to appear merciful after you beat the guy down, but they most certainly were seeking them to begin with.
Also, this entire "judge decides" is absolute bullshit. And it smells like bullshit to anyone who has been in a court room.
Technically, even if you accept the plea bargain, after you stand in front of the judge and say "guilty" ... the judge can easily ignore your plea deal, accept your guilty plea, and sentence you to the maximum allowed. Now, that almost never happens, since that would undermine the whole system ... but it can, since it's up to the judge.
Judges, frequently, give deference to the prosecutor on sentencing matters, unless they feel the defendant deserves a break. That puts the onus on the prosecutor to act in a just manner, instead of saying "oh, it's up to the judge, don't look at me".