The add on charge is still unconscionable. “We don’t care about this but we don’t feel it’s enough to punish you for the thing we care about so we’re lumping it in too.” Never understood why this was so accepted.
Two big reasons. First, maybe they want to get the person off the streets for some reason. Maybe they’re violent. But getting individual charges to stick can be difficult, so they just throw everything they can at the person to hopefully get them for something.
Second, it’s something they can use in plea bargaining. To use the above violent offender example, maybe someone is charged with battery and weed possession. The battery charge is hard to prove, but the weed possession is ironclad. The plea deal removes the (easy to prove) weed charge, but keeps the (hard to prove) battery charge. Now they didn’t need to bother with actually proving it, because the plea has them admitting to it. Without that weed charge, their only bargaining chip would be to reduce the violent charge to something lesser.
Whether or not it’s okay is really up to individual interpretation. But those are at least the two big arguments for why it became common.
I think you misunderstand me: I understand the practical/theoretical reasons behind it. I am saying I don’t understand why this is so accepted, especially since we get such gray area and inconsistent treatment usually due to some combination of the mood/general disposition of the officer combined with the demographics of the person they are deciding to fuck up that day (or not).
I also understand that we accept it because of power structures and how privilege works. I am just saying that there should be louder pushback on this from an ethical standpoint. I wouldn’t take my “I don’t understand” too literally. It’s a common expression to express disapproval and frustration towards something (usually something perceived to be indefensible). “I don’t understand how someone can vote for Trump” for instance.
The add on charge is still unconscionable. “We don’t care about this but we don’t feel it’s enough to punish you for the thing we care about so we’re lumping it in too.” Never understood why this was so accepted.
Two big reasons. First, maybe they want to get the person off the streets for some reason. Maybe they’re violent. But getting individual charges to stick can be difficult, so they just throw everything they can at the person to hopefully get them for something.
Second, it’s something they can use in plea bargaining. To use the above violent offender example, maybe someone is charged with battery and weed possession. The battery charge is hard to prove, but the weed possession is ironclad. The plea deal removes the (easy to prove) weed charge, but keeps the (hard to prove) battery charge. Now they didn’t need to bother with actually proving it, because the plea has them admitting to it. Without that weed charge, their only bargaining chip would be to reduce the violent charge to something lesser.
Whether or not it’s okay is really up to individual interpretation. But those are at least the two big arguments for why it became common.
I think you misunderstand me: I understand the practical/theoretical reasons behind it. I am saying I don’t understand why this is so accepted, especially since we get such gray area and inconsistent treatment usually due to some combination of the mood/general disposition of the officer combined with the demographics of the person they are deciding to fuck up that day (or not).
I also understand that we accept it because of power structures and how privilege works. I am just saying that there should be louder pushback on this from an ethical standpoint. I wouldn’t take my “I don’t understand” too literally. It’s a common expression to express disapproval and frustration towards something (usually something perceived to be indefensible). “I don’t understand how someone can vote for Trump” for instance.