Crimes and Misdemeanors

I’m not sure how to phrase this question, especially since IANAL, but I’ll just forge ahead and hope you all can figure out what I’m asking.

Are most small crime laws in place as a kind of backup?

For instance, there is a man in jail here on suspicion of sexual assualt and kidnapping (8yo girl, the sick fuck!). He is also a suspect in two other cases in the area. DNA results are forthcoming, but he is due to be arraigned today.

In the event that the DNA results are not ready in time, the police (prosecutor?) have indicated that he will be arraigned for driving a bike while under the influence.

You can read the whole story here: http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/kidnap02f.htm

Also IIRC, the was some big mobster who, despite a lack of evidence (or witnesses!) on significant crimes, was still convicted on multiple cases of mail fraud (maybe it was tax evasion?), the only thing that could be proven. [sub](I am the queen of the run-on sentence!)[/sub]

In both of these cases, it seems as if “lesser” crimes were used as backup to keep people in jail. One as a delay tactic, one for lack of anything else convictible.

Is this common? Are two people involved in a crime together always charged with conspiracy along with the charges for the actual crime?

Can someone be charged with “Kidnapping” and “Kidnapping across a state line” in the hope that if one charge doesn’t fly, the other might?

Is it rare for a criminal to be charged with only one crime? (ie “Breaking” instead of “B&E, theft, criminal trespassing, etc.”)

I apologize for my lack of knowledge and proper terminology here.

Sue I’m not an expert but I’ll put in my two cents worth just to keep the ball rolling.

I doubt that they put laws like riding a bike while intoxicated or avoiding your income tax on the books just to hold or put people quilty of other offenses in jail.

Al Capone was never tried for any of the crimes he is infamous for committing. Instead he was sent to Atlanta for income tax fraud.

To me it seems like the laws are used in anyway the authorities want to use them, within the law. If what they are doing is not right it will eventually be corrected. I personally think that too many criminals are given lesser charges in return for their testimony against someone else.

I realize “lesser” crimes are still crimes in their own right, but I doubt that under normal circumstances a man would be kept in jail for three days just for riding a bicycle while intoxicated. That seems like one of those misdemeanors where one is issued a ticket and taken home to sleep it off.

Yet in this case, it seems to be used expressly for the purpose of keeping a suspect in jail.

On TV (I know, I know) lawyers are always saying, “Either charge my client with something or let him go!” Does this happen in the real world? It certainly seems like it does by the above example.

I’m wondering how frequent it is and how many laws are in place that usually only serve the purpose of keeping someone in jail while evidence is collected, or whatever.

Does this make any sense?

yes Sue they really do prosecute for idiotic little things. I’ve seen prosecution for:

Taking a newspaper off of a porch. (retail value: $1.50)

Taking a bag of returnable bottles out of an open air car port (approximate value: $4.)

Shoplifting of a bottle of nail polish (retail value $1)

I saw a woman get prison time for resisting arrest (the original arrest was for a misdemeanor)

Sometimes it was 'cause the person was a ‘known’ pain in the ass of a local community, or the porch belonged to a cop, the mayor or whatever. So, not always are ‘minor’ prosecutions for the purpose of holding the person 'til the evidence on something big comes in.

did that help?

Sue,

The police released that individual after the DNA evidence showed that he could not be the person who committed that crime.

I think the police showed much better sense than the media did - the police did not identify the person arrested on the chance that the DNA test came back the way it did & the media essentially said “to hell with the truth.”

To answer the OP directly: in my view, every crime, from capital murder to jaywalking, was first codified into law because legislators believed that the proscribed conduct should be illegal.

Once the crime exists, however, it only makes sense that police and prosecutors would use every tool legally at their disposal to effect justice. So if the prosecution can avoid the tolling of the speedy-trial rule by holding a suspect on another charge while they build an airtight case on the main charge, they may well do so.

With that said, it’s worthwhile to consider the difference between lesser-included crimes and “smaller” crimes that are not part of larger crimes.

Rather than re-type old ground, the following threads talk about lesser-included offenses:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=56845
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=56951
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49808
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=44612
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=35391
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=12335

Hope these help!

  • Rick

An addendum:

A violation of a small law, such as failure to wear seatbelts, can give probable cause to an officer to effect an arrest. Once an arrest is made, then a search incident to arrest is possible without offending the Fourrth Amendment. This, then, another use for the “minor” laws, from the police point of view: they are a very convenient to legitimize warrantless searches…

  • Rick

This is rare. But charges are reduced quite frequently in order to secure a conviction though.