Your own example says that the prosecutors, "went ahead with the other charges." They could have been convicted on the other charges, even if they weren't. The prosecutors had a backup plan to prevent them from getting off scot-free, as they always would.
The way it works is that the prosecution service put a charge to trial if they believe that it has a more than 50% chance of succeeding with a jury AND they believe it is in the public interest to do so. In the example they dropped the kidnapping charge because - we assume - it didn't pass that test. There's no reason to suppose there was any thought of a lessor charge at this stage because of some kind of mitigation. That's simply not part of the decision to prosecute. If, after being found guilty, there are reasons why the offender shouldn't feel the full weight of the punishment, they are raised at sentencing.
(Another reason for dropping a higher tariff charge to a lessor one is a plea bargain - this obviously didn't happen here as it was a not guilty plea.)
I realize that the term "mitigation" has a specific connotation in legalese. I wasn't using it that way. If you have a better term for what actually happens, I'm all ears.
Sorry, that's the word. There is no word for what you're trying to say because the law doesn't work the way you think it does.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
There's no reason to suppose there was any thought of a lessor charge at this stage because of some kind of mitigation.
There's always thought of lesser charges right from the beginning. That's why there's always a slew of charges, some of which may be dropped for one reason or another and some of which may be dismissed for one reason or another and some of which may be defeated for one reason or another. Prosecutors don't waste the taxpayers' money on one magical charge and say, "Oh dearie me, better luck next time," if it fails.
There is no word for what you're trying to say because the law doesn't work the way you think it does.
I'm just going by what I see in the news, and your own examples.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
As Trump seems to have decided that going to the Supreme Court right now is a lost cause and so tries to get the 9th to do a Mulligan, the Old Dominion has taken a different tack with an Establishment Clause decision using statements from il Donald, Giuliani and other of il Donalds sycophants as the basic evidence to find a high probability that any Establishment Clause challenge would find the order was unconstitutional.
quote:Brinkema — following a hearing on the issues this past week — pointed to Trump’s campaign statements calling for a ban on Muslim immigration and more recent statements by Trump adviser Rudolph Giuliani about being asked to help craft such a ban as evidence that the executive order was not motivated by “rational national security concerns.”
“The Commonwealth has produced unrebutted evidence supporting its position that it is likely to succeed on an Establishment Clause claim,” Brinkema wrote. “The ‘Muslim ban’ was a centerpiece of the president’s campaign for months, and the press release calling for it was still available on his website as of the day this Memorandum Opinion is being entered.”
Brinkema went on to say in a footnote that she gave “little weight” to statements from administration officials that the travel ban was not targeted at Muslims, since they were made after legal challenges were filed.
The Washington Post has a story today titled "ICE nabs young ‘dreamer’ applicant after she speaks out at a news conference".
Daniela Vargas was brought to the US with her family fifteen years ago when she was 7 years old. Her family was here on a visitors visa but fell in love with the US, overstayed their visa and built a new life. For 15 years the educated their kids, worked, payed taxes. Daniela registered under the DARE program, the one that Trump says would continue and that he would protect the DARE kids.
About two weeks ago ICE came to their home and arrested her father and brother. For some reason not specified they did not arrest her.
Last Wednesday she was one of the speakers at a rally opposing the current deportation frenzy.
quote:“Today my father and brother await deportation, she said, “while I continue to fight this battle as a dreamer to help contribute to this country which I feel that is very much my country.”
quote:After leaving the news conference with her friend, two law enforcement cars pulled her over. ICE agents reportedly opened the car door, telling Vargas, “you know who we are and you know why we’re here,” her friend, Jordan Sanders, told Univision. Then, they handcuffed her and took her into custody.
Now the only question is whether or not Trump lied yet again or will he step up and do the honorable thing and call off the deportation of Daniela and her family members who are NOT badass rapists and murderers.