[higherpurpose]

That's what I don't get. If you threaten someone with 10 or 20 or 50 years in prison, then why the hell would you allow that person to only serve 2 years? If you thought about giving him that much, then clearly he must be a very dangerous person to society. I probably wouldn't want such a person to get out after only 2 years. If the prosecutors are charging such a person with 10x less than what he should be getting then maybe those prosecutors should be investigated for corruption. For instance, like how it happens when the prosecutors are always somehow much more lenient against cops.

But of course it has nothing to do with how dangerous he is in most cases. They're just selectively enforcing vague laws just to pile them up and force him to accept at least some prison time, even if he considers himself innocent.

That should be illegal and considered against human rights, especially since usually I believe the judges have no say in it, as the charges happen before the accused is brought in front of a judge. Without a judge you can't have "justice" either. You just have government bullies using the government's might to put someone - anyone - in prison, even if he's innocent or only guilty of minor offences. This is exactly why such abuses of power should be illegal.

[cm2187]

There is an interesting asymmetry between the two parties.

To the prosecutor it is just a day job, whether the guy spends 1 or 10 years in prison won't really change anything to his holiday plans. To the defendant, he is playing with his own life. He will have to be locked in a room with thugs for many years, away from his family or any prospect of a normal life.

So both parties have a very different risk aversion in that game. So the prosecution plays with that.

Now if you inflicted a significant pain (career progression, financial penalty) on the prosecutor every time he sent someone to court that turned out to be judged innocent, then you would even this "game" and would probably end up with a more fair bargain.