It is not triple jeopardy, you said yourself that the charges are all in one case. They are just backup charges for reasons I explained. The judge will only sentence based on the highest one.
What would stop the law from engaging in 40 jeopardy by rewriting a law with slight variation 40 times, for which if any one is applicable than probably the majority are applicable and hearing the same matter 40 times until they run out of nearly duplicate laws?
Hate speech while wearing a shirt. Hate speech while wearing pants. Hate speech from the hours of 1am to 11pm. Hate speech from the hours of 2am to 12am. Hate speech from the hours of 3am to 1am the following day. Hate speech from 1:23am to 11:56pm. Hate speech from 1:23am to 11:55pm.
Nothing. That's the idea though. They want the discretion to destroy lives or offer salvation (for the right price). The concept is called charge stacking, and fortunately most state legislators have been reasonable so far. They will add layers of laws against white people soon though.
It is triple-jeopardy. The state gets to hold essentially three trials in one. Just because the cases run concurrently doesn't make it one case. If the accused is acquitted of charge #1, the state still has charge #2, and #3.
I understand that courts have ruled that as long as the state rolls their cases up into one court proceeding the accused can face unlimited charges for one incident, but I think it's been established that the courts have way overstepped their Constitutional authority long ago in many regards.
I think (I could be wrong) that lawfags point was that sentencing guidelines mean that the judge will only sentence based on the highest charge that was convicted and run the lesser sentences as concurrent so they don't actually do extra time for them. Like when a tweaker breaks into a car and they charge him with drug possession and burglary. He gets sentenced on the burglary charge and the possession charge is sentences within the same time as the burglary charge. So 3 years for burglary and 1 year for possession, but the one year runs at the same start date so he only does 3 years.
On that same note, a small minority in prison are actually locked up for drug charges, but they have drug charges on their record, so it looks like a bunch of people are serving time for drug charges, but those drug charges are rarely the primary sentencing offense.
I think (I could be wrong) that lawfags point was that sentencing guidelines mean that the judge will only sentence based on the highest charge that was convicted and run the lesser sentences as concurrent so they don't actually do extra time for them.
The Constitution doesn't say that the accused shouldn't be sentenced twice for the same offense, it says he shouldn't even twice be at risk of receiving a sentence for the same offense.
(post is archived)