I think it is quite possible in most instances to distinguish between crimes that need to be prosecuted and acts which break the law for a greater good.

Then there are the cases where it would be too much trouble to prosecute ... people driving at 71 mph on the motorway, perhaps, or parking too close to traffic lights (a constable once advised me, if I proposed to continue to wait for my wife late one night, to move my car forward so that I would be park on double yellow lines within 10 metres of a traffic-light controlled junction , because, he said, I was too close to a place where the kerb had been lowered for wheelchairs and mobility scooters, and, if he had seen that I had actually prevented a handicapped person from crossing the road at that point he would have booked me; however, parking too close to a junction or on yellow lines was an offence that the police do not normally prosecute, but leave to local traffic wardens instead, and traffic wardens are not out issuing tickets at midnight! In other words, parking offences are too much trouble and the police don't normally bother with them.

In another post, js207 listed a number of assault-related offences that he suggested were virtually interchangeable, assault, battery, etc. There is, in fact, a real distinction between each of the offences described, and it would be very wrong for the police or the prosecution service to charge someone who had committed an assault with a deadly weapon with simple assault for any reason, because that would defeat justice - even if it was thought to be expedient for other reasons, such as the difficulty of proving the greater charge. Justice is not something that should be approximated, it should be clear, fair and measured. And consistent. Consistency is hard to maintain if there are plea bargains being offered left, right and centre.

Officially, we don't allow plea bargains in the UK. We regard such things with great suspicion. However, we do sometimes allow the accused to "turn Queen's evidence". In other words, the accused is promised he will not be prosecuted ... in fact, if Garrow's Law is to be believed, his admitted crimes are completely wiped away ... in return for testifying against others. I think it is accepted that justice is not served in the case of the person who gives evidence against his fellows, but that justice would not be served in the case of the others without that evidence. ... For the greater good, I suppose.

I am equivocal about using this tactic in the courts, but my inclination is against it, as it clearly belongs to the dirty-tricks side of law enforcement.

Justice at any price. Is that justice?



PS: Is it just me, or does anyone else find that if they use the Quick Reply window for their post, but then try to "Go Advanced", their message disappears? Happened to me a few times - like just now.