My point is, that this sounds a hell of a lot like collusion between the DA and Cosby's defense team. That things were deliberately mishandled to undermine the judicial process and provide Cosby a literal "get out of jail free card." The only thing that makes me question my own opinion is that he did serve two years before that card was played.
But collusion is so far the only explanation I can come up with why it was handled this way. Castor was clearly not interested in prosecuting. He needed closure because he didn't think or didn't want to make a career prosecuting Cosby. (Likely assuming there were more people that would angry at him for prosecuting Cosby than not.) His strategy didn't work, he lost his election anyways.
I dunno. The last person I feel is getting done dirty here is Cosby. He got exactly what he bargained for with _the DA he was dealing with._ Can someone provide a statute or precedent that says a new prosecutor is obligated to abide by the (completely fucking ridiculous deal) made by previous prosecutor?
I could go on at length about prosecutors and all the corruption that goes on there, both ways. All they care about are wins and losses. Better to leave the rich and famous alone when it's so much easier to hide exculpatory evidence and force poor kids into terrible plea deals under the threat of More Jail/Prison
Fixed that for you. Poor people already exist in an world of financial ruin, threats of financial ruin mean nothing to them. Just use cash, ok?
@Damiac: It's nice to know that at least some middle class exist in the world. You actually have to have some expectation of having some amount of money, and some money to lose in order for "financial ruin" to be a threat, so your comments make sense for Lower Middle Class, rather than Always Poor. I can produce a list of poverty, if you'd like, with the various levels of "Poor". Lower Middle Class is the absolute top of that list.
It's the "Plea to the charge, or lose at trial and serve a year in Jail / 5 years in Prison / Whatever the max for the charge" that always gets people.
Who's gonna risk trial with that kind of threat hanging over their heads? Plus, probation is such an easier way into prison than actually trying cases.
The proof of whether someone "had drugs" is a lot harder than the proof a person was "on drugs".
Being "on drugs" is not a crime, but IS a violation of probation, allowing the original max jail/prison sentence to be imposed.