Ok, I’ll go back and use the Green River Killer as an example. The only murder that they had him on was one out of the 50+ he was suspected of. Because there were 3 other victims there they were able to charge him with the 4. Those murders they had him for first degree. However, he didn’t want to be put to death, so he admitted to the others so long as the death penalty was off the table. So in essence, in court he only admitted to them to avoid death. Some people were mad they didn’t prosecute him fully for every murder, but, what was the point? He is never leaving prison. Yeah 50+ families don’t have that guilty in a court of law proven to have killed their child. But in the end, his life is over.
Really, in the end, what does it prove to prosecute and go after every offense, when one does the job? Our system should be on law, and blind from emotion. You wanting to charge home with 2 murders doesn’t change the fact that his minimum sentence (in CA dunno N.Y.) is 17.5 years +10 for deadly weapon. So 27.5 years minimum. That puts him at 77 years old when his minimum time would be done. That’s with every good behavior accomplished. He’s essentially done anyway. Besides, to add on additional time they would have to have consecutive five sentences, which isn’t always the case and in a situation like this may not happen anyway as there were not two separate criminal events