A guy named Jacob Korum accepts a plea bargain for a string of home invasion robberies he committed.
He's given an 11-year prison sentence.
While in prison, he has a change of mind and decides he wants to plead NOT guilty.
The Pierce County Prosecutor's office ends up charging Korum for every one of his accused crimes.
All 32 of them.
He ends up being convicted on 30 and is re-sentenced, this time to 100+ years.
Korum decides to appeal.
His lawyers go to court saying the prosecutor was being "vindictive" by hitting him with all the crimes he committed, including kidnapping and assault.
The State Court of Appeals agrees; tosses most of Korum's convictions and reduces his prison sentence.
The State Supreme Court now has the case.
Excuse me here, but can anyone but absurdly arrogant appeals court judges and harebrained defense attorneys make sense of this?
Since when is it "vindictive" to charge someone with the crimes they committed?
I'll tell you when: Since the legal system was corrupted by mediocre judges and weasly defense lawyers.
Since justice became a disconnected concept.
You know, I think we actually need MORE "vindictive" prosecutors, and fewer appeals court judges whose narrow legal interpretations are a disgrace to the system they're supposed to serve.
Want to share your thoughts with Ken Schram? You can e-mail him at email@example.com