This was 3 articles deep but worth the digging. This is what convinced me.
"The prosecutor suggested increasing the charges if all parties didn’t agree to the probation terms, according to Carlos Moore, an attorney representing the child."
It's a typical tactic. It's an outright threat, couched in "possibilities". "Take this deal or we'll hammer the dog$#!+ out of you in court and it'll cost you piles of time and cash to fight us." It's ALWAYS presented "Take this 'lesser' deal or we'll throw the book at you."
Sure, IF something goes to trial the trial results MAY be more severe. Perhaps almost certainly. But that takes time, money, and resources from both sides.
The government's resources, comparatively speaking, are infinitely more than any given citizen's resources. That includes time and money. So it's a one sided proposition, and the prosecution knows this.
What this amounts to is the prosecution's way of chalking up a "win" in several ways (gain's a win in the legal prosecution side and clears prosecuting cases some, for example).
Yes, there is an argument that this is a legitimate way of getting through a lot of prosecuting cases so that they can effectively manage their case load. And this works great for, say, someone actually arrested for a "real" crime, like theft, vandalism, assault, whatever.
But this kid didn't violate any criminal statute, or at least wasn't charged with one.
