Please don't use the "prosecutors go for the maximum penalty they can" defence for trivialising this shit.

Even if that was the case, penalties should be suggested proportionally to the crime -- not inflated to scare people.

For one, an inflated penalty makes the person more likely to want to avoid trial and take a plea bargain EVEN if he is innocent. "Should I risk 13 years with a trial or go for 2 years?".

Second, the role of the prosecutor is not to scare people and score points, it's to try to punish a crime appropriately.

Third, the inflated penalty also changes the perception of the judge and the jury, and makes them more likely to take the case as more serious than it is. E.g something that should actually be punished with something like 6 month probation, when inflated to a "13 years in jail" scare, can appear much more serious (and the offender much more dangerous) to the jury.

Who is more likely to be punished with, say, 6 years in jail? Someone for which the prosecutor suggested a 13 year penalty, or someone for which the prosecutor suggested 2 years?