Do Not Install CCTV Or Access Control In A Drug House In New Jersey

Nice find, Horace! Although I was just going for a laugh, humor usually comes from truth. And here's the truth about lying:

Yes, certainly some forms of lying are illegal, statements under oath, for instance being one of the more clearcut examples. But surely you see that in the context of my intended humorous exaggeration, i.e. watching and fleeing being illegal, that I would most likely be referring to the simple denial of guilt when questioned by authorities, (a situation that even the most junior criminal would have formerly avoided by using the time-tested combo of look-out & run-away.)

This is not normally considered actionable, at least by the Feds:

The circumstance often arises in which a false statement is made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent. The issue is whether such a statement is within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. It is the Department's policy not to charge a § 1001 violation in situations in which a suspect, during an investigation, merely denies guilt in response to questioning by the government.

What crimes aren't lied about? Besides those involving wackos or civil disobedience, most every criminal lies. So they kind of build a simple denial penalty into the grand total, instead of breaking out the line-item detail, if you will.

When's the last time you heard of someone charged with one count of murder and one count of saying he didn't do it? If that sounds funny at all, then that's all I was after...

they just use them to get the bad dude to cop to the one charge they actually want to convict him of - primarily to avoid the cost of trial

That's quite generous of you, since the cynic would point out another factor weighing heavily upon the prosecuter's decision to 'plea' a case; his conviction rate. Which fortunately does not include dropped charges in its calculation and so little (except justice) is to be gained by going to trial and risk losing percentage points.

Prosecutors do not like to go to trial - unlike what you may have gleaned from Perry Mason or Matlock.

True, "Perry Matlock" did present a skewed look at jurisprudence, which unfortunately may have formed the bulk of many americans legal education. Though the average 'gleaner' may have thought the prosecutor's actions to be overzealous, (because he was always portrayed stridently accusing the innocent), a more refined view reveals a dutiful and principled prosecutor willing to seek justice even when this meant near certain public and professional humiliation for the hundreth time! Remember, most every Perry case had the same M.O.: defendant publicly declares violence against victim, a surplus of direct and circumstantial evidence is found against defendant, little or nothing exculpatory is introduced ...until the first gavel comes down. Wouldn't you want your DA to be relentless in such cases? Add in the fact that Perry never really defended anyone directly, he (as the true prosecutor) only convinced us that some else was guilty. Finally, Perry's defendants hardly ever actually made it to trial (tho matlock did), most episodes were resolved in pre-trial hearings, and so the prosecutor's position was just one of arguing that the defendant should be bound for trial.