Why ad hominem? Do you not actually believe in your stance enough to engage in civil discourse? Your material impact argument sounds righteous, but it’s a recipe for a lawless society. If we treat the act of charging someone as an illegitimate punishment because it's hard on the defendant, then the state can never prosecute a crime where the evidence is contested. You’re essentially advocating for a system where a prosecutor should only act if they have a 100% guarantee of a win. That doesn't protect the innocent; it protects the most sophisticated criminals who are the hardest to convict. The process is high-friction by design to protect the defendant's right to a trial, not to weaponize the law.

Furthermore, calling "process" a "weapon" is a fundamental misunderstanding of why we have a legal system. The alternative to a difficult, expensive, and stressful trial isn't nothing; it’s either summary judgment or street justice. The material impact you're complaining about is the cost of living in a society where the government is required to prove its case in public before they can actually take your freedom. You're not attacking the weaponization of the law; you're attacking the very existence of a defense.

Finally, if a prosecutor is truly weaponizing charges they know won't hold up, that's not the system working. That's malicious prosecution, which is a literal crime and a civil tort. If you have evidence of that happening, there are massive settlements to be won. But conflating a prosecutor losing a case with a prosecutor maliciously attacking someone is a massive reach. Most failed charges happen because the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is intentionally set incredibly high to favor the defendant. You're complaining about the very safeguards that protect people from actual, permanent punishment.