I think the best change in plea-bargaining is if a bargain was offered and rejected, then the prosecutor has to win on all counts, and get the full penalty asked for, or get nothing at all. It is very likely that not all 19 counts would have come back guilty, so in a case like this there would be incentive on the prosecution side to only push as far as is likely to be won. And, I think this has some merit in the same spirit as the double jeopardy section of the 5'th.
Many plea bargains would be offered in those situations. What the parent is suggesting is that the jury has to come back with "fully guilty of all charges" in which case the person gets all the appropriate time, or "not fully guilty of all charges" in which case the person is ACQUITTED OF ALL CHARGES. This would provide a powerful incentive to not stack many multiple charges on solely for intimidation, even if they're completely irrelevant.
