There would definitely be a cultural aspect to this particular situation. However, the act of charging a person with "what can we get him on" as opposed to selecting the charge appropriate to the behaviour encountered is perhaps a psychological issue more than an ethnographic issue in that it also occurs in Western/European cultures.
A long time ago I observed an Australian soldier charged with being Drunk-on-Duty, Absent-from-Duty and Absent-without-Leave.
What happened to cause this soldier to be charged? The morning after a night of approved and supervised consumption of alcohol within the barracks, said gentleman, in reply to an instruction from a gentleman-who-holds-Her Majesty's Commission, proceeded to express his displeasure at the prospect of complying with such an instruction, accompanied by his personal opinion of said gentleman-who-holds-Her Majesty's Commission. He then walked out of the barracks.
Two gentlemen-who-hold-a-warrant for Her Majesty's Commission (very experienced soldiers of many years service) then proceeded to pull out the law manuals and find the most severe charge that they believed they could get him convicted on.
Five minutes into the trial the charge of being Drunk-on-Duty was thrown out. Why, because he wasn't drunk.
Insubordination... perhaps, but not Drunk-on-Duty. It was the wrong charge.