In Ex parte McWilliams, 634 S.W.2d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982), the Court expressly adopted the Blockburger standard and explicitly rejected the "one act or transaction" analysis of the carving doctrine in favor of Blockburger's "one offense" analysis and noted that "the constitutional provisions speak of double jeopardy in terms of the 'same offense' rather than 'same transaction' ..." Id. at 823. In essence, appellant asks us to resuscitate the discarded carving doctrine, at least for purposes of custodial questioning. This we decline to do for the very reasons expressed in McWilliams: The Court abandoned the carving doctrine for the compelling reason that it encourages crime. When the carving doctrine may be applied to a situation in which a defendant robs, kidnaps, rapes, and murders his victim, the defendant suffers no more punishment than he would had he committed only one of the crimes. Justice and reason demand prosecution for each of the separate offenses so that a robber will be deterred from kidnapping, raping, and murdering the victim. Id. at 822 (op. on reh'g).