this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
151 points (95.8% liked)

politics

25450 readers
2190 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 75 points 1 year ago (2 children)

THEN START THROWING THE BOOK AT THEM TO SCARE THEM INTO NOT DOING IT AGAIN YOU FUCKING MORON

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's not really how it works unfortunately.

Federal sentencing guidelines are more an algebra equation the Judge plugs various values into rather than a decision they make. The bulk of those are based solely on set things like the limits for the specific charges and previous criminal history.

https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2023-guidelines-manual-annotated

The "book" needs to come from prosecutors being able to actually prove all their charges. Prosecutors don't want to bring charges unless they know they can win, especially if evidence is shaky or not 100%, double jeopardy means a fast prosecution with limited or largely circumstantial evidence could let a criminal walk and never be tried again.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“Guidelines”;

They do have some wiggle room. Like “oh you feel remorseful so I’m going to knock time off”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they don't follow the guidelines then the sentence will just be appealed and replaced with one that does. Sentencing guidelines are about trying to remove biases like race in the sentencing process.

As for remorse, yes, that is one part of the guidelines that is left up to the judge to determine. Again however, the Judge doesn't just get to decide how much to reduce the sentence, the requirements for reduction are specified in the guidelines.

For instance:

Acceptance of Responsibility
3E1.1(a) (a) If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by 2 levels.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

and yet it's the judge's determination if that's true or clear. There are other subjective qualifies that a judge could use to wiggle.

you're right they can't just slap a life sentence onto something that would ordinarily call for five years. But they can adjust things. Too much of this has been in the insurrectionist favor where others would be absolutely wrecked by the courts. So clearly, their bias is showing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yup! It's a decent enough system that sets ranges and expectations for pretty much all levels of criminal activity. Because these expectations exist, prosecutors can more easily set a target. It has been something of a shame that the bigger, scary words aren't being used. Instead we're getting smaller sentencing. While still justice, and with some harsher sentences handed out for a few people, questions are still hanging in the air. Many of them people who don't understand how so many people appear to be getting off lightly.

Assuming things progress according to plan, these last few years will be a fantastic documentary or history chapter. Hopefully. The other directly opposite possibility holds a lot of uncertainty as well.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

How about using their shitty opsec to find where they plan to attack and actually defend the property instead of letting the traitors walk right in.