this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
591 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19232 readers
3888 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
[–] Lemminary 18 points 11 months ago (3 children)

this is actually a good thing

No, I don't think it's a good thing that traitors got less than they deserved just so we can push back on an argument that magats don't care two shits about and will parrot on and on anyway.

[–] SCB 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, I don’t think it’s a good thing that traitors got less than they deserved

The vast majority of people on J6 were idiots in a mob situation, not traitors.

As OP said, fuck all of them, but aggressive prosecution here is not the way you want the law to work, the same way there's no gain for imprisoning everyone who acted out of pocket during the Floyd protests.

You throw the book at the worst offenders, and you let people caught up in mob mentality off with a lesser sentence. That is justice working.

[–] Lemminary -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They were armed traitors looking to take control of the capitol in an organized way, cause the disruption of government, with the aim to capture and harm government officials. That's literally the definition of a revolt against authority. It was done in their own stupid way but they tried it and failed because they were stupid. Aggressive prosecution is the precisely how you don't let it happen again.

during the Floyd protests

Are you for real.

[–] SCB 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Aggressive prosecution is the precisely how you don’t let it happen again.

This has literally never been true about any crime

Are you for real.

Yes, Republicans notably used those riots to demand harsher penalties. You don't remember the mythical burning cities?

[–] Lemminary -1 points 11 months ago

This is not a regular crime and it isn't fueled by an actual need that leads to any sort of direct personal gain, like drug trafficking or even murder. It's the literal destabilization of a country. Republicans have learned that there are no real consequences to bad behavior, but that their role model Trump can behave badly and get preferential treatment which in my opinion fuels their belief that they have done nothing wrong.

I'm saying, are you for real invoking the Floyd Protests to gain some sort of reaction out of commenters? It's quite the hot button issue to just casually name-drop without elaborating your point. People can get the wrong idea.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Okay I can see that position, I just happen to disagree. I don't see any benefit from them getting very strict sentences, and I see a potential benefits from the leniency. This is actually how I generally feel about the legal system tho. You probably come from the philosophy that it should be very punitive.

[–] Lemminary 2 points 11 months ago

Yes, I do "come from the philosophy" that one should not attempt an insurrection because a lying orange man said so. I wouldn't extrapolate beyond that, though.

[–] Psychodelic 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think many of us simply struggle with the legal system being extra "punitive" to black, brown, and occasionally poor white people while being the opposite to white criminals, especially of the not-poor variety.

This is a well-reaearched academic legal theory known as critical race theory. It's definitely worth looking up sometime.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

Are you arguing that because the legal system is unjust to some people, we should cheer on more injustice? The fact that the system is biased against racial minorities, and what a failure that has been, is exactly why I think more lenient sentences make sense.

[–] jj4211 -3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I think it's less about the frothing at the mouth folks that are too far gone to rationally evaluate any circumstance.

It's about every other person watching. It may sound ludicrous, but imagine if they had executed every last person that set foot in the capital building that day, and managed to do so within a few months of the incident. I think a lot of people might say "holy shit, they had a point, I thought they were crazy but that was an insane authoritarian response".

Different people have different thresholds for their tipping point for "government is overreacting and threatening free speech", and from what I've seen in the cases I could find, I think they did a fairly good job of typical judicial results. Some of the key people responsible got years in prison. Random people who just followed the crowd without any evidence of committing assault or vandalism or intent to do those things (just trespassing and repeating seditious channts), and for whom this was a first offense, ok they might have gotten probation.

Leniency is pretty common in the justice system under various circumstances, and this seems about the normal amount.

[–] Lemminary 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think anybody in their right mind would call for an execution when the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I don't know where you got that idea. But more sensibly, people have gone to prison for longer for less and that's what really makes no sense. You're absolutely right, though, I do take an insurrection as seriously as we should.

[–] jj4211 -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm using an example, an example that almost anyone would take to be blatanty overreacting, and then say for different people, that threshold is different.

People in this thread are saying "hang them all" "during the Civil War, they would execute people like this" "they should all spend the rest of their lives in jail" "the judges are corrupt for ever letting them see the light of day". Meanwhile these courts are being asked to rule on the nuance of the individual circumstances. Some pretty screwed up stuff happened, and people received reasonably harsh sentences in those contexts. There were also people who violated the law, but basically were walking with a group where only the leaders actively did anything and they almost looked like they were touring the building. They did wrong and they should have known better, but if it is an isolated incident for that person, and they have people in front of them and people behind them all going along with it, and they didn't directly initiate or participate in theft, assault, vandalism, then maybe we should be willing to accept the court might do probation instead of a long prison sentence.

The courts are punishing pretty much everyone they got a hold of. Out of about 1,300 cases, like 2 resulted in acquittal, almost half received real prison time, a bunch more house arrest, and lots of probation. This seems a pretty reasonable mix of response given the large number of people, differing criminal records, variety of circumstance, and different levels of engagement with the activity.

[–] Lemminary 1 points 11 months ago

Regardless of how granular you want to go with the argument or how fair you think the issuing of these sentences was, it's still baffling how you can get more time for literal drug possession or even texting a minor without going so far as assault, than trying to disrupt government proceedings in the hopes of interfering in an election. That's my whole point. This is some serious stuff. It's baffling that you want to hand-wave the event like they were browsing the galleries at the local art museum. You really don't need to do all that. I'm well aware that there were some passive participants. But the bottom line is that were groups planning it on Telegram and other social circles beforehand and they all willingly and consciously participated. It was premeditated and coordinated and in cahoots with some government officials who are still actively serving. Nobody was lost in Jan 6th or took the wrong bus and walked nosily along. A slap on the wrist is all you get for trying to stop a fair election because you didn't like the results. What a precedent, it's insane.

[–] Psychodelic 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You know there are black and brown people sentenced to life in prison for having been arrested for having cannabis on them, right? In what world do you think Americans care about the encroaching police state? Or is that not an authoritarian response, for some reason?

It's always nuts to see "certain" Americans struggle to see any of the melanin in their fellow countrymen' skin or just blatantly ignore it.

It's obviously because they're all fuckin White, dude. How are some Americans still so damn clueless?

[–] jj4211 -1 points 11 months ago

I've never said or implied that people of color get fair treatment.

You propose the solution is everyone should get imprisoned without nuance as a remedy? Seems messed up. Seems you'd want to make sure persons of color receive justice under the law rather to inflict more injustice on more folks.