politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I can't be sure, but from what little I've seen of judges in action, I would guess substantially... but perhaps not for the reason we think.
Yes lack of remorse is a major component to sentencing, but so are a few other things that I think work on 1/6 rioters' favor. Likelihood to reoffend is arguably low because 1/6 was uniquely stupid. Being told by a US president to commit the crime is arguably somewhat mitigating (to the person, not to the president). These crimes were committed in what ostensibly could (should) have been a peaceful protest that got out of hand, so judges might question the severity of premeditation. All of these are typically valid reasons to lighten up sentencing. And then there's a sadly invalid one that probably mattered - light-skinned people are sentenced lighter than dark-skinned ones, and most of the 1/6 protestors were white.
In aggregate, there is value to going hard on all the traitors. Of individual offenders, it might be a more difficult place for a judge to sit, for both good and terrible reasons. But importantly, there's a lot of argument that we're not looking at judges that thought 1/6 was "perfectly fine". Such a judge would more likely find an excuse to dismiss (with or without prejudice) if they think the case is moving towards prosecution. We have simply not seen a lot of that.
I'll generally agree with your stance, but here I'd say there's also value in not going too hard on the traitors. There's a balance.
You go too hard ("fullest extent of the law") and you may inspire some people to say "hmm, that seemed overboard, maybe they have a point about the government oppressing them after all".
From what I've seen, almost half of the cases got real prison time, and the rest got probation or house arrest. Cherry picking a few cases and I think it's consistent with your expectation. A serial offender that helped organize and incited violence would generally get years in prison. Someone who just walked with the crowd as others actually did the initial breaking in, who did not seem to commit violence themselves, who did not steal or vandalize anything, for whom this is a first offense, that seemed genuinely sorry or at least afraid of what they had done, that is the sort of person that got probation. As much as folks might find their cause unjust and their actions unreasonable, I think if we calm down and take a breath that we can agree that the circumstances just make sense for probation for some of those folks.
Can I ask what this is all based on?
One part a family obsession with streaming court recordings. The other part things I'd rather not answer.
Just being honest here, but I know nothing about you or your family, so I have no reason to take your claims at face value. This empty answer just leads me to believe it's based on a gut feeling rather than any objective, educated analysis.
I don't mean it as an attack, just expressing how it should be interpreted by an objective, rational observer.
Well, I'll confess that I may not be "qualified" but I'll say from what I've seen his analysis is consistent with what I have seen. Judges tend to take it easy on certain things (on top of the likelihood to reoffend, it was also for many their first offense). For a lot of the offenders, the only evidence was that they trespassed and said seditious stuff and was oblivious about assault or anyone having intent to ziptie some congressmen. If an offender had previous offenses, had done assault, had an organizing role, had stuff on their person implying a more violent intent, those folks from what I saw got real prison time.
If you are involved in someone's random court case, maybe as a jury member, maybe as an extended family member, you are likely to see a fairly restrained judicial response, compared to the statutory maximums which are really intended for the worst of the worst contexts for that particular crime.
Just being honest here, I don't care what you think.
I said it was a gut feeling that they got more light sentences than we would like AND that I don't (entirely, I do a little) blame the judges for that. So you're right to believe what I said was a gut feeling was a gut feeling. (being quite literal, since you seem to need that, I used the words "I'd guess"). This is largely how court works. Here's a quick high-level on mitigating circumstances, in case you think for some reason I'm making that part up, too.
Not exactly sure why you would come to that conclusion. Are you having reddit flashbacks or something?
With all due respect, demanding evidence or proof from everything anyone says in a civil discourse is absolutely an attack. I said absolutely nothing that was inflammatory or problematic, or that might lead one to question the ernestnest of my testimony.
Are you acquianted philosophical principles of credulity (Swinburg, Reid?)? It is entirely reasonable to expect one's testimony to be treated as credible if:
Solipsism is absurd. Incredulity towards everything is absurd.
So why exactly do you find my explanation of my experiences incredible? What do I have to gain? What do you have to lose?
EDIT: The irony is that you seem to agree with much of what I said anyway. So why are you hitting me with over-the-top cynicism?
I'm not demanding anything. I asked if anyone had an objective analysis to compare it to what happens generally. By your own admission, you are just going with your gut, and I'm explaining why your gut means nothing to me.
If you feel attacked, that's your own doing, not mine.