THEN START THROWING THE BOOK AT THEM TO SCARE THEM INTO NOT DOING IT AGAIN YOU FUCKING MORON
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.
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.
“Guidelines”;
They do have some wiggle room. Like “oh you feel remorseful so I’m going to knock time off”
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.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.
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.
Sooo… the judge is basically saying that Trump can sicc another white supremacist lynch mob on the US populace (because that’s what Jan 6th truly was) because the (so-called) “justice system” in the US will do absolutely nothing about a rich white supremacist siccing white supremacist lynch mobs on the US populace - apart from belatedly slapping the wrists of some of the lowest-level participants, of course.
I mean yeah. You can barely scratch the surface and find who these laws were written to protect. The racism is right there.
So you sentence the terrorist to 5 years, most of which he’s already served…
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Sabol, who repeatedly assaulted officers at the lower west tunnel during the Capitol attack, was one of a fraction of the Jan. 6 defendants who had been held pretrial, so he’s already served the majority of his sentence.
Sabol destroyed his laptop in a microwave oven, dropped his cellphone in a body of water and tried to board a flight to Zurich, Switzerland, prior to his arrest, prosecutors said.
In the court gallery for Sabol’s sentencing was Micki Witthoeft, the mother of Jan. 6 rioter Ashli Babbit, who was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer as she jumped through a broken window leading into the House Speaker’s Lobby.
Instead, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Trump’s claims of total presidential immunity from criminal charges next month, and it is unclear if he will face trial before Election Day 2024.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson, at a prior Jan. 6 sentencing, said that the Republican Party was “actively shunning the few who think standing up for principle is more important than power and have stepped forward to educate the public and to speak the truth.”
He cited claims that criminals convicted in a court of law or ordered held until trial by federal judges because of their danger to the community or risk of flight were “hostages,” a term Trump and his supporters like Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., have used.
The original article contains 850 words, the summary contains 232 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
He can and likely will. Or they’ll take it upon themselves to do it for him.
