this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
610 points (84.6% liked)

US Authoritarianism

831 readers
1 users here now

Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.

There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree

See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link

Cool People: [email protected]

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

a court shouldn't be considering things they haven't been convicted for unless it's part of the matter before the court.

They didn't consider it in the trial to determine his innocence or guilt, which carries a reasonable doubt standard. They considered it at sentencing, which falls under a an abuse of discretion standard. Basically anything can be relevant at sentencing. It's up the the judge to weigh the evidence, and the judge must give appropriate weight to uncharged crimes (probably not much, certainly not as much as convicted crimes). Ever read a pre sentencing report? It's the convict's entire life story. All of it gets considered. Should the court not consider whether someone has a family or deep community ties because they weren't convicted have having a family or deep community ties?

A rigid sentencing rubric that allows no discretion, to me, is the fascist approach to sentencing.

This sentence seems long for the kid's age, but that's Alabama. Vote.

[โ€“] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago

A rigid sentencing rubric that allows no discretion, to me, is the fascist approach to sentencing.

For lesser crimes, I can agree, but felony stuff. I think it should be more rigid.