One nice thing about American law is how you can often state what the law is in a neutral, unbiased, objective manner and it still sounds deranged and Kafkaesque.

"A U.S. government panel tasked with crafting federal sentencing policy on Thursday proposed curtailing the ability of judges to impose longer sentences on criminal defendants based on conduct for which they were acquitted at trial, a practice that the U.S. Supreme Court is considering addressing."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-panel-proposes-limiting-sentencing-defendants-acquitted-conduct-2023-01-12/

U.S. panel proposes limiting sentencing of defendants for acquitted conduct

A U.S. government panel tasked with crafting federal sentencing policy on Thursday proposed curtailing the ability of judges to impose longer sentences on criminal defendants based on conduct for which they were acquitted at trial, a practice that the U.S. Supreme Court is considering addressing.

Reuters

@maxkennerly

I'm sorry, what? Judges in the US can sentence someone who was acquitted?? English is not my first language, so does "acquitted" not mean what I think it means?

@maxkennerly @Tazor my understanding of what’s happening here:

You’re on trial for bank robbery and murder.

The jury convicts for the bank robbery and acquits for the murder.

Can the judge consider the alleged, but not proved to the jury’s satisfaction, murder in sentencing you for the bank robbery?

@mdekstrand @maxkennerly
Why have a jury at all then?