Kimberley Isbell (she/her)Jan 13, 2023
Max Kennerly

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
Jan 12, 2023 at 9:41pmWeb
Show threadKee HinckleyJan 12, 2023
@maxkennerly That’s right up there with “Having a cell full of feces isn’t cruel and unusual punishment because that wasn’t an official part of the sentence.”
Show threadTazorJan 12, 2023

@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?

Show threadTorbjörn BjörkmanJan 12, 2023

@Tazor @maxkennerly My understanding is that if you're found guilty of something, they can take the fact that you were accused of other stuff too to be aggravating circumstances at sentencing, even if you were acquitted of said other stuff.

Which is insane. But it seems to me that's what clever US law people whom I otherwise believe keep writing.

Show threadTazorJan 12, 2023

@TorbjornBjorkman @maxkennerly

"Guilty until proven innocent.. but still guilty"

The US doesn't have a justice system.. because that would require there to be justice. It just has a criminal system, where everyone is criminal, but the rich avoid punishment.

Show threadJim DoppkeJan 12, 2023
@Tazor @maxkennerly Say a defendant is charged with multiple crimes in the same case, and is found not guilty of some of them, but guilty of others. When sentencing the defendant, the judge can still consider *all* of the charges, even the ones on which he was found not guilty.
Show threadTazorJan 12, 2023

@jimdoppke @maxkennerly

And nobody has thought to change this? Because that sounds like the opposite of justice..

Show threadJim DoppkeJan 12, 2023
@Tazor @maxkennerly it's not great! The article says change may be happening now. I hope so.
Show threadMichael EkstrandJan 12, 2023

@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?

Show threadTazorJan 12, 2023
@mdekstrand @maxkennerly
Why have a jury at all then?
Show threadDaniel AJ SokolovJan 12, 2023
@Tazor @maxkennerly Yes and no. That's what happened to #OJ Simpson. From memory: He tried to get back memorabilia that had been stolen from him; his company had baseball bats or something. That type of company was meant to convince the thieves to hand the stolen items back. Although Simpson was not armed, he was convicted for armed robbery.
However. his #sentence for that #crime was extra long, because of a previous thing Simpson had been #acquitted of. You may have heard about it.
Show threadddouglasJan 12, 2023
@maxkennerly AFAIK there is zero rationality behind sentencing in the US. No logic, no goal. If you watch Dragnet, you will, however, discover that, excluding the death penalty, sentences were much shorter in the 50s, 60s.