Ron DeSantis thinks the Proud Boy leaders of the January 6 insurrection have received unfairly harsh sentences. I agree with him. However, we have very different reasons for thinking the sentences should be shorter.
DeSantis says that BLM protesters who broke the law got lenient sentences, so the Proud Boys should too. But this doesn't account for the fact that BLM protesters weren't explicitly trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a presidential election. Of course the Proud Boys got longer sentences than the BLM folks.
By contrast, I believe that all American criminal sentencing is far harsher than makes sense. I'd cut every single state and federal sentencing guideline in half—and some maybe more. This would reduce prison populations; cut human suffering; and have no effect on deterrence.
So DeSantis and I are on the same side. But we could hardly have more different reasons.
I agree with Kevin entirely in his statement, but not in this specific circumstance.
I think 22 years should be the minimum sentence for any one of them.
We already see many of these idiots out of jail and utterly unrepentant, and making a career out of it.
You and meatball Ron do not agree at all.
He thinks sentences should be harsher than they are except for his friends.
You think sentences should be shorter for everybody, including meatball R's friends.
Let's ask John Brown, just before he was hung for his Harper's Ferry insurrection in 1859, if their sentences were too harsh.
Right?!
I'll also ask Meatball Ron and the rest of the apologists for cop-killing mobs about this sentence:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/texas-woman-sentenced-five-years-trying-vote-gets-new-appeal-n1262691
Tis a trip and skip for thee, but a slog and epoch for me!
What makes you think that cutting the sentences recommendations in half would make a difference? The sentences given have already been roughly half of the sentencing recommendations. If the sentence recommendations were cut in half, the judges might just start abiding by them.
I don’t think the sentences were excessive for violently trying to overturn an election.
There's a very large difference between sentencing guidelines, which are directions to sentencing judges that are written into law, and sentencing recommendations, which are just lawyers' positions on the appropriate sentence. Prosecutors usually recommend sentences at the high end of the range set by the sentencing guidelines, emphasizing the aggravating factors in the case, while defence lawyers usually seek sentences at the low end of the range, emphasizing mitigating factors. It's the sentencing judge's job to balance the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence within the range set by the sentencing guidelines.
This is not limited to 1/6 cases. In any case where there is a range of sentences available, it's unusual for the sentencing judge to agree entirely with either party's position. Sentences usually come out somewhere in between.
In the case where prosecutors generally recommend sentences in the upper ranges of the guidelines, I would think it's okay to colloquially conflate the two.
There is no valid comparison between BLM and the bois.
The BLM did not break into the Capitol of the United States of America. Through police lines. To interrupt or stop official proceedings.
Not only that, investigations turned up that the violence and vandalism at several BLM protests in 2020 were initiated by right-wing agents-provocateur attempting to turn marches into violent melees with the police to derail the protests, not anyone affiliated with BLM.
And the few BLM people convicted for actual violence did get a year in prison.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/18/us/lawyer-molotov-cocktail-protest-prison-sentence/index.html
And they weren't convicted of leading an armed insurrection. Just property damage. There was no plot to burn actual police. Or really, a plot.
And murder Congress.
It was about trying to overthrow the government, not merely 'interrupt an official proceeding'.
Have to agree, you're giving Puddin' too much credit.
Bootsie believes criminal justice should be revamped to support his political and social engineering goals. That is all.
You believe the US is ridiculously addicted to overly-punitive incarceration. (I agree and would add that it is also the horrific "fix" for a broken-to-nonexistent mental health system for non-wealthy people in crisis.)
There is one form of sentencing for deterrence: have the perpetrator suffer as much as those he has inflicted on others.
Essentially punishment of equal measure. This has interesting game theory aspects. Tit-for-tat is a strategy that prevents malicious actors from benefiting, no matter what counter-strategy they deploy. It is the most effective strategy. So why not use it?
Unclear why Kevin wants to "cut human suffering" if that amount of suffering is required to deter future (similar) transgressions.
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" has NOT proved to have significant deterrent effect.
I'd say their sentences are too long, but it seems like if they get a sentence less than five years, they avoid jail time altogether.
And they need to be out of circulation in the next two election cycles.
If it were up to me I would have shot them in the head and thrown them in the ocean. Traitors should get what traitors deserve. Trying to overthrow democracy is the greatest crime.
As it happens these are first 1/6 sentences I have seen that actually seem to approach what they deserve for their crimes. You sir are a fool.
+1
Heh. He said excessive.
https://web3isgoinggreat.com/single/thodex-ceo-sentenced
You will be treated differently if you break into a house vs if you break into the White House. Context matters.
I would hope that you would be punished more severely for breaking into a house. The White House is heavily guarded by armed, trained personnel, whereas the occupants of "a house" are almost certainly not nearly as able to defend their property. Taking advantage of weakness is an aggravating factor, or should be.
By that logic, cop-killers should receive lesser sentences than killers of innocent bystanders. That wouldn't go over well with a lot of people. However, if I frame it differently and say that the killing of an innocent bystander should be treated more harshly than the killing of an armed police officer, that would sound less objectionable (at least to you).
DeSantis campaign puts out t-shirt advertising how he wants to kill people, and promoting that idea for the kind of people who would wear such a thing,
https://secure.winred.com/desantis/storefront/stone-cold-dead-black-100-cotton-t-shirt/details/
He also talked about slitting the throats of government employees. I take him at his word. He is a depraved maniac who openly talks about murdering people. The warning signs are there. No one should be surprised when he actually does it.
I rather suspect the heavy handed sentencing is to discourage this sort of conduct to ever happen. These folks are the example of what will happen if you do. That is why I am for it.
Now, if we could provide t-Rump with a huge sentence.
Haven't seen any sentencing of Proud Boys coming close to the upper end of the sentencing guidelines. Tarrio, as the ringleader, got 22 years; Justice asked for 33. That was after being adjusted upwards for terrorism enhancement.
If you want to change federal sentencing, start with probation availability timelines, not sentencing.
Earlier probation availability induces good behavior for those who might be incentivized to be good in prison. Those are the people you want to pull out of prison sooner than later.
That's not how the sentencing guidelines work. They're a points system.