black321 wrote:
That's what "judging" is.  There is no way to "automate" everything, and decisions made by judges throughout an entire case (evidence, testimony, witnesses) ultimately has influence on the outcomes.

 black321 wrote:
As long as it's done by humans it will be subjective. I'd like to see a judge's justification for the severity of punishment. That also creates grounds for appeal.

If we're ok with allowing judges to impose harsher or more lenient sentences based on constitutionally-protected (or even irrelevant) behavior then we need to be ok with judges doing so on things like race, class, ethnicity, immigration status, height, hotness, or participation in the court's annual office chili cook-off. We aren't.

 Lazy8 wrote:

So even if the ranges were narrowed, there is still subjective rulings based on whether someone says they are no longer involved in politics, drugs, domestic abuse... Regardless, bringing the matter more into the light does put pressure on judges to act appropriately. 

 black321 wrote:
We've tried that. On the federal level we had complicated formulae for calculating punishments that tied judges' hands, and the Supremes ruled that unconstitutional for good reason.

We have absurdly wide ranges of punishment on the books, mostly absurdly high. This gives a judge a lot of power to abuse. Sentencing reform should start with that.

 Steely_D wrote:
Is there? Yes, there are statutes on various books enhancing punishment for hate crimes. Ought there be? Oh hell no.

I don't think it's worse to murder someone because you hate them than to murder them for the change in their pockets, and I see no deterrent value in enhanced penalties, at least for serious crimes. If you're willing to risk felony charges to express your hatred then adding more to your sentence isn't going to make you think twice.

It's also ripe for abuse. Great way to ratchet up the pressure to get a plea deal, and it means some crime victims get their perps punished harder than others for the exact same act. It can turn a barroom brawl into a federal case, and it can hinge on what would otherwise be constitutionally-protected speech.

We can never know what's in another person's heart. We shouldn't ask juries to pretend to have moral x-ray vision.

 Lazy8 wrote:

We have individual judges who make all sorts of subjective decisions with cases.  It would seem to deal with your complaint, you would need to eliminate such discretion?

 haresfur wrote:
To answer your question: political participation should have absolutely no bearing on sentencing for a crime. If a defendant gets lighter sentencing for forswearing political participation then it did.

This is not complicated, there is no nuance here. Absent a sentencing document justifying the penalty decision we have no way of knowing if it did or didn't, but it absolutely shouldn't.

 Lazy8 wrote:
Well, I asked you a simple question and got an obtuse answer. And my answer to your question may depend on your answer to mine. Nuances.

 Lazy8 wrote:

A parallel question: should punishment be different for "hate" crimes? This, to me, is the exact same question you're asking but set up in an emotional powder keg. But the same question: If a person murders another because of their beliefs, is it a "worse" crime deserving a commensurate punishment? 

That is, is there ThoughtCrime?

 Lazy8 wrote:
Is our legal system there to enforce a political orthodoxy and punish those with different views? No. Is it there to protect the rights of everyone? Yes. Should the defendant’s politics enter into the way we’re treated in court? No.

Sentencing by a judge involves a number of factors and an element of subjectivity. One of those factors is whether a defendant is remorseful. Evaluating the sincerity of expressions of remorse includes considering and interpreting pre-sentencing statements made by a defendant in context. If, for example, Pezzola had raised his fist and yelled “Trump won” as part of his pre-sentencing statement, there is a good chance that would have been considered by the judge to be an expression of defiance that would have cast doubt on his expressions of regret and possibly resulted in the imposition of an increased sentence. If so, that would not, in my view, be an instance of the judge punishing Pezzola for having differing political views.

 Lazy8 wrote:

No. His politics shouldn't matter. But his politics here put him in conflict with the law. If your politics inspires you to commit a crime, should you not be tried because your inspiration was political?  

And again, he got leniency. His sentence is below guidelines and recommendations. Apparently 'because politics', and we don't want to appear to be persecuting people who are political. His outburst had no impact on the outcome. So I would say his politics didn't make much difference. 

 Lazy8 wrote:

"I'm trying to provoke some introspection, some reflection on what the goal of a legal system should be. Is it there to enforce a political orthodoxy and punish those with different views, or is it there to protect the rights of everyone?"


The US legal system—and all legitimate legal systems—has the authority and responsibility to protect the rights of everyone. It should not punish those with "different views."

But I'm not sure how you think those principles that you and I (apparently) agree on should apply to the prosecution of Pezzola and other Proud Boys taking part in the January 6 2021 storming of the Capitol. Pezzola and Nordean (the guy sentenced at the same time as Pezzola) had and have the right to believe that Trump won and that the 2020 election was false. They DID NOT and DO NOT have the right to commit violence, trespass, obstruct a government proceeding, etc. regardless of whether their belief about the 2020 election was the basis for their criminal actions.

If you're asking your question because you think the US courts are suppressing or punishing rightful and legal acts as expression of political beliefs, I don't see it. US courts have long protected the rights of people expressing "different" or even repugnant political and social beliefs. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...  See also https://www.aclu.org/issues/fr...

Your question does bring up interesting issues about the limits of legally accepted civil disobedience, though. Nordean got a longer sentence because he was actively involved in the organization of the Proud Boys actions at the Jan. 6 rally. I believe he was convicted of seditious conspiracy.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/p...

Washington — The one-time president of the far-right Proud Boys group Enrique Tarrio and three subordinates were convicted of numerous felonies including seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

A federal jury in Washington, D.C. found Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Zachary Rehl and Joseph Biggs guilty of conspiring to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden and using force and prior planning to hinder the 2020 presidential election certification.

The jury initially did not find a verdict for the fifth defendant, Dominic Pezzola, on the most serious charge, seditious conspiracy, and they were sent back to deliberate by Judge Timothy Kelly. After several hours, they found him not guilty of seditious conspiracy, but remained hung on whether he was part of the conspiracy to obstruct. They sent a note to the judge that after lengthy discussions, all jurors firmly agree that further discussions" will not yield agreement and they were dismissed.

All five were found guilty of several other felonies, including obstructing an official proceeding; obstructing Congress; conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging duties; obstruction of law
enforcement during civil disorder and aiding and abetting and destruction of government property. But the jury was hung on a total of 10 counts, and a mistrial was declared on those charges.

 Lazy8 wrote:  
A-ha! An Objectivist! I knew it!

 haresfur wrote:
I'm asking a question. A very simple question. It seems to me to be in very plain language. Most of the respondents are trying very hard to answer some different question, and are failing/refusing to answer the one asked.

That question has an obvious answer—well, obvious to me anyway—but that doesn't make it rhetorical. I'm trying to provoke some introspection, some reflection on what the goal of a legal system should be. Is it there to enforce a political orthodoxy and punish those with different views, or is it there to protect the rights of everyone?

I seem to have mostly failed, and I find this disheartening.

 islander wrote:
I think in a calmer moment Pezzola would say that he believes Trump won but regrets resorting to violence in order to express that belief. 

He was acquitted of the seditious conspiracy charge so the court was not sentencing him for criminally acting on his political beliefs.

Whether people want to doubt him in the court of public opinion is another matter. Personally, I'm willing to believe the sincerity of his contrition. I'm guessing he's clinging to the notion that Trump won out of an attempt to salvage some confused justification for  going to that rally. 

Either way it's f*#king awful that Trump screwed up so many people's lives because he couldn't handle losing like a man. What a disgusting, loathsome creature.

 kcar wrote:

If anything it indicates that the sentence was reduced to be consistent with other lower than recommended sentences of other 1/6 convicts. Which seems odd in general. 

He certainly can have regret for his actions and still feel that trump won. But it makes the argument for leniency weak, as one is a justification for the other - how much regret can he have if he is still claiming hold to the wrong justification he used to riot in the first place?  

Again, the politics and the crime are pretty interlinked here. Are we to absolve him of the crime because it was motivated by his politics?

Not to beat a nearly dead horse but I don't believe the article provides sufficient evidence for a reader to say that the judge's sentencing decision was influenced by Pezzola's claim to have given up politics. Judge Kellly might have ignored that statement entirely. Maybe he didn't. 

I think the NPR journalist Jaclyn Diaz found it newsworthy and revealing that Pezzola yelled "Trump won!" after being sentenced. Diaz might have been trying to suggest to her readers that Pezzola's claim to have given up politics was insincere.  

I think it's quite possible that Pezzola truly regretted his criminal actions (and the effects it had on his family) but still sincerely believed that Trump won. He's got a right to think both things at the same time. Again, personally, I wonder how willfully uninformed he's chosen to be when it comes to his opinion on the 2020 election results. 

 Lazy8 wrote:

Generally - No. I would add that is conditional on your politics not leading you to commit crimes to support your candidates/ideals.   If my politics are 'my candidate wins or we riot until they we overrule the will of the people', then yeah, that impacts how you get treated in court.  In this case, if it weren't for his politics, he probably wouldn't be in court, so it's difficult to extract the politics from the crime.

In this particular case, he pleaded for leniency for his crimes, that were in part inspired by his politics. He got a somewhat lessened sentence presumably due to his plea which included "I have given up on politics", maybe meaning he learned that politics don't trump (ha) law?. He then yelled "Trump won", which seems to indicate he hasn't really given up politics. So given that he has demonstrated that his plea for leniency wasn't sincere, should he still be granted leniency?

 kcar wrote:
But he brought up giving up politics in his request for leniency. Part and parcel of the same thing - at his instigation. Shouting that trump won, in open court at a sentencing hearing with widespread interest and news coverage, is inherently a political act, not just a political belief. 

In any case, it made no difference to his sentence. It just means that he is another right-wing hypocrite.

 kcar wrote:
There's no room in this forum for thoughtful analysis. Please don't set a precedent.