Judge Rudy Contreras said it wasn't tough to imagine former President Donald Trump issuing what a Jan. 6 defendant referred to as another “call to battle."
Federal sentencing guidelines are more an algebra equation the Judge plugs various values into rather than a decision they make. The bulk of those are based solely on set things like the limits for the specific charges and previous criminal history.
The “book” needs to come from prosecutors being able to actually prove all their charges. Prosecutors don’t want to bring charges unless they know they can win, especially if evidence is shaky or not 100%, double jeopardy means a fast prosecution with limited or largely circumstantial evidence could let a criminal walk and never be tried again.
If they don’t follow the guidelines then the sentence will just be appealed and replaced with one that does. Sentencing guidelines are about trying to remove biases like race in the sentencing process.
As for remorse, yes, that is one part of the guidelines that is left up to the judge to determine. Again however, the Judge doesn’t just get to decide how much to reduce the sentence, the requirements for reduction are specified in the guidelines.
For instance:
Acceptance of Responsibility
3E1.1(a)
(a) If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by 2 levels.
and yet it’s the judge’s determination if that’s true or clear. There are other subjective qualifies that a judge could use to wiggle.
you’re right they can’t just slap a life sentence onto something that would ordinarily call for five years. But they can adjust things. Too much of this has been in the insurrectionist favor where others would be absolutely wrecked by the courts. So clearly, their bias is showing.
Yup! It’s a decent enough system that sets ranges and expectations for pretty much all levels of criminal activity. Because these expectations exist, prosecutors can more easily set a target. It has been something of a shame that the bigger, scary words aren’t being used. Instead we’re getting smaller sentencing. While still justice, and with some harsher sentences handed out for a few people, questions are still hanging in the air. Many of them people who don’t understand how so many people appear to be getting off lightly.
Assuming things progress according to plan, these last few years will be a fantastic documentary or history chapter. Hopefully. The other directly opposite possibility holds a lot of uncertainty as well.
That’s not really how it works unfortunately.
Federal sentencing guidelines are more an algebra equation the Judge plugs various values into rather than a decision they make. The bulk of those are based solely on set things like the limits for the specific charges and previous criminal history.
https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2023-guidelines-manual-annotated
The “book” needs to come from prosecutors being able to actually prove all their charges. Prosecutors don’t want to bring charges unless they know they can win, especially if evidence is shaky or not 100%, double jeopardy means a fast prosecution with limited or largely circumstantial evidence could let a criminal walk and never be tried again.
“Guidelines”;
They do have some wiggle room. Like “oh you feel remorseful so I’m going to knock time off”
If they don’t follow the guidelines then the sentence will just be appealed and replaced with one that does. Sentencing guidelines are about trying to remove biases like race in the sentencing process.
As for remorse, yes, that is one part of the guidelines that is left up to the judge to determine. Again however, the Judge doesn’t just get to decide how much to reduce the sentence, the requirements for reduction are specified in the guidelines.
For instance:
and yet it’s the judge’s determination if that’s true or clear. There are other subjective qualifies that a judge could use to wiggle.
you’re right they can’t just slap a life sentence onto something that would ordinarily call for five years. But they can adjust things. Too much of this has been in the insurrectionist favor where others would be absolutely wrecked by the courts. So clearly, their bias is showing.
Yup! It’s a decent enough system that sets ranges and expectations for pretty much all levels of criminal activity. Because these expectations exist, prosecutors can more easily set a target. It has been something of a shame that the bigger, scary words aren’t being used. Instead we’re getting smaller sentencing. While still justice, and with some harsher sentences handed out for a few people, questions are still hanging in the air. Many of them people who don’t understand how so many people appear to be getting off lightly.
Assuming things progress according to plan, these last few years will be a fantastic documentary or history chapter. Hopefully. The other directly opposite possibility holds a lot of uncertainty as well.