3 fucking years for the same crime. Difference was this guy was older, Latino, and poor.
:sigh:
http://distractify.com/news/2016/06/28/stanford-rape-judge
:sigh:
http://distractify.com/news/2016/06/28/stanford-rape-judge
Only getting three years for rape is a travesty too.3 fucking years for the same crime. Difference was this guy was older, Latino, and poor.
:sigh:
http://distractify.com/news/2016/06/28/stanford-rape-judge
Maybe not at the micro level.I don't think you can really compare any case to another.
Circumstances can be different. Even minute differences can matter. That's why mandatory minimums are bad (among other reasons.)Maybe not at the micro level.
Care to expand on why?
Fully agree on mandatory minimums. How do you reconcile that POV with legal precedent, though? Or ensuring that there is a sense of equality within the legal system?Circumstances can be different. Even minute differences can matter. That's why mandatory minimums are bad (among other reasons.)
Not sure I follow your line of legal precedent questioning. And I think there is generally always equality in the legal system. It does move much slower than the rest of society as judges are generally old.Fully agree on mandatory minimums. How do you reconcile that POV with legal precedent, though? Or ensuring that there is a sense of equality within the legal system?
I might be interpreting your initial comment differently than you intended.
The way I read it, if you can't compare cases from a sentencing standpoint then due to the differing circumstances the legal machinations from one case cannot be used in the other. Accordingly legal precedent is a shambles
As for equality, if both parties have the ability to hire the same quality of legal representation and the judge is honest, I'd agree with you
^^ and if all members of thebjury are unbiased, which many biased people don't even realize they are because they're not always conscious biases. things like allowing appearance to weigh on the decision, which someone would be like heck no I wouldn't do that, and they mean it, but it's a subconscious thing that sometimes happens anywayI might be interpreting your initial comment differently than you intended.
The way I read it, if you can't compare cases from a sentencing standpoint then due to the differing circumstances the legal machinations from one case cannot be used in the other. Accordingly legal precedent is a shambles
As for equality, if both parties have the ability to hire the same quality of legal representation and the judge is honest, I'd agree with you
^^ and if all members of thebjury are unbiased, which many biased people don't even realize they are because they're not always conscious biases. things like allowing appearance to weigh on the decision, which someone would be like heck no I wouldn't do that, and they mean it, but it's a subconscious thing that sometimes happens anyway