This isn’t a verdict, it is sentencing. He has already been found guilty. If the sentence matches what others have gotten for the same crimes, there is no bias.
By failing to do so, he has at best delayed justice, and if Trump should win, has essentially nullified the jury’s verdict.
This feels reminiscent of Camu’s “The Guest.” The judge was given a job to do, and by waiting until the hard decision solves itself without his involvement, now all sides will feel this judge is a traitor.
I thought general consensus is he isn’t realistically looking at jail time for this?
I don’t ever expect him to actually be held accountable, sadly. I just want to see the justice system actually functioning in a way that protects this country as a whole. Trump did a ton of damage personally to this country, but to see the entire court system, the only thing we have to stave off change through less civil means, is a pure joke is the greater tragedy for me.
We could always theorize the laws and voting and our representatives would prevent something like this former presidency from ruining our country, but what have we seen but paper tigers?
I think his crimes hold a maximum of 4 years in prison. But not a single person charged for them the first time has gotten prison time and usually get probabtion and a fine.
The take by the legal experts back while the trial was ongoing all said with no priors and it being nonviolent crime that none of them expected him to see prison.
But if we never get him convicted of any crimes, it won’t matter very much.
If there’s no sentence, was there a point to a trial?
This whole circus is held up on the fact the Supreme Court is entertaining the idea that any of the things he’s charged with (or convicted of) can pass as him doing the job he was elected to do.
If he wins, this sentencing date will never come, and neither will any of the others. His acts will be officially sanctioned, and the only ones being sentenced will be us.
Nobody else has his track record for repeatedly breaking laws though. His organization is criminal. His CFO has already done time twice. So did the lawyer representing him in this literal affair.
If Michael Cohen did time for the same crimes, Trump will do time for ordering Cohen to commit the crimes.
Will it be the maximum of 4 years? Likely not. And he’ll do whatever is necessary to not serve the full time, whatever it is.
While I am not a defender of Trump, I think this decision is largely reasonable. It’s essentially punting sentencing to the court of public opinion. That’s the ultimate “justice”.
Here’s the thing, he’s already convicted of the crimes. The voting public knows this. If the voting public still votes him in , they’re essentially saying they’re okay with the crimes he’s committed. You really can’t get a better court of public opinion than a national election like this.
Have we not seen the Russian funding of right wing networks and the seizing of disinformation websites this week?
Not everyone votes or can really give an informed vote.
If Trump wins, do we accept he’s now unpunishable for his crimes? If the voting majority supported him, do the rest of us suffer his promised revenge on his critics?
This is why we have a legal system supposedly. We have people who are supposed to enforce laws impartially and in a timely manner. The right to a speedy and fair trial, for both the plaintiffs and defendants. Justice delayed is justice denied.
I don’t want a bunch of biased legal know nothings determining justice. That’s some warlord stuff.
Laws are also supposed to protect from the tyranny of the majority as well. It’s also supposed to protect the powerless from overstepping authority, like a rogue president.
I’m no fan of lawyers, cops, or legislators, but I certainly don’t want to live in a place with no law.
Unless you forget an /s, I feel this is a bad take.
Generally, “unfair justice”, like mob justice is assessed by undue, unjust, or extreme punishment. Lack of punishment is not “unfair justice”. The US goes as fair to explicitly ban “double jeopardy” as it does not want “innocent “ people to face undue hardship.
In this case, the possible punishment is 100% within the legal system. At worst, trump receives the same punishment as any other criminal convicted of the same crimes. At best, Trump receives a lighter punishment as the result of the election. There is nothing undue or just about a lighter punishment.
Mob justice is a problem as it doesn’t allow for due process and proper representation. The “convicted” often ends up with non-reversible punishment (like mutilation or death) based on arbitrary “mobs”. Since the only outcome here is a reduced sentence, there isn’t an argument for mob justice.
TLDR: mob justice and similar “undue trials” really only care about wrongful convictions. Wrongful “not guilty” decision are not a “problem”
That is absolutely mob justice. You’re outsourcing the decision to the mob. People who aren’t privy to what happened in court, to the evidence, to anything. In fact, you’re disregarding actual justice, that has reached a verdict, and replacing it with the opinion of the ill informed mob. That’s the mobbest justice to ever mob.
What does public opinion have to do with law? That’s not how the justice system works. Convictions mean nothing without sentencing. This only further erodes people’s faith in the system. This decision is nothing but cowardice.
The court system is loosely based on public opinion. Since it’s unreasonable to gather the public’s opinion, a jury is selected to represent “the public”.
In this case, the election essentially allows you to get the actually public’s opinion. You literally cant get closer to true “court of public opinion” that having a nationwide vote on a recently convicted individual candidacy.
That’s a bit of a stretch. A jury adheres closely to the facts, is educated about the relevant subjects, and there are penalties for unreasonable behavior. “Public opinion” does not override anything. It is not okay to break the law just because a cult disagrees or doesn’t care. They can vote for change to the laws, but until they are actually changed everyone must follow them.
This isn’t a verdict, it is sentencing. He has already been found guilty. If the sentence matches what others have gotten for the same crimes, there is no bias.
By failing to do so, he has at best delayed justice, and if Trump should win, has essentially nullified the jury’s verdict.
This feels reminiscent of Camu’s “The Guest.” The judge was given a job to do, and by waiting until the hard decision solves itself without his involvement, now all sides will feel this judge is a traitor.
This judge is a traitor
I think the idea is that on sentencing they’re just going to take him into custody so they don’t want to give him the “election interference!” out.
I thought general consensus is he isn’t realistically looking at jail time for this?
I don’t ever expect him to actually be held accountable, sadly. I just want to see the justice system actually functioning in a way that protects this country as a whole. Trump did a ton of damage personally to this country, but to see the entire court system, the only thing we have to stave off change through less civil means, is a pure joke is the greater tragedy for me.
We could always theorize the laws and voting and our representatives would prevent something like this former presidency from ruining our country, but what have we seen but paper tigers?
I think his crimes hold a maximum of 4 years in prison. But not a single person charged for them the first time has gotten prison time and usually get probabtion and a fine.
You’re correct on all those points.
The take by the legal experts back while the trial was ongoing all said with no priors and it being nonviolent crime that none of them expected him to see prison.
But if we never get him convicted of any crimes, it won’t matter very much.
Texhnicslly, if we never see him sentenced for his convictions it won’t matter. He has 34 convictions.
If there’s no sentence, was there a point to a trial?
This whole circus is held up on the fact the Supreme Court is entertaining the idea that any of the things he’s charged with (or convicted of) can pass as him doing the job he was elected to do.
If he wins, this sentencing date will never come, and neither will any of the others. His acts will be officially sanctioned, and the only ones being sentenced will be us.
I agree completely, just wanted to make sure it was clear that he has been convicted.
Understood. I could have expressed that better.
Nobody else has his track record for repeatedly breaking laws though. His organization is criminal. His CFO has already done time twice. So did the lawyer representing him in this literal affair.
If Michael Cohen did time for the same crimes, Trump will do time for ordering Cohen to commit the crimes.
Will it be the maximum of 4 years? Likely not. And he’ll do whatever is necessary to not serve the full time, whatever it is.
While I am not a defender of Trump, I think this decision is largely reasonable. It’s essentially punting sentencing to the court of public opinion. That’s the ultimate “justice”.
Here’s the thing, he’s already convicted of the crimes. The voting public knows this. If the voting public still votes him in , they’re essentially saying they’re okay with the crimes he’s committed. You really can’t get a better court of public opinion than a national election like this.
Is that not mob justice?
Have we not seen the Russian funding of right wing networks and the seizing of disinformation websites this week?
Not everyone votes or can really give an informed vote.
If Trump wins, do we accept he’s now unpunishable for his crimes? If the voting majority supported him, do the rest of us suffer his promised revenge on his critics?
This is why we have a legal system supposedly. We have people who are supposed to enforce laws impartially and in a timely manner. The right to a speedy and fair trial, for both the plaintiffs and defendants. Justice delayed is justice denied.
I don’t want a bunch of biased legal know nothings determining justice. That’s some warlord stuff.
Laws are also supposed to protect from the tyranny of the majority as well. It’s also supposed to protect the powerless from overstepping authority, like a rogue president.
I’m no fan of lawyers, cops, or legislators, but I certainly don’t want to live in a place with no law.
Unless you forget an /s, I feel this is a bad take.
No, it’s not mob justice.
Generally, “unfair justice”, like mob justice is assessed by undue, unjust, or extreme punishment. Lack of punishment is not “unfair justice”. The US goes as fair to explicitly ban “double jeopardy” as it does not want “innocent “ people to face undue hardship.
In this case, the possible punishment is 100% within the legal system. At worst, trump receives the same punishment as any other criminal convicted of the same crimes. At best, Trump receives a lighter punishment as the result of the election. There is nothing undue or just about a lighter punishment.
Mob justice is a problem as it doesn’t allow for due process and proper representation. The “convicted” often ends up with non-reversible punishment (like mutilation or death) based on arbitrary “mobs”. Since the only outcome here is a reduced sentence, there isn’t an argument for mob justice.
TLDR: mob justice and similar “undue trials” really only care about wrongful convictions. Wrongful “not guilty” decision are not a “problem”
That is absolutely mob justice. You’re outsourcing the decision to the mob. People who aren’t privy to what happened in court, to the evidence, to anything. In fact, you’re disregarding actual justice, that has reached a verdict, and replacing it with the opinion of the ill informed mob. That’s the mobbest justice to ever mob.
What does public opinion have to do with law? That’s not how the justice system works. Convictions mean nothing without sentencing. This only further erodes people’s faith in the system. This decision is nothing but cowardice.
It’s sure as fuck eroding mine!
The court system is loosely based on public opinion. Since it’s unreasonable to gather the public’s opinion, a jury is selected to represent “the public”.
In this case, the election essentially allows you to get the actually public’s opinion. You literally cant get closer to true “court of public opinion” that having a nationwide vote on a recently convicted individual candidacy.
That’s a bit of a stretch. A jury adheres closely to the facts, is educated about the relevant subjects, and there are penalties for unreasonable behavior. “Public opinion” does not override anything. It is not okay to break the law just because a cult disagrees or doesn’t care. They can vote for change to the laws, but until they are actually changed everyone must follow them.