politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Thank you for a level-headed critical thought about the article, rather than the rest of the trash in this comment section which is nearly universally just knee-jerk mindless outrage.
That being said, I would be curious, like you, how this compares to typical trials.
Also, as some allude to in the article, this is actually a good thing because it absolutely undercuts the maga cultist outrage that this is an out of control judiciary handing out excessive punishments to political prisoners. Not that the facts will get to them, but at least I have the facts to confirm it.
No, I don't think it's a good thing that traitors got less than they deserved just so we can push back on an argument that magats don't care two shits about and will parrot on and on anyway.
The vast majority of people on J6 were idiots in a mob situation, not traitors.
As OP said, fuck all of them, but aggressive prosecution here is not the way you want the law to work, the same way there's no gain for imprisoning everyone who acted out of pocket during the Floyd protests.
You throw the book at the worst offenders, and you let people caught up in mob mentality off with a lesser sentence. That is justice working.
They were armed traitors looking to take control of the capitol in an organized way, cause the disruption of government, with the aim to capture and harm government officials. That's literally the definition of a revolt against authority. It was done in their own stupid way but they tried it and failed because they were stupid. Aggressive prosecution is the precisely how you don't let it happen again.
Are you for real.
This has literally never been true about any crime
Yes, Republicans notably used those riots to demand harsher penalties. You don't remember the mythical burning cities?
This is not a regular crime and it isn't fueled by an actual need that leads to any sort of direct personal gain, like drug trafficking or even murder. It's the literal destabilization of a country. Republicans have learned that there are no real consequences to bad behavior, but that their role model Trump can behave badly and get preferential treatment which in my opinion fuels their belief that they have done nothing wrong.
I'm saying, are you for real invoking the Floyd Protests to gain some sort of reaction out of commenters? It's quite the hot button issue to just casually name-drop without elaborating your point. People can get the wrong idea.
Okay I can see that position, I just happen to disagree. I don't see any benefit from them getting very strict sentences, and I see a potential benefits from the leniency. This is actually how I generally feel about the legal system tho. You probably come from the philosophy that it should be very punitive.
Yes, I do "come from the philosophy" that one should not attempt an insurrection because a lying orange man said so. I wouldn't extrapolate beyond that, though.
I think many of us simply struggle with the legal system being extra "punitive" to black, brown, and occasionally poor white people while being the opposite to white criminals, especially of the not-poor variety.
This is a well-reaearched academic legal theory known as critical race theory. It's definitely worth looking up sometime.
Are you arguing that because the legal system is unjust to some people, we should cheer on more injustice? The fact that the system is biased against racial minorities, and what a failure that has been, is exactly why I think more lenient sentences make sense.
I think it's less about the frothing at the mouth folks that are too far gone to rationally evaluate any circumstance.
It's about every other person watching. It may sound ludicrous, but imagine if they had executed every last person that set foot in the capital building that day, and managed to do so within a few months of the incident. I think a lot of people might say "holy shit, they had a point, I thought they were crazy but that was an insane authoritarian response".
Different people have different thresholds for their tipping point for "government is overreacting and threatening free speech", and from what I've seen in the cases I could find, I think they did a fairly good job of typical judicial results. Some of the key people responsible got years in prison. Random people who just followed the crowd without any evidence of committing assault or vandalism or intent to do those things (just trespassing and repeating seditious channts), and for whom this was a first offense, ok they might have gotten probation.
Leniency is pretty common in the justice system under various circumstances, and this seems about the normal amount.
I don't think anybody in their right mind would call for an execution when the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I don't know where you got that idea. But more sensibly, people have gone to prison for longer for less and that's what really makes no sense. You're absolutely right, though, I do take an insurrection as seriously as we should.
You know there are black and brown people sentenced to life in prison for having been arrested for having cannabis on them, right? In what world do you think Americans care about the encroaching police state? Or is that not an authoritarian response, for some reason?
It's always nuts to see "certain" Americans struggle to see any of the melanin in their fellow countrymen' skin or just blatantly ignore it.
It's obviously because they're all fuckin White, dude. How are some Americans still so damn clueless?
I can't be sure, but from what little I've seen of judges in action, I would guess substantially... but perhaps not for the reason we think.
Yes lack of remorse is a major component to sentencing, but so are a few other things that I think work on 1/6 rioters' favor. Likelihood to reoffend is arguably low because 1/6 was uniquely stupid. Being told by a US president to commit the crime is arguably somewhat mitigating (to the person, not to the president). These crimes were committed in what ostensibly could (should) have been a peaceful protest that got out of hand, so judges might question the severity of premeditation. All of these are typically valid reasons to lighten up sentencing. And then there's a sadly invalid one that probably mattered - light-skinned people are sentenced lighter than dark-skinned ones, and most of the 1/6 protestors were white.
In aggregate, there is value to going hard on all the traitors. Of individual offenders, it might be a more difficult place for a judge to sit, for both good and terrible reasons. But importantly, there's a lot of argument that we're not looking at judges that thought 1/6 was "perfectly fine". Such a judge would more likely find an excuse to dismiss (with or without prejudice) if they think the case is moving towards prosecution. We have simply not seen a lot of that.
I'll generally agree with your stance, but here I'd say there's also value in not going too hard on the traitors. There's a balance.
You go too hard ("fullest extent of the law") and you may inspire some people to say "hmm, that seemed overboard, maybe they have a point about the government oppressing them after all".
From what I've seen, almost half of the cases got real prison time, and the rest got probation or house arrest. Cherry picking a few cases and I think it's consistent with your expectation. A serial offender that helped organize and incited violence would generally get years in prison. Someone who just walked with the crowd as others actually did the initial breaking in, who did not seem to commit violence themselves, who did not steal or vandalize anything, for whom this is a first offense, that seemed genuinely sorry or at least afraid of what they had done, that is the sort of person that got probation. As much as folks might find their cause unjust and their actions unreasonable, I think if we calm down and take a breath that we can agree that the circumstances just make sense for probation for some of those folks.
Can I ask what this is all based on?
One part a family obsession with streaming court recordings. The other part things I'd rather not answer.
Just being honest here, but I know nothing about you or your family, so I have no reason to take your claims at face value. This empty answer just leads me to believe it's based on a gut feeling rather than any objective, educated analysis.
I don't mean it as an attack, just expressing how it should be interpreted by an objective, rational observer.
Just being honest here, I don't care what you think.
I said it was a gut feeling that they got more light sentences than we would like AND that I don't (entirely, I do a little) blame the judges for that. So you're right to believe what I said was a gut feeling was a gut feeling. (being quite literal, since you seem to need that, I used the words "I'd guess"). This is largely how court works. Here's a quick high-level on mitigating circumstances, in case you think for some reason I'm making that part up, too.
Not exactly sure why you would come to that conclusion. Are you having reddit flashbacks or something?
With all due respect, demanding evidence or proof from everything anyone says in a civil discourse is absolutely an attack. I said absolutely nothing that was inflammatory or problematic, or that might lead one to question the ernestnest of my testimony.
Are you acquianted philosophical principles of credulity (Swinburg, Reid?)? It is entirely reasonable to expect one's testimony to be treated as credible if:
Solipsism is absurd. Incredulity towards everything is absurd.
So why exactly do you find my explanation of my experiences incredible? What do I have to gain? What do you have to lose?
EDIT: The irony is that you seem to agree with much of what I said anyway. So why are you hitting me with over-the-top cynicism?
I'm not demanding anything. I asked if anyone had an objective analysis to compare it to what happens generally. By your own admission, you are just going with your gut, and I'm explaining why your gut means nothing to me.
If you feel attacked, that's your own doing, not mine.
Well, I'll confess that I may not be "qualified" but I'll say from what I've seen his analysis is consistent with what I have seen. Judges tend to take it easy on certain things (on top of the likelihood to reoffend, it was also for many their first offense). For a lot of the offenders, the only evidence was that they trespassed and said seditious stuff and was oblivious about assault or anyone having intent to ziptie some congressmen. If an offender had previous offenses, had done assault, had an organizing role, had stuff on their person implying a more violent intent, those folks from what I saw got real prison time.
If you are involved in someone's random court case, maybe as a jury member, maybe as an extended family member, you are likely to see a fairly restrained judicial response, compared to the statutory maximums which are really intended for the worst of the worst contexts for that particular crime.