784
In an effort to "not show bias" Trump's sentencing is delayed till after the election.
(www.nytimes.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
784 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19170 readers
4615 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.