The Atlantic: It Was Sedition
(archive.ph)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (26)
sorted by:
Oh, well if 12 randos think it's true, it must be so. Every one of those people that the Innocence Project (a liberal favorite) has gotten out of prison were there because originally "a jury of their peers" found them guilty.
I love how when it's a decision they agree with the left is quick to point out things like "he was convicted", "the report concluded" or "the Supreme Court decided" as if that means the issue is closed forever. But when it's something they don't agree with, it's "wrongfully convicted" or "the court is illegitimate".
Blatant hypocrisy reflects a severe lack of introspection and self-reflection.
Federal jury, definitely not “of their peers”
The term itself is stupid. They should just say "fellow citizens".
"Peer" by definition means equal in status. We may not have a caste system, but we definitely have different classes based on geography, wealth, and education among other things. A true jury of your peers would only include people from your class.
Perhaps the founders originally meant equal in status, or people from your class. We may not always like it, and it would make it easier for corrupt politicians and police to get away with murder, but it's supposed to favor the defendant.
Randos?
I've genuinely seem a more fair jury pool out of an all-white jury in the Jim Crow South.
If it were up to the jury: the defendant, the defendant's family, the defendant's children, the defendant's attorney, the defendant's attorney's family, and the defendant's attorney's children would be all summarily executed. Facts mean nothing, evidence means nothing, charges mean nothing, and procedure means nothing.
Who knows? Maybe the prosecutors will still go for the death penalty for the attorney's family. No reason for them not to. It's not like they won't automatically succeed either.
These are basically Nazi show trails at this point. There's nothing even to talk about, the sentence was fixed before the defendant was arrested. I don't even really know why we're entertaining an actual trial since there's no point.
Hell, confessing serves no purpose. Going off of what happened with the QAnon Shaman: if you take a plea deal, the judge will accept the confession, then reject the plea deal, and then hit you with a harsher sentence. Is that even legal? Was being held without charge for 3 months legal: kill yourself.
Genuinely: we don't treat Al Qaeda like this.
I think the plea deals at least in Federal cases are not a sure thing. They make recommendations to a judge. But yes any confession will be accepted on its own merit whether or not your "deal" goes through.
America is basically the USSR in Gulag Archipelago now. "We"'ve let these Fed a-holes come and pick people up and throw them in jail and they never get out before a politically determine sentence.
That's the problem here. In order to get the deal, the guy had to not only confess, but confess in front of the judge, apologize to the judge, declare stuff about Donald Trump and the 2020 election, read several leftist books, and he assumed he would get the deal the prosecutor recommended. And he didn't. The judge literally stood there and said that he understood what the Shaman said, he believed him, he said it was genuine... but the guy had to have an example made out of him, so he couldn't just let him get away with only 20 some months in a federal prison and doubled his fucking sentence.
Yeah the judge can fuck you over in a political prosecution no matter what deal you strike with prosecutors. I suspect if that happened in a county in one of the actual states, you'd appeal. I dont' know what your options are in a federal case.
Yeah like I give a shit what 12 Washington DC residents think.
This is a perfect example of this is a jury that's not these guys peers at all. This is a jury that was pulled from the community where the "crime" occurred.
The reason that one anti-Trump DC judge who comes up all the time felt the need to defend DC jurors is because they need defending. More so than even normal juries they will convict a potato if it's white and the case is brought by the Federal government.