Discussion in 'The War Room' started by PolishHeadlock, Jul 10, 2018.
Thats the same as lamesteam media. Libtards btfo.
not gonna pardon the guy who got shot?
Your mom is lying. Everyone in your family is very closely related.
It's kind of crazy left wingers haven't gone as crazy as the trumpets pretend they are.
I was sort of expecting to see old school ELF activism over what this administration had done, kind of baffling really.
Anyway. We can all enjoy that hilarious video of tarp man being taken out lol.
Not a fan of the bundy bunch, but destroying evidence isn't really terrorism.
Maybe he can pardon Lavoy "Blue Tarp" Finicum. For all the good it'll do...
I saw a Right wing friend on fb post that the man who drove what was called the killdozer. A bulldozer fitted with armor. He called that man a hero. Lmao. The man terrorized and destroyed a town.
So his entire base?
I don´t think all of them can play the banjo
The Story of the Trump Presidency
My prediction: pages of conservatives cheer leading the pardon of criminals and arsonists
I agree with your straightforward explanation, but you didn't explain how it isn't double jeopardy. They were sentenced twice for the same conviction. Judges screw up in many cases, but we don't necessarily retry defendants who were acquitted because of such screw us, because that would be double jeopardy. Resentencing a person who served their sentence and were freed because one thinks the judge screwed up seems to be a variant of this.
For the sake of comparison, can you think of any other examples of situations in which a person who was sentenced, served that time, was then later resentenced based on the same conviction? It seems extraordinary to me, but perhaps it is commonplace. How often does it happen that a prosecutor appeals to have sentences increased?
If a convicted pedophile is accidentally let out of jail years early not serving his/her whole term, the cops has every right to go and retrieve them and put them back in jail. That's not double jeopardy. That's simply serving their sentence. But according to you, they already served their sentence and should be let go?
And no, I'm not going to look up any cases for you. You can do it.
Yes, getting resentenced to a larger (or shorter) amount happens. It's a little unusual, but that's because it's unusual for judges to fuck up mandatory minimums, and the government doesn't usually bother challenging the sentence otherwise. It's also unusual for someone to be out of prison by the time that the error was caught, but that's a function of how long most sentences are compared to the length of the process. It's not exceptional. I've come across several instances of sentences being changed after someone has been released, for better or for worse. It's something people get warned about in habeas cases: you can challenge your sentence, but if you had a good deal, you can get more time when resentenced.
It's definitely not double jeopardy, because they're not being convicted of the same crime twice. They got credit from the time served before the resentencing against the correct one.
1. The Hammonds weren't pedophiles. Needlessly inflammatory example.
2. The Hammonds did serve their entire sentence. I understand the argument that their sentence should have been longer. But in point of fact it was not, which is why they were initially released from prison. That part of their case was subsequently re-adjudicated, which is why it seems like a species of double jeopardy.
3. All pardons (or most, perhaps there are exceptions) involve people who have been convicted, usually of fairly serious crimes. This pardon to me seems akin to trump's pardon of Alice Johnson, in that while what happened to Johnson and to the Hammond's was in accordance with the law, it is perceived by much of the population to be unjust. It is a lawful corrective to legally supported injustice.
Thank you, solid response. Can you elaborate a bit more on the highlighted portion? On what grounds other than a judge ignoring mandatory minimums can a sentence be challenged by the prosecution?
You just read on some right wing blog that's it's double jeopardy so that's why you are saying this. The case wasn't completely finished. The appeals process wasn't done.
The Appeal, Writ and Habeas Corpus Petition Process
"In criminal cases, an appeal can target the conviction itself or just the sentencing portion of the decision without regard to the underlying conviction. For example, if a defendant is properly convicted of manslaughter but a judge sentences the defendant to a prison term that is beyond the limit of the law, the defendant will only appeal the prison term while leaving the conviction itself intact.
An appeal may be filed only after a final judgment or order has been reached by the trial court. This is quite simply for reasons of efficiency, so that the court system isn't bogged down by delays and trials aren't constantly put on hold while waiting for appeals of a judge's every ruling."
Does an appeal constitute a new trial?
"No. In an appeal there are no new issues presented or witnesses called to testify. The appellate court will only review the trial's transcript and evidence presented during the trial to determine whether there were errors in either procedure or application of the law. "
Separate names with a comma.