This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You are missing the point. Sure, you can certainly make the case that Jacob Chansley’s actions were criminal if you look only at the bare letter of the law, and ignore context. The argument is, however, that there have been thousands of other people, hundreds in the specific example of Kavanaugh hearings, that also broke the bare letter of the law in roughly the same degree of egregiousness as Chansley, but none of whom even faced anything close to criminal trial, much less years in prison. The argument here is about malicious prosecution which is completely outside historical norms for the behavior.
Imagine, for example, that federal government found that some of these protesters are not US citizens, but permanent residents, and found that they are not carrying their green card, as required by law, and charged them with misdemeanor and put them for 30 days in jail. The letter of the law clearly allows that, but it would be completely outrageous, as this law is never enforced in any other circumstance, so it would be hard to see it as anything other than malicious political targeting.
Yes, I am familiar with the concept of selective prosecution (not malicious prosecution, which is a tort). But if you are going to claim that they "broke the bare letter of the law in roughly the same degree of egregiousness as Chansley," you should probably cite some evidence of what explicitly they did. Because it seems to me that attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from the loser of an election to the winner is pretty egregious.
The bare letter of that particular law does not contain enhancements for “attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from the loser of an election to the winner,” so I don’t see what that has to do with anything, much less whether the Kavanaugh protestors broke the letter of the law to the same degree.
?? I am not the one who raised the issue of "degree of egregiousness." Many laws can be violated in different ways, and although there is not a specific sentencing enhancement re attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, there is no doubt that that is a relevant factor in sentencing. Sentences must individualized to the specific circumstances of the offense and of the offender, and:
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 US 476, 485 (1993).
Moreover, obviously, "the consideration of the harm caused by the crime has been an important factor in the exercise of that [sentencing] discretion[.]" Payne v. Tennessee, 501 US 808, 820 (1991). And for attempts, that includes the harm that would have occurred, had the defendant been successful.
Yes, that is literally the whole complaint: either the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and subsequent punishment both fit the crime in this case, in which case they didn't in others (like the Kavanaugh disruption or the riots after Trump was elected), or they fit in those others and so didn't fit here.
Not only are there no enhancements for doing that, "the peaceful transfer of power," so a fortiori attempting to prevent it, is not a legally meaningful notion, because "the peaceful transfer of power" is a notion from political science, and AFAIK that notion and its analogues are found nowhere in American law. There are of course laws against sedition and whatnot, but a) those are not specific to transitions between administrations like "peaceful transfer of power" and b) Chansley wasn't charged with sedition, nor was it argued that he was attempting sedition.
The harm of disrupting an official proceeding? So, like, a few extra hours or maybe days of delay? Again, he wasn't being tried for "attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power" (which is not a statutorily defined crime), or for sedition, or anything of that sort. And if his sentence can be enhanced because prosecutors argue he merely intended or attempted (incredibly inefficaciously!) to do something which he wasn't even charged with attempting, then the same strictures should apply to the other examples that have been discussed in this thread.
The point is that they are: The strictures applied are the same ones that have been applied in thousands of prosecutions every year for many, many years. Those strictures might well be unjust, but the claim that this guy was subjected to special treatment is a claim devoid of evidence.
LOL, right. Because nothing in the Constitution nor federal law are meant to ensure that.
But we're not just talking about the prosecution itself, we're talking about the decision to prosecute at all and how he was charged.
OK, so what was Chansley attempting to do as part of his "disruption of official proceedings" that's defined in American law and was relevant to getting him a harsher sentence? Should be easy for you to find, given your response. If that thing was itself a crime, why wasn't he charged with attempting it too? If it wasn't, then why was it relevant to his sentence?
The guy attempted to disrupt the counting of electoral votes by Congress. 18 U.S.C. § 1512{c)(2) says:
18 U.S. Code § 1515(a) says:
So, you are complaining because the guy was charged with a clear violation of the law?
As I said, in the quote from the Supreme Court, a defendant's motive is relevant to his sentencing. Your repeated reference to "defined in law" leads me to believe that you are confusing different issues. Anything, such as a sentencing enhancement, that can increase a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum for the underlying crime, and "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, . . . must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 490 (2000). Because they must be submitted to jury, of course they must be specifically defined. But when a statute provides for a range of sentences, the sentencing court can consider any relevant factor, including, as noted, motive, as well as the effect of the crime, as well as many other things.
And, again, this seems to be an odd argument, since in his plea agreement he agreed that his guideline range was 41-51 months, and he ended up being sentenced to 41 months. So, what, exactly, are you complaining about?
No, I am complaining because lots of people who did comparable things weren't. I already said that. Multiple people in this thread have repeatedly explained this exact point to you, so I don't really see why you're not getting it.
Yeah, I get that. But the question isn't whether his motive is relevant. The question is what the relevant motive is supposed to be and the legal grounds for that specific motive to be relevant. Obviously not every motive is relevant, so then we have the question of which ones legally ought to be considered relevant. You have answered the first question, but not the second.
I have already explained that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link