Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


How does minimum sentencing effectively increase the power of the executive branch?

Yeah, I could have sworn some, if not most of it, was written by the legislative branch as part of the laws?

Truthfully, I do somewhat agree that it does increase the power of the executive a bit.

One of the worries I have with minimum sentences is that it allows prosecutors to have some extra power towards forcing plea-bargains from people that may every well be innocent. Imagine that you were picked up, arrested, you know that you didn't do anything wrong but you also know that your case looks really bad and that it is more than likely that a jury is going to rule against you.

If you were given the choice of "we can charge you with this, the MINIMUM you will get is 5 years, no matter what. But if you agree to plead guilty to this other thing you are only looking at 6 months to 2 years. What will it be?" Do you take your chance that a jury will rule in your favor because you know you are innocent, but you are looking at a minimum sentence if they rule against you with possibly more years on top of that? Or do you take the hit and do 2 years max?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Relapse wrote:

From personal interactions with militia members, I'd say the anti militia folks here have a great deal more wit than those who are in a militia.

That's debatable. Frankly the pro militia guys are more amusing unintentionally than you have been actually putting some thought into it.

I think that if they put together a comedy team, it'd blow your ass away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

How does their sentence not fit the crime? I mean, I am not a fan of Mandatory Sentences at all, but these guys started a wildfire that burned a lot of land and put people at risk.

Because a Judge in possession of the (in theory) entire facts determined that they deserved a lighter sentence for some reason.

I guess that could be true with all their melodramatic made up tales of heroics and sacrifices they were willing to make for their children they've told me.

 d-usa wrote:
Because the legislature makes the law?

Thanks Obama!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

That I could question, as 'to administer justice and uphold the law' might be two different things.

You really can't dispute the notion that the judge violated his mandate, he did. He was empowered by the Federal Government to uphold Federal Law, administering justice in that context, and he didn't do so.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I would make the argument at that point that minimum sentencing was a violation of the separation of powers.

So you're arguing that legislation which criminalizes things like theft, murder, rape, or arson are not violations of the separation of powers but once a law mandates a sentence it is? That seems a bit far fetched.

Mandatory minimums have already been upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. Whether or not they're a good idea is another matter.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
How does minimum sentencing effectively increase the power of the executive branch?

Because it effectively takes sentencing (held by the judge, a member of the judicial branch) and puts it in the hands of the prosecutor (a member of the executive branch) because it's the prosecutor that decides what charges will be brought, allowing them to over-charge the defendant, stacking up massive mandatory sentences, and stack the deck in their favor of forcing a plea deal.

 LordofHats wrote:
Mandatory minimums have already been upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. Whether or not they're a good idea is another matter.

They aren't a good idea, IMO. It takes too much discretion from judges. If you have judges who are consistently making bad calls, there are other remedies for that, more appropriate ones.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Because it effectively takes sentencing (held by the judge, a member of the judicial branch) and puts it in the hands of the prosecutor (a member of the executive branch) because it's the prosecutor that decides what charges will be brought, allowing them to over-charge the defendant, stacking up massive mandatory sentences, and stack the deck in their favor of forcing a plea deal.

That's wrong, the prosecutor decides which charges to prosecute, he has no role in making a charge. Indeed, judges are closer to that process.

 LordofHats wrote:
Mandatory minimums have already been upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. Whether or not they're a good idea is another matter.

Which case? Most of the one's lately have been chipping away at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

That's wrong, the prosecutor decides which charges to prosecute, he has no role in making a charge. Indeed, judges are closer to that process.

http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/SAC/Documents/measure_11_analysis_final.pdf

 Ouze wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Mandatory minimums have already been upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. Whether or not they're a good idea is another matter.

They aren't a good idea, IMO. It takes too much discretion from judges. If you have judges who are consistently making bad calls, there are other remedies for that, more appropriate ones.

Agreed. I was more getting to the point that 'Constitutional' is a legal category and doesn't really = good idea on its own face. Jim Crow and Slavery were Constitutional for awhile :

My brief googling tells me that SCOTUS upheld the concept of mandatory minimums in two cases. Harmelin vs Michigan upheld a mandatory lifetime without parole sentence, and Ewing vs California ruled that 3 strikes - a form of mandatory sentencing - was constitutional.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-denounces-federal-agents-shooting-protester

Cliven Bundy is weighing in on this.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/SAC/Documents/measure_11_analysis_final.pdf

Choosing to prosecute is not charging, you cannot choose to prosecute someone who has not been charged.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-denounces-federal-agents-shooting-protester

Cliven Bundy is weighing in on this.

What a shining beacon of truth and justice.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-denounces-federal-agents-shooting-protester

Cliven Bundy is weighing in on this.

Yeah, and he's about as qualified to weigh in on this as anyone here on Dakka.

Which is to say, he's not.

 Ouze wrote:
My brief googling tells me that SCOTUS upheld the concept of mandatory minimums in two cases. Harmelin vs Michigan upheld a mandatory lifetime without parole sentence,

Interestingly, as far as Harmlin goes, Michigan's supreme court struck down the minimum sentencing as unconstitutional. Miller v Alabama recently called into question the legal underpinning of mandatory sentencing, though, as the ruling stated that judges have to consider all the factors before passing sentence, regardless of mandated sentencing requirements. In that particular case, it was mandatory life sentences without parole for children, but in principal, the same would apply for other mandatory sentences.

 Ouze wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Mandatory minimums have already been upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. Whether or not they're a good idea is another matter.

They aren't a good idea, IMO. It takes too much discretion from judges. If you have judges who are consistently making bad calls, there are other remedies for that, more appropriate ones.

Agreed 100%.


I never agreed with mandatory minimums, personally or professionally. Judges should have the final say in sentencing, and as you have said, there are ways to deal with bad calls.


Mandatory minimums were also a headache for those of us working in the system. We even have 'em in my State for minor felonies, like shoplifting. Crazy.

 The Airman wrote:
... ...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If there's a legal argument, the militia could go and make it.

The militia tried to, while throwing in a bunch of other points as well that had nothing to do with the sentencing of which not only made the situationw orse, but turned the public against them. Again, for the third time, the Bundy militia cannot and does not speak for the Hammonds, as the Hammonds elected to serve their sentences whilst trying to appeal.

I know. That is a big part of why they managed to make themselves unpopular, rather than because they are white Christian men with guns. There are a lot of white Christian men with guns in Oregon already, who don't go about occupying public buildings and issuing violent messages.

If the Hammonds have become tainted by association, that is unfortunate for them, but it emphasises the disruptive character of the militia's chosen method of involvement.

I'm a white Christian man with guns, and I think they are jackasses.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm a white Christian man with guns, and I think they are jackasses.

I'm a college educated snob and I think they are jackasses too!

Damn, we need this kind of event more often. It brings us together

This is making its way 'round Facebook.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
If true, I wonder if there will be a #whitelivesmatter?

Was this a case of a black policemen killing a white guy in a country with a rich and long history of black people oppressing white people?
If the answer to my question is no, then the answer to your question is likely no too .

 dogma wrote:

“loves nothing more than God”? Religious extremists? Or just US people being US people?

 dogma wrote:
“All of us Sharps were going to sing,” she said. “We were just going to try to talk, maybe do some negotiations, and we were going to sing. That was all.”

So they weren't just going to talk?




She clearly says someone crashed into a snowbank, and "...we all got down on the floorboards...", but the rest is freaked out gibberish. Definitely not a reliable narrator.

Doesn't match the video, either. According to her, she described a conversation that would have taken minutes before he got out. The video shows he got immediately after crashing.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

“loves nothing more than God”? Religious extremists? Or just US people being US people?

Eh, We often have southern Christian fundamentalist, midwest Mormon Cult-like groups... and then offshoots like quiverfull people who want to pack the earth with their babies to help in the final battle against non-believers... For the most part, these groups abuse themselves and their families and are not outwardly violent, but many do have extreme religious views which do manifest in to violence, usually around abortion clinics.

Finicum, I believe was Catholic. Or at least that is the religion he was taking money from for adopting children. He seems more like he was just a county supremacist who wanted federal lands handed over to whatever person was standing near them at the time for personal profit.

That seems more like a generic tag church goers put on their resume or dating profile in this case over some motivation for his actions, but I haven't seen too much of his video blog to know how much he ranted on stuff from a religious angle.
https://www.onecowboystandforfreedom.com/about-american-fight-for-freedom/

Seemed more like a doomsday prepper/militaman over fundamentalist.

Yeah it's clearly not his religious belief that he was fighting for in this specific case, but this kind of sentence really feels like religious extremist when you pause and think about it…


Quote from your link:
“By their actions the Federal Government has become lawless and stalks the liberties of this land under the guise of social justice.”
So it's one more brave fighter trying to repel the hordes of evil Social Justice Warrior? Damn, they get smarter every time!
Also, remember freedom is important because some people have many children…

So, a Catholic that have tons of children, and rant about abortion (Democracy is bad because it allows people to vote for laws that support abortion. I guess autocracy is better because… oh wait, it does not prevent it either! Maybe anarchy? Yeah, I guess anarchy does not allow for laws or something…). Could he potentially be a religious extremist? He does check quite a few boxes imo.

Far right politics traditionally conflate 'Americaness' with 'Christianness' so it's really not that odd too see that in their rhetoric (in the sense that it's to be expected). Now that being said, whether or not Finicum himself conflated Americaness' with 'Christianess' idk. Rhetoric has a tendency to be picked up and carried by others, sometimes without full knowledge/consideration of the underlying assumptions.

so.. the question I have is..

are there still yahoos up in that Bird place thing? Or has the whole sit-e-ation been done resolved?

-P

Still four there as far as I know.

And despite watching the video the girl still says "I know what I saw and he was killed with his hands in the air".

 d-usa wrote:
Still four there as far as I know.

And despite watching the video the girl still says "I know what I saw and he was killed with his hands in the air".

4 men, a gallons of lube.....

Broke back stand off lol

 jhe90 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Still four there as far as I know.

And despite watching the video the girl still says "I know what I saw and he was killed with his hands in the air".

4 men, a gallons of lube.....

Broke back stand off lol

Well now we know why they are still there.