11 ms·

If you read the article, you'll note that he was already arrested and convicted before all of this began. It's his sentencing that is being used to "make an ex

If you read the article, you'll note that he was already arrested and convicted before all of this began. It's his sentencing that is being used to "make an example". Clearly this is done for political reasons to "send a message" .. and judges in the US routinely use sentencing as a means to do the same. The only thing here is the disconnect between the harsh sentencing and the perceived reasons for it. I mean, you're not wrong, but I feel like you're missing the angle of what's going on here.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> judges in the US routinely use sentencing as a means to do the same American judges are fiercely independent. Where “messaging” is concerned it’s within the context of deterring future crime, not messaging to foreign states.
- pseudolus 8y ago
  Not as independent as you would believe. The number of applications judges actually refuse for search warrants and wiretaps is miniscule. All too often they act merely as extensions for police departments.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > All too often [judges[ act merely as extensions for police departments Empirical data disagrees with your assertion [1]. Judges act as an effective check on prosecutors. There are systemic issues which mitigate this check, e.g. cash bail and plea bargaining. But the difference between America and China in judicial independence and prosecution procedure is night and day. [1] https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2668&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
    - pseudolus 8y ago
      I don't think anyone would dispute that there's a huge gulf between the US and China relative to judicial independence. The article you reference refers to impartiality at the trial or adversarial stage. I'm referring to the actions of judges in granting search warrants and wiretaps where there are very few checks in place and all too often the judiciary acts as little more than a rubber stamp that's entirely too deferential to police and prosecutors. By way of example, in Utah apparently half of search warrants are issued within 3 minutes [0]. How can one credibly assert that the judiciary is acting as a gatekeeper to the excesses of the state when a warrant is signed off in three minutes? Additionally, Utah is by no means exceptional in this regard. [0]: https://www.apnews.com/a2b48c6f1911472986b0e501bdca9f25 https://www.apnews.com/a2b48c6f1911472986b0e501bdca9f25
wil421 8y ago
The article talks about 2 other Candians who were arrested on dubious national security claims. >Last month, Chinese authorities detained Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, two other Canadians living in China, on suspicion of national security crimes. They highlighted Schellenberg’s case, and the prospect of putting him to death, shortly thereafter.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> judges in the US routinely use sentencing as a means to do the same American judges are fiercely independent. Where “messaging” is concerned it’s within the context of deterring future crime, not messaging to foreign states.

pseudolus 8y ago
Not as independent as you would believe. The number of applications judges actually refuse for search warrants and wiretaps is miniscule. All too often they act merely as extensions for police departments.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > All too often [judges[ act merely as extensions for police departments Empirical data disagrees with your assertion [1]. Judges act as an effective check on prosecutors. There are systemic issues which mitigate this check, e.g. cash bail and plea bargaining. But the difference between America and China in judicial independence and prosecution procedure is night and day. [1] https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2668&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
  - pseudolus 8y ago
    I don't think anyone would dispute that there's a huge gulf between the US and China relative to judicial independence. The article you reference refers to impartiality at the trial or adversarial stage. I'm referring to the actions of judges in granting search warrants and wiretaps where there are very few checks in place and all too often the judiciary acts as little more than a rubber stamp that's entirely too deferential to police and prosecutors. By way of example, in Utah apparently half of search warrants are issued within 3 minutes [0]. How can one credibly assert that the judiciary is acting as a gatekeeper to the excesses of the state when a warrant is signed off in three minutes? Additionally, Utah is by no means exceptional in this regard. [0]: https://www.apnews.com/a2b48c6f1911472986b0e501bdca9f25 https://www.apnews.com/a2b48c6f1911472986b0e501bdca9f25

wil421 8y ago

The article talks about 2 other Candians who were arrested on dubious national security claims. >Last month, Chinese authorities detained Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, two other Canadians living in China, on suspicion of national security crimes. They highlighted Schellenberg’s case, and the prospect of putting him to death, shortly thereafter.