4 ms·
So you think people should be sentenced based on charges that were not proven in court?
by bko 2y ago
So you think people should be sentenced based on charges that were not proven in court?
- anigbrowl 2y agoSo you should apologize for not paying attention to the original comment before stamping in to 'correct' it. A little manners goes a long way.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throwaway81523 2y agoThat happens all the time, when people confess to a charge ahead of time, instead of proceeding to a trial. Remember that the purpose of the trial is to find out whether they are guilty when there is a factual dispute about that question. Here, I suppose the existence of a factual dispute is itself disputed: does that need to go to a jury, or is it enough that the trial judge and the appeal court looked at the record and decided there wasn't a dispute?
- ec109685 2y agoConfessing under the law is the same as being convicted though.
- throwaway81523 2y agoCertainly not always. Sometimes a person will confess a crime under immunity, and not be charged. Ulbricht didn't confess the murder for hire formally, and he wasn't charged with it. The controversy is that his role in it was used to influence the sentencing decision for a different crime.
- rappatic 2y agoNo. I'm talking more from an ethical standpoint. I think someone who hires contract killers deserves to go to prison. I also think people shouldn't be convicted for charges that were not proven in court. As I said before, in Ross' case, the charge was dropped.