3 ms·
And the government was fully prepared to fight for them. So . . . the world is as it should be at least according to the parameters of your previous comment. A
by jamesaguilar 14y ago
And the government was fully prepared to fight for them. So . . . the world is as it should be at least according to the parameters of your previous comment.
Also, "most probably" indicates a bias toward true, where maybe is more like 50-50. I did not say maybe, I said most probably. All degrees of likelihood are not the same for me, so please don't replace my words. If you did want to reword what I was saying, "not certainly" or "not definitely" would have been more appropriate.
- rhizome 14y agoI'm not rewording, I'm interpreting. "Maybe" covers the whole field of uncertainty, and unless you're going to show your work, vis a vis probability calculations (such as they may be), I'll just stick with that. Regardless, you don't address my, "intimidation by plea bargain," angle, which speaks to their confidence. If they want to make an example of someone, which I hope we can agree was happening here, why even try to short circuit the process and evade establishing precedent? Even (or especially) for a careerist prosecutor's scoreboard, verdicts are more valuable than deals made.
- jamesaguilar 14y agoI addressed it in another comment on this thread. Intimidation by plea bargain could equally be referred to as "No reason to plea bargain if the punishment upon guilty verdict isn't worse." > make an example of someone I think you're reading more into the motives of the prosecutor than is actually available from the evidence. > evade establishing precedent I don't think they need a case to establish precedent here. The law isn't perfectly clear, so there are gray areas, but my reading of it (as a non-lawyer, and corroborated by lawyerly readings in other threads) is that aaron's case was pretty deep in the "illegal" territory.