3 ms·
Said once, of course. Regularly repeated though, it is a scare tactic to push for a settlement, with "up to" merely acting as a plausible deniability device. Be
by lloeki 14y ago
Said once, of course. Regularly repeated though, it is a scare tactic to push for a settlement, with "up to" merely acting as a plausible deniability device. Being prosecuted is psychologically exhausting, and such tactics introduce lingering thoughts weakening one's mind even more.
- zokier 14y agoHer reasons behind the word choices may have been nefarious (although I hardly believe that either). But she didn't lie or contradict herself, which is what Linus is claiming.
- mpyne 14y agoIt's not even nefarious. What else is she supposed to say about the sentence when charges are initially filed? She can't say what a judge will do. She can't say what sentence the defense team might argue for. She can't even necessarily give a formal pronouncement of what she might argue for as that could tamper with negotiations between the prosecution and defense attorneys! The only factual statement you can make about the charges when they're filed to give an impression of the seriousness is the statutory maximum, so-and-so can face up to X years in prison based on these charges. I swear it sounds like a lot of the people here are either blissfully unaware of legal cases in general or are deliberately being hyperbolic now that it suits them. The former you can blame on ignorance I suppose, but the latter is disgusting.