Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday May 16 2017, @04:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the guilty dept.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Friday that he has directed his federal prosecutors to pursue the most severe penalties possible, including mandatory minimum sentences, in his first step toward a return to the war on drugs of the 1980s and 1990s that resulted in long sentences for many minority defendants and packed U.S. prisons.

[...] In the later years of the Obama administration, a bipartisan consensus emerged on Capitol Hill for sentencing reform legislation, which Sessions opposed and successfully worked to derail.

In a two-page memo to federal prosecutors across the country, Sessions overturned former attorney general Eric H. Holder's sweeping criminal charging policy that instructed his prosecutors to avoid charging certain defendants with offenses that would trigger long mandatory minimum sentences. In its place, Sessions told his more than 5,000 assistant U.S. attorneys to charge defendants with the most serious crimes, carrying the toughest penalties.

More at Washington Post, Fox News, Huffington Post, The Hill

Memorandum on Department Charging and Sentencing Policy - US Department of Justice PDF


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @07:25PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @07:25PM (#510686)

    No. No, it would not.

    A pardon does not make what you did legal;

    Hey! Are you confused? Do you think Mitch McConnell is president? We are talking about what it would be legal for the president to do.

    It would be legal for Turmp to pardon McConnell for the murders.

    > "conforming to the law or to rules"
    > "Legal" and "legitimate" are synonyms.

    By your own damn citation you are wrong. It doesn't just say law it also says "rules." The entire government runs on rules of behavior. The law is just a backstop.
    But JFC, did you really think it was informative to go full pedant? What larger point did you hope to communicate?

    PS, as is always the case with dictionary pedants you failed to actually read the full definition in the dictionary:

    legitimate [oxforddictionaries.com]
    adjective
    Pronunciation /lɪˈdʒɪtɪmət/

    1 Conforming to the law or to rules.
            ‘his claims to legitimate authority’

            1.1 (of a child) born of parents lawfully married to each other.
            ‘a legitimate male heir’

            1.2 (of a sovereign) having a title based on strict hereditary right.
            ‘the last legitimate Anglo-Saxon king’

    2 Able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
    ‘a legitimate excuse for being late’

    Goddamn fucking pedants. You will never learn.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 16 2017, @07:56PM (1 child)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday May 16 2017, @07:56PM (#510709)

    Hey! Are you confused? Do you think Mitch McConnell is president? We are talking about what it would be legal for the president to do.

    Oh, you meant

    It would also be legal for [a bunch of long, rambling blather] and then have Turmp pardon him.

    not

    It would also be legal for Mitch McConnell to walk onto the floor of the Senate, shoot every democratic senator [a bunch of long, rambling blather]

    Well yeah, as long as it's not impeachment proceedings, the president can pardon anyone he wants. I read what you were saying as it being retroactively legal to shoot up the assembly. What was the point of this whole hypothetical?

    2 Able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.

    Appealing to the laws is usually a pretty safe way to defend something logically (especially if they explain their logic in the law itself). I still think you chose a poor word.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @09:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16 2017, @09:01PM (#510752)

      > What was the point of this whole hypothetical?

      Oh please do not play stupid.
      The point was that legality is not a defense.

      > Appealing to the laws is usually a pretty safe way to defend something logically

      Which is why there is an entirely separate definition that mentions laws. Because its the same thing.
      Goddamn pedants never fucking learn.