Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yeah. The problem is that they aren't quite falsehoods. A judge can structure the sentences to run consecutively, especially if that's necessary to achieve the guideline sentence. It's true, though, that this is extremely uncommon. Nonetheless, though, DOJ probably should also not be out there spouting a lower number. Perhaps they should just stop bragging about sending people to jail altogether.

(We've disagreed about this before. Instead of rehashing everything we've already written about the guidelines, I'll just direct people to this previous discussion -- unless, that is, you have anything you'd like to add. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7999002)



I don't think this is accurate.

[Is what I wrote before you pointed out your earlier comment, which is fantastic and I have nothing to add to it. Sorry, I should respond to comments assuming people know what they're talking about, and in criminal law threads I have a bad habit of doing the opposite.]

The "Introduction to Federal Sentencing" here:

http://nj.fd.org/Introduction%20to%20Federal%20Sentencing%20...

...states outright that grouping is mandatory. I'm guessing you're right: that if a judge can articulate a reason to override the sentencing rules, they can do that. I'm trying to find a case where such a thing happened and was then challenged on appeal.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: