Tennessee state senator charged with stealing federal funds

[LilSaihah]

It wasn't the police that caught her though.

Says right in the article it was the FBI...

I thought saying 'leftard' would tip people off that I was being sarcastic but I suppose people think I'm serious. :x

[Azadina]

I thought saying 'leftard' would tip people off that I was being sarcastic but I suppose people think I'm serious. :x

Considering it's a common line coming from trumpkins, I'm not sure that was the greatest pick as the only cue of the post having been sarcasm.

On topic: I guess pardon is doubly and bigly out of the question, as she's a female democrat. #lockherup finally aplies.

[Shalcker]

Russian says it has anti-corruption laws, that must explain how people who disagree with Putin keep accidentally falling on bullets

Yeah, every bullet fired in Russia is clearly Putin's fault, just like every bullet fired at blacks has US racism at it's source /s

[Stormspark]

Prosecute to the full letter of the law.

I think that when someone in public service commits a crime like this, the punishment should be double the maximum of what a normal civilian can get for doing the same thing.

[Felya]

Yeah, every bullet fired in Russia is clearly Putin's fault, just like every bullet fired at blacks has US racism at it's source /s

Every bullet in Russia is used to brace Putin’s opponents when falling? What?

[Paranoid Android]

She deserves the money.

I mean Trump steals money (whataboutism), so why not her.

Am I doing this right?

Fairly obvious she should be prosecuted and most of all if she somehow can run for a public office I hope people are not ignorant enough to elect her.

[cubby]

I think that when someone in public service commits a crime like this, the punishment should be double the maximum of what a normal civilian can get for doing the same thing.

Interesting...make your position a part of the sentencing guidelines. Hmmmm...that deserves some thought.

[wunksta]

Is this the looting everyone is talking about?

[Stormspark]

Interesting...make your position a part of the sentencing guidelines. Hmmmm...that deserves some thought.

Yeah...there are normal sentencing guidelines for just about everything. But when an elected official or someone like a police officer does it, I think the penalty should be doubled. No matter what it's for.

[cubby]

Yeah...there are normal sentencing guidelines for just about everything. But when an elected official or someone like a police officer does it, I think the penalty should be doubled. No matter what it's for.

I think that would be worth exploring. And there are sentencing guidelines depending on who the victim is...for instance killing a police officer is automatically felony murder, at least in some/most states.

Perhaps not sentencing guidelines, but the crime they are charged with is escalated. Although sentencing guidelines would force people to be accountable, instead of plea-dealing out.

Hmmmmm....

[Egomaniac]

I thought saying 'leftard' would tip people off that I was being sarcastic but I suppose people think I'm serious. :x

Poe's law:

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.

[Saltysquidoon]

Perhaps not sentencing guidelines, but the crime they are charged with is escalated. Although sentencing guidelines would force people to be accountable, instead of plea-dealing out.

When sentencing someone who has committed a wrong in public office a Judge will normally take into account the need for general deterrence and the abuse of the public trust, which will, in turn, lead to a higher sentence then if joe public did the same act.

Nothing wrong with formalising that presumption though and removing and barring that person from public office and ensuring politicians can't investigate themselves.

[Egomaniac]

Perhaps not sentencing guidelines, but the crime they are charged with is escalated. Although sentencing guidelines would force people to be accountable, instead of plea-dealing out.

Plea dealing is being held accountable (all too often being held accountable for crimes you are innocent of). It's a guilty plea in exchange for leniency...often in the form of reducing the charge. But you are still being held accountable.

Sentencing guidelines aren't going to have much of a negative impact on plea deals. For example, sentencing guidelines on someone convicted of Murder in the second aren't going to apply anymore if the charge gets reduced to manslaughter.

But no. People shouldn't be given extra punishment than someone else would for committing the same crime. That's part of the problem right now..black men are often given harsher sentences than a white man that commits the same crime.

I'm okay with, as an example, a police officer being charged with more crimes due to the circumstances of the case...like what happened with the officer that killed Rayshard Brooks. But the sentencing for each crime he may be convicted of should fall within the same boundaries as anyone else convicted of those same crimes.

[Antiganon]

Plea dealing is being held accountable (all too often being held accountable for crimes you are innocent of). It's a guilty plea in exchange for leniency...often in the form of reducing the charge. But you are still being held accountable.

Sentencing guidelines aren't going to have much of a negative impact on plea deals. For example, sentencing guidelines on someone convicted of Murder in the second aren't going to apply anymore if the charge gets reduced to manslaughter.

But no. People shouldn't be given extra punishment than someone else would for committing the same crime. That's part of the problem right now..black men are often given harsher sentences than a white man that commits the same crime.

I'm okay with, as an example, a police officer being charged with more crimes due to the circumstances of the case...like what happened with the officer that killed Rayshard Brooks. But the sentencing for each crime he may be convicted of should fall within the same boundaries as anyone else convicted of those same crimes.

Nope.

If you hold public office, you are in a position of trust. You should be held to a higher standard. That means harsher penalities for the same offense, because you are comitting your crimes at the expense of every voter you represent.

[Egomaniac]

Nope.

If you hold public office, you are in a position of trust. You should be held to a higher standard. That means harsher penalities for the same winning, because you are coming your crimes at the expense of every voter you represent.

As I said, there are times when extra charges can be applied to that person. If you want to "punish" politicians...get them with those extra offences. But everyone should be treated equal under the law.

[Saltysquidoon]

As I said, there are times when extra charges can be applied to that person. If you want to "punish" politicians...get them with those extra offences. But everyone should be treated equal under the law.

One of the defining features of the common law is the ability to tailor a case's outcome to the facts and circumstances of that case. An elected official breaches the public trust when they do a corruption, it's simply an aggravating factor it's not someone being treated differently for the same crime.

That doesn't remove the possibility of additional charges existing at the same time, however.

[Egomaniac]

One of the defining features of the common law is the ability to tailor a case's outcome to the facts and circumstances of that case. An elected official breaches the public trust when they do a corruption, it's simply an aggravating factor it's not someone being treated differently for the same crime.

That doesn't remove the possibility of additional charges existing at the same time, however.

People are talking about automatically doubling the sentence if it's a poitician. That's not taking the facts into account...that's treating them differently for the same crime.

[Edge-]

People are talking about automatically doubling the sentence if it's a poitician. That's not taking the facts into account...that's treating them differently for the same crime.

I have zero problems with harsher punishments for elected officials violating the public trust.

[Egomaniac]

I have zero problems with harsher punishments for elected officials violating the public trust.

Which can be done by adding additional charges for violating that trust.

[cubby]

When sentencing someone who has committed a wrong in public office a Judge will normally take into account the need for general deterrence and the abuse of the public trust, which will, in turn, lead to a higher sentence then if joe public did the same act.

Nothing wrong with formalising that presumption though and removing and barring that person from public office and ensuring politicians can't investigate themselves.

Sentencing guidelines are a mixed bag. However, the goal here would be to keep people from trading political favors to stay out of jail.

- - - Updated - - -

Plea dealing is being held accountable (all too often being held accountable for crimes you are innocent of). It's a guilty plea in exchange for leniency...often in the form of reducing the charge. But you are still being held accountable.

Sure - but it can also be used to get away from a jail sentence. Especially if you're politically connected. But sentencing guidelines wouldn't affect any plea deal, as you pointed out.

But no. People shouldn't be given extra punishment than someone else would for committing the same crime. That's part of the problem right now..black men are often given harsher sentences than a white man that commits the same crime.

I'm okay with, as an example, a police officer being charged with more crimes due to the circumstances of the case...like what happened with the officer that killed Rayshard Brooks. But the sentencing for each crime he may be convicted of should fall within the same boundaries as anyone else convicted of those same crimes.

And I would disagree.

People charged with our protection and care are held to a higher standard, and if they violate that trust, their punishment should be higher. And we see that in the law already - specific roles who are punished for committing acts, or failing to act, where others doing the same or failing to do the same aren't punished.

Charging them with more crimes is an interesting notion. Might be fun to explore that idea. We might also run into some kind of double jeopardy issues, but that's entirely clear atm.

- - - Updated - - -

As I said, there are times when extra charges can be applied to that person. If you want to "punish" politicians...get them with those extra offences. But everyone should be treated equal under the law.

But everyone isn't treated equally under the law, in the way that you mean. People are, but those equalities are dependent on the situation - I may not be saying that very clearly.

- - - Updated - - -

Which can be done by adding additional charges for violating that trust.

How would you structure that?