NetQuarterLatte t1_j6v6zwu wrote
Reply to comment by Rottimer in Alvin Bragg defends plea deal in brazen antisemitic beating | A defendant who said he'd 'do it again' if given the chance was offered a plea deal by the Manhattan district attorney by [deleted]
In any sane location (obv not NY), a criminal stating he would do it again would weigh more than his criminal history.
Criminal history is just a proxy for future behavior. If someone is saying they would do it again, such proxy becomes misleading.
Rottimer t1_j6v815b wrote
The fact that he’s getting pleading and they’re looking for serious jail time for others tells me this is not the DA simply dismissing the crime because they’re “insane.”
NetQuarterLatte t1_j6yfle5 wrote
Part of the role of the DA is to send a message that helps protect the law.
The correct message is important, because it deters further crimes from even happening. Deterrence is a lot cheaper than waiting for more crimes to happen, leading to further victims, costs to the state, and even incarceration.
That guy saying he would “do it again”... obviously did not get any of such message.
He's gonna go around the community and share his experience with others, and that experience will surely not include the message of "don't commit hate crimes". It seems quite the opposite.
Bragg is not only missing an opportunity to nip this in the bud, he might be fueling it further by giving what appears to be a sweet deal.
Rottimer t1_j6ywddp wrote
“Sending a message” is bullshit and there is ample evidence that it doesn’t work to deter further crimes. Even the justice department has denounced “sending a message”
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
You treat each case individually based on the evidence available.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j6z7sp5 wrote
>You treat each case individually based on the evidence available.
Yes, treat each case individually.
And consider that in this individual case the suspect literally said he would “do it again”.
deafiofleming t1_j6vf13b wrote
that's not how convictions work. Would you rather this person go to trial and potentially get the case dismissed or a lower sentence?
NetQuarterLatte t1_j6ygjyh wrote
>that's not how convictions work. Would you rather this person go to trial and potentially get the case dismissed or a lower sentence?
Yes I would prefer that, actually. If he goes to trial and the state loses fair and square, I don't see a problem.
The DA office should be sending a message here. Throwing the book at hate crimes shouldn't be controversial.
dumbfartlol t1_j6vh2l5 wrote
How do we know he said that? How do we know he started the fight? If he said it - what was the context for when he said it? Was it during a heated moment at the moment of arrest where people say all kind of crazy shit that can be dismissed as having no true criminal intent? Did he try to leave the engagement? Was he attacked first? Does he deserve to not have a trial, be freed until he's proven guilty, or does he need to be locked up simply because you read something in an article?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments