View Single Post
Old 04-16-2017, 03:19 PM   #54
Talon87
Nebby. Back into the bag.
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,461
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeet View Post
Dopple's point of view is actually not exactly original. Not that I really agree, just saying.
And from the opening text of that very essay:
"One of the most common reasons for a sentencing enhancement is that the defendant has a prior conviction."
I can't stress this enough. It isn't only something that happens, it's something that happens regularly.

Continuing, the essayists write:
"Courts have rejected claims that these recidivism enhancements violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. They have explained that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the legislature from authorizing multiple punishments for one offense and that, in any event, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply at sentencing."
Case. closed.

We can debate the morality and the philosophy all we like, but as far as "Did Talon have the right understanding or did Doppel?", we're fucking done here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
How can you say, "This doesn't happen in real courts" when prior convictions is 100% a thing that the courts look at when deciding how to sentence someone? "I didn't say sentencing, I said conviction" you might say ... but that's the thing: if you're going to focus on convicting rather than sentencing then you've improperly responded to MtG to begin with. MtG's quoted paragraph is totally describing sentencing here (an escalation of punishment meted out in response to a current offense and in light of prior offenses), not conviction (determining a party's innocence or guilt in some matter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
"Double jeopardy" is being tried for the exact same instance of a crime twice. "Double jeopardy" is not being tried for the same general crime twice, nor is it what you've quoted me discussing -- which was judges using a person's prior convictions, or "priors", to determine appropriate sentencing.
Done. Done, done, done, done, done. Debate the ethics of this convention all you like. Join with the essayists and argue that the courts have got it all wrong, that we need to seriously rethink our criminal justice system. But I think I am at the very least owed a simple acknowledgement that my interpretation of how the law is carried out was, for at least some if not for most U.S. jurisdictions, correct.
Talon87 is offline