politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
He point of giving letters to the court of character is to try to reduce the sentence. If people are able to give statements with no cost, irrespective of truth or repurcuasions, then they become pointless as all would be glowing and positive. Anyone giving such a letter should be able to stand by it. If they can't they shouldn't give one.
I haven't read his letter, but I assume it talks about his time with him filming when he was younger. It doesn't seem relevant of it's about his character, aside from rapes. So, what's the point of providing it? If it is relevant, then we should question the relevance and motive and veracity of the whole purpose is to reduce the sentence of a convicted rapist.
People will all move on. However, moving on does not mean ignore and forget.
In rape cases there can be a bit of she said he said and such testimony can be important. However, it's up to the jury to decide how much weight they attach to such a letter.
If one of my close friends was accused of rape and I never got any signals that she/he was capable of doing such a thing, I think I should be allowed to be heard. And if I was falsely accused I expect those that know my character to offer the same.
If I ever get the request from someone I have any doubt about they're getting the polite middle finger. But if I'm 99% sure they wouldn't do such a thing I guess I at least owe them to share my pov with the jury. Up to them to weigh everything.
In this case the actor who portrayed Mr. Red has shown he's a bad judge of character but it shouldn't stop us from using the character of the show to make cheff's kiss memes (not this one though)
It's up to the judge. The letters were just used for sentencing, NOT for the verdict, which is the responsibility of the judge, not the jury.
Ok then I stand corrected.
In that case I might be sending a letter how they betrayed my trust & to not go too light on the sentence
You're completely missing the point of these letters though. The jury had already found the accused guilty. These letters were for the judge, after conviction. In order to lighten the sentence of a convicted rapist.
These letters were after conviction, for sentencing.
Yes, there can be he said, she said. A jury convicts only if convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. They did so on multiple counts. One of the alleged victims, there was sufficient doubt. He was not convicted on that count. So it wasn’t just he said, she said.
I agree, red likely made an error of judgement. It’s not tantamount to rape, but he’s still advocating for a rapist with the intent of reducing the sentence.