this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
109 points (97.4% liked)

News

23266 readers
4347 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It’s hard to imagine a less contentious or more innocent word than “and.”

But how to interpret that simple conjunction has prompted a complicated legal fight that lands in the Supreme Court on Oct. 2, the first day of its new term. What the justices decide could affect thousands of prison sentences each year.

Federal courts across the country disagree about whether the word, as it is used in a bipartisan 2018 criminal justice overhaul, indeed means “and” or whether it means “or.” Even an appellate panel that upheld a longer sentence called the structure of the provision “perplexing.”

The Supreme Court has stepped in to settle the dispute.

It’s the kind of task the justices — and maybe their English teachers — love. The case requires the close parsing of a part of a federal statute, the First Step Act, which aimed in part to reduce mandatory minimum sentences and give judges more discretion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And since fucking asshole journalists and editors never mention the actual goddamn law, it's 18 U.S. Code § 3553(f)(1), here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553#f

Condensed version:

The court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines [...] without regard to any statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds at sentencing, [...] that—
(1) the defendant does not have
(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
(C) a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;

The "and" is pretty clear. In order to qualify for sentencing outside the statutory minimum, you must not have more than 4 points, a 3-point offense, and a 2-point violent offense. In short, you must not have A, B, and C. If you have A, B, and C, you do not qualify. But almost nobody is going to have all three of A, B, and C.

[–] Squirrel@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's actually far more ambiguous than I expected.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's really not ambiguous at all. There is no reasonable way to read "and" and interpret it as "or".

[–] Squirrel@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 year ago

Right, but with more logic-challenged individuals in mind, this is far more ambiguous than necessary. It shouldn't be ambiguous to anyone in law, though, and that's all that should matter.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So the argument is basically: (A&B&C) Or (A) or (B&C)

Correct?

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Looks like it but if so IMO it's not really about and, it's about the structure of how the conditions are written down. Another and between A & B would clarify the intent if all 3 conditions need to be met.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

It would not. A, B, and C means all three. If they meant any other configuration of criteria, there are existing ways of writing it that they would have used.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The citizens' argument is that the law is clear in that you are only disqualified from reduced sentencing if you meet all three conditions.

The other side, used by some courts and prosecutors, is that obviously Congress didn't mean what they wrote, so they're going to use the more punitive interpretation.