I’m having trouble parsing your intended meaning in this sentence.
Your point about his public statements laying the groundwork for the solitary confinement angle is well made. I don’t think he’s that smart, but I assume his/any lawyer could be.
Solitary confinement, no matter the motivation, with extremely rare exception, is a big deal and can be damaging to the person confined. There are times where it may be the least bad option, but it should not be a common punishment.
No, this is not like waterboarding. Darren Garrison expressed a personal preference of incarceration. It has nothing to do with waterboarding. You’ve created a strawman and are doubling down on it.
Both water boarding and social isolation in prison are classified as torture*. The fact that some people don’t consider one or neither to be so is a big problem. People having a “preference” for the punishment of social isolation in prison is comparable to having a preference for water boarding, since, again, both are torture.
*Technically social isolation is classified as only inhumane unless it exceeds 15 consecutive days, when it becomes torture according to the UN. The general point still stands though since in practice it does exceed 15 days regularly.
Some people like torture, you know.
'Course, I’m not saying anyone on the SDMB is into BDSM.
No, it’s not a problem because you say it is. Some people consider being forced to live in a locked room with other people to be an unpleasant arrangement and for good reason.
And solitary confinement isn’t a one-size-fits all situation. It can be for the safety of the prisoner or the safety of the other prisoners. The amenities afforded the prisoner would depend on why they are isolated.
It can also be with TV and internet access and food delivered by a guard who might interact briefly, or it might a bare cell with food appearing in a slot once a day.
Right, but at that point it would be in the state’s interest to just give him house arrest. Much cheaper. Again, he didn’t hurt anybody.
On a larger point, for some reason I think I’m in favor of house arrest for all non-violent convictions. That can’t be right.
Still filing appeals.
It’s an interesting argument, at least to this non-lawyer.
I guess the dissent in the appeal decision implies that there’s something there. It sounds from that article that the dissent was more about whether plea bargains or other arrangements are binding rather than about jeopardy.
Yep. When I clicked I expected to see some nonsense, but the dissenting opinion was intriguing.
It seems to me if Foxx had said, “We’re not going to prosecute at all.” then the majority is correct but in this case Smollett paid a fine/bond and did community service which sounds a lot like a plea-bargain in which case I agree with the dissent (but not the decision of Foxx to not prosecute).
This is similar to the charges against Hunter Biden. He has an agreement for a plea deal and he fulfilled some of the terms of the deal. Prosecutors then wanted to file more charges and the deal fell apart. Situation still unresolved.
The problem with that article is that it’s covered up by a pop-up:
FOX NEWS
WE’VE GOT NEWS FOR YOU
IF YOU LIKE OUR COVERAGE, PLEASE DISABLE YOUR AD BLOCKER
so obviously I can’t disable my ad blocker.
From ABC:
He’s got deep political connections, they were too embarrassed to openly act to protect him from his actions…initially. But with the passage of time, slowly slowly, he’ll still pull on those threads of connection to weasel out of the full consequences, which he so deserves.
His case is proof that, no matter how offensive, politically incorrect or openly criminal ones actions maybe, no matter how strong the conviction, or amount of public condemnation or repulsion toward the illegal acts, political connection never fully disappears. If you know people, you know people.
I don’t think so. Seems to me at least that the appeal got it correct. While I agree the original dismissal was a poor decision, the second trial seems pretty unambiguously to be a second bite of the apple.
Perhaps you just mean the former?