this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2026
154 points (98.7% liked)

politics

30851 readers
3621 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] artyom@piefed.social 16 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Too many people treat a guilty plea as a literal admission of guilt. In reality, 99% of the time it's just trying to secure a lesser sentence. Which is a catastrophe. If they did it, and you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, they should get the full sentence. If you can't prove it, they shouldn't get any sentence. There shouldn't be any in-between.

[–] invertedspear@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It’s not that black and white. The guy that killed my brother had overwhelming evidence against him. 11/12 jurors voted guilty at two trials (22/24 juries total). But both juror pools included one person who would never vote guilty on a fellow native.
Two hung juries, and my brother is still dead, and his murderer is still without consequence. A plea deal would have done a lot for closure in my family.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago

If the jury was not able to get a guilty verdict, that sucks, but that is the system working as intended.

it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.

A plea deal would have done nothing except condemn a legally innocent person to a reduced prison sentence. The consequence of such actions just means that a bunch of people admit to crimes they didn't commit because they feel backed into a corner.

[–] davad@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Except it sounds like this isn't a plea deal. You're describing a plea deal, where the defendant pleads guilty after reaching a deal with the projection. My understanding is this is just a guilty plea. No deal.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Is it so they don't electrocute his balls or suddenly claim everyone he's related to are illegal aliens and terrorists?