Nearly all federal judges have given lighter sentences than prosecutors sought, invalidating a key right-wing talking point.
  • Kethal@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 months ago

    The article points out that there are not large differences in leniency between judges appointed by different presidents, and that, if anything, judges appointed by Republicans are harsher.

    • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      10 months ago

      and that, if anything, judges appointed by Republicans are harsher.

      ? I’m skimming the article but these passages seem to suggest the opposite:

      Judges appointed by Trump have issued lesser sentences than prosecutors wanted at only a slightly higher rate than Obama appointees. Out of 173 cases, Trump appointees gave lighter sentences than the government requested in 156. Trump appointees agreed to the sentences recommended by prosecutors in 16 cases, while issuing a harsher sentence in one.

      By contrast, judges appointed by President Bill Clinton have meted out the harshest sentences, yet they have still been more lenient than prosecutors recommended slightly more than half the time. George W. Bush appointed judges have issued lesser sentences than prosecutors sought in 50 out of 54 cases, or 92 percent, while judges appointed by Ronald Reagan issued more lenient sentences in 42 out of 68 cases, or 61 percent.

      The most lenient individual judge handling January 6 cases was not appointed by Trump or Biden, but by George W. Bush. Judge John Bates, now on “senior” or semi-retired status, issued sentences more lenient than prosecutors sought in all 28 of the January 6 cases he handled, often turning down requests for prison time and letting defendants walk free.