Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is like throwing red meat to the Republican loons in Congress, who almost certainly will not allow this to become law.
It is not a question of whether the Republicans will let it become law, it is a question of whether the Democrats will let it become law. That’s a 50/50 proposition.
Any vulnerable Democrat on the national stage is going to flee from supporting this bill because it's going to become an easy talking point for their Republican opponents, who will simply say "this person supported lowering penalties for violent gun crimes and carjacking in DC during a time when both were through the roof." The ridiculous talking points used by Charles Allen and his ilk are not going to fly on a national level (they barely fly at the DC level).
Someone will have to introduce a bill to block it, though — and House Republicans have enough on their agenda that I'm not sure they'll make time for debate over a local D.C. matter.
I'm also not sure why any voters in, say, Arizona would care that their senator voted to lower penalties for violent crime in D.C. — are they voting based on their concern for D.C. residents?
Because they can point to their vote and say to their rube followers, "See, I owned the libs when they tried to lower penalities for violent crime."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is like throwing red meat to the Republican loons in Congress, who almost certainly will not allow this to become law.
It is not a question of whether the Republicans will let it become law, it is a question of whether the Democrats will let it become law. That’s a 50/50 proposition.
Any vulnerable Democrat on the national stage is going to flee from supporting this bill because it's going to become an easy talking point for their Republican opponents, who will simply say "this person supported lowering penalties for violent gun crimes and carjacking in DC during a time when both were through the roof." The ridiculous talking points used by Charles Allen and his ilk are not going to fly on a national level (they barely fly at the DC level).
Someone will have to introduce a bill to block it, though — and House Republicans have enough on their agenda that I'm not sure they'll make time for debate over a local D.C. matter.
I'm also not sure why any voters in, say, Arizona would care that their senator voted to lower penalties for violent crime in D.C. — are they voting based on their concern for D.C. residents?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.
Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.
It’s a make work program for politically connected DC lawyers. They will need to create A LOT of new judges to handle the case load. Who do you think those judges will be and how do you think they’ll be selected? The icing on the cake is that the Federal government pays for DCs judicial system. So they don’t even need to foot the bill.
As though DC doesn't already have enough rich entitled lawyers.
Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.
Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.
Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.
Jury duty in DC is a pain for everyone but a true hardship for small business owners and the self-employed. The thought of additional jury duty is yet another reason I’m thankful we moved last year.
It is also important to understand the DC has a very small jury pool due to the number of adults with criminal convictions. DC also has a lot of courts. From Superior to Federal District. So there is a high probability that people who are eligible to serve must serve frequently. This will only increase that burden.
If you're a federal employee rich enough to actually live in DC then jury duty is amazing. You get leave to attend and also get your salary paid while you're doing it. Makes me wonder if there is a SES group that lobbied for more jury trials so they can actually turn off their phones for months at a time![]()
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is like throwing red meat to the Republican loons in Congress, who almost certainly will not allow this to become law.
It is not a question of whether the Republicans will let it become law, it is a question of whether the Democrats will let it become law. That’s a 50/50 proposition.
Any vulnerable Democrat on the national stage is going to flee from supporting this bill because it's going to become an easy talking point for their Republican opponents, who will simply say "this person supported lowering penalties for violent gun crimes and carjacking in DC during a time when both were through the roof." The ridiculous talking points used by Charles Allen and his ilk are not going to fly on a national level (they barely fly at the DC level).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.
Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.
Jury duty in DC is a pain for everyone but a true hardship for small business owners and the self-employed. The thought of additional jury duty is yet another reason I’m thankful we moved last year.
It is also important to understand the DC has a very small jury pool due to the number of adults with criminal convictions. DC also has a lot of courts. From Superior to Federal District. So there is a high probability that people who are eligible to serve must serve frequently. This will only increase that burden.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is like throwing red meat to the Republican loons in Congress, who almost certainly will not allow this to become law.
It is not a question of whether the Republicans will let it become law, it is a question of whether the Democrats will let it become law. That’s a 50/50 proposition.
Any vulnerable Democrat on the national stage is going to flee from supporting this bill because it's going to become an easy talking point for their Republican opponents, who will simply say "this person supported lowering penalties for violent gun crimes and carjacking in DC during a time when both were through the roof." The ridiculous talking points used by Charles Allen and his ilk are not going to fly on a national level (they barely fly at the DC level).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is like throwing red meat to the Republican loons in Congress, who almost certainly will not allow this to become law.
It is not a question of whether the Republicans will let it become law, it is a question of whether the Democrats will let it become law. That’s a 50/50 proposition.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.
Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.
Jury duty in DC is a pain for everyone but a true hardship for small business owners and the self-employed. The thought of additional jury duty is yet another reason I’m thankful we moved last year.
It is also important to understand the DC has a very small jury pool due to the number of adults with criminal convictions. DC also has a lot of courts. From Superior to Federal District. So there is a high probability that people who are eligible to serve must serve frequently. This will only increase that burden.
Anonymous wrote:This is like throwing red meat to the Republican loons in Congress, who almost certainly will not allow this to become law.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.
Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.
Jury duty in DC is a pain for everyone but a true hardship for small business owners and the self-employed. The thought of additional jury duty is yet another reason I’m thankful we moved last year.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain to me the logic behind guaranteeing jury trials for misdemeanors? The jury system is such an incredible time suck and burden on the population. Most people work hard to get out of serving. Each time I go over a hundred people lose a day of work per trial, and then the poor 14 who are selected lose more days. As a society we do not have the resources to provide this to ever misdemeanor accusation.
Frankly, this just encourages upcharging. If I'm a DA and I know I'm going to face a jury, I'm going to want to pile on more charges. I do not see how that is in the interest of the accused - or the greater court system at large.
It’s a make work program for politically connected DC lawyers. They will need to create A LOT of new judges to handle the case load. Who do you think those judges will be and how do you think they’ll be selected? The icing on the cake is that the Federal government pays for DCs judicial system. So they don’t even need to foot the bill.