• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Minnesota Prosecutor Under Fire Over Tesla Vandal Case, Focuses On ‘Racial Disparities’ In Sentencing

Bum

I survived. Suck it, Schrodinger.
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
19,971
Reaction score
23,772
Location
In a box.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
A liberal Minnesota prosecutor receiving backlash for letting a Tesla vandal off easy is now pushing to reduce “racial disparities” in sentencing.
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty’s office will consider a defendant’s “racial identity” when weighing potential plea deals starting Monday, KARE 11 reported. Moriarty drew criticism days earlier after declining to prosecute an employee in Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s administration who keyed six Tesla vehicles and caused more than $21,000 in damage.


“While racial identity and age are not appropriate grounds for departures [from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines], proposed resolutions should consider the person charged as a whole person, including their racial identity and age,” a memo from Moriarty’s office reportedly reads. “While these factors should not be controlling, they should be part of the overall analysis.”

M'kay.
 
Peter said:
Vandalising a Tesla should get exactly the same punishment as vandalising any other vehicle.

Elon Musk is not a protected class and nor is Tesla.
Click to expand...
Excellent example of missing the point. Well done!
 
You get what you vote for. I hope the Hennepin County residents are happy with their pick.
 
Peter said:
Vandalising a Tesla should get exactly the same punishment as vandalising any other vehicle.

Elon Musk is not a protected class and nor is Tesla.
Click to expand...
Doing $21,000 in vandalism damage is a fourth degree felony. Refusing to prosecute it because the guy knows a failed vice presidential candidate is outrageous. In the UK, he’d get up to 10 years in prison.
 
Peter said:
Vandalising a Tesla should get exactly the same punishment as vandalising any other vehicle.

Elon Musk is not a protected class and nor is Tesla.
Click to expand...
Causing $20,000 dollars worth of any kind of vandalism should get the same punishment.
 
Moon said:
You get what you vote for. I hope the Hennepin County residents are happy with their pick.
Click to expand...
This is akin to California's prop 47. We all know what happened after that was passed.
 
I love having to find a link. then finding that the first several are: National Review, Freebeacon.com, Fox News, MSN (reposting Daily Caller), Kare11.com

Do we at least have a decent source for this?


___________

That said, sentencing is not merely about punishment. I'm not sure what's so horrible about considering the whole person, which includes their circumstances. Isn't the sentence supposed to be the punishment deserved by the individual, not a group of persons like the individual only by virtue of the identity of crime? If there is a source that doesn't always shit its pants, I'll consider it based on what happened but... trustable details would be nice.

At any rate, I hope the only people angry about this are still absolutely ballistic about Trump pardoning the 1/6 insurrectionists. 'Cause, y'know....Teslas vs Capitol Building, cops, etc

Moon said:
Excellent example of missing the point. Well done!
Click to expand...

He did miss the point. But the point was still shit. His missing it doesn't make the point better.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
That said, sentencing is not merely about punishment. I'm not sure what's so horrible about considering the whole person, which includes their circumstances.
Click to expand...

Sounds very "progressive", meaning it's built on vague feelings instead of actual justice. Which sob story gets priority? Poverty, bad parents, dropping out of school, voting for the wrong party? With this kind of clown show, two people can commit the exact same crime, but the one who cries harder or checks the right victim boxes walks away with the proverbial slap on the wrist.
 

So you don't think someone stealing a loaf of bread to eat because they're starving should be treated less harshly than someone with wealth stealing a loaf of bread just for the thrill of it?
 
Peter said:
So you don't think someone stealing a loaf of bread to eat because they're starving should be treated less harshly than someone with wealth stealing a loaf of bread just for the thrill of it?
Click to expand...

Using an extremely rare case (starving person stealing bread) is the appeal to pity fallacy. 99.9% of theft is not about survival.

Furthermore, intent is already considered separately in law (e.g., theft vs. robbery vs. fraud) - without needing to invent a "how poor are you?" meter at sentencing.
 

My point is that crime is never judged on pure logic and unyielding observation of the law.

There is always an element of circumstances involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…