Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime.
A sentence of 30 years in prison for obstructing an investigation is excessive, especially when compared to the "base offense level" of Involuntary Manslaughter (section 2A1.4 found here[0]) being between 12 and 22, roughly translating to between 10 and 51 months in prison[1] (assuming no prior felony convictions).
Not 360 months, which is the length of this sentence.
0 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...
1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...
Lucky you. You have a "justice" system. We all got legal system or some sort of kangaroo systems in our corner of the world.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.[0]
In it, there is no "pick and choose individual cases".
So, when a woman has a bad experience with a doctor it could be misogyny. It's probably not, though, and if all we ever do is look into doctor's supposed misogyny then we aren't dealing with the root issue.
If I am interpreting this question correctly, it assumes the same person whom commits an offense being investigated also obstructs investigation into same. These would be two different offenses and are charged as such AFAIK.
For the situation where one party obstructs an investigation, but is not a party to what is being investigated, then the premise of "a default strategy to beat the base offense" is inapplicable.
Being excessive is the point. It's to deter others from trying to copy their actions.
This actually seems like a halfway good analogy to this case. You're intending to obstruct the investigators, but only if they engage in their own illegality - stealing your sandwich or prosecuting based on political speech.
(With that said, I agree that 30 years is excessive, even under the heuristic that it should be a greater penalty than the crime it supported.)
Intent ia required aspect of most crimes.
When it’s missing, the charged crime usually includes recklessness.
Like how is this complicated? Somebody commits a crime and then calls you and says "Hey can you hide X so the cops don't find it?" Always a crime to hide X in these circumstances.
> Conspiracy to Conceal Documents (Count 12) and other objects that would implicate Maricela Rueda in the riot and shooting at the Prairieland facility.
> Defendants convicted: Sanchez Estrada and Maricela Rueda
Obviously prosecutors always present things in the worst possible way for defendants, but I think the GP poster's point is pretty valid:
> Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime.
>it is still a crime
Pardon me, but effin what?
Ah yes. There's a word for it.
You're literally calling for prosecuting thoughtcrimes.
Good job, making Orwell proud.
>take an action in the real world (not a crime)
>it's a crime
You're not make it any better, you're just repeating your desire to prosecute thoughtcrimes.
"Your honor, he wanted the President dead and he breathed! That's an action in the real world! Off with his head!"
By your logic putting a pin in a voodoo doll is a crime.
I implore you, abscond and perish promptly with such twisted cognizance of justice.
> your desire
I don't think it's my desire. I'm pretty sure i'm just describing how our legal system actually works.
And if you think this is bad, go look up the requirements for a conspiracy charge which are even less than this.
....like putting a needle in a voodoo doll, fully believing it will result in the death of a person it represents.
>I'm pretty sure i'm just describing how our legal system actually works.
FIY, I just intentionally put a needle through your voodoo doll, fully believing it will result in your untimely death.
You might want to report me for attempted murder, and find out the defense between how our legal system actually works, and how you wish it worked.
If you're still reading this, I'm willing to repeat the above real world action of stabbing your voodoo doll as many times as it is necessary for it to work, in the presence of witnesses.
You're welcome.
>And if you think this is bad
This is not just bad, it's insane.
I'm not going to switch to another subject (conspiracy charges).
True, that is their job.
Problem is, it is the judge's job to determine appropriate punishment for the crime once it is proven the defendant is responsible for same.
30 years (360 months) for a first time offender is roughly equivalent to Second Degree Murder (see section 2A1.2 here[0]). Even assuming the defendant has 13 or more felony convictions, this sentence would be roughly equivalent to Child Exploitation Enterprises (see section 2G2.6 here[0]).
The calculation of sentence length is based on the 2025 guidelines published here[1].
0 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...
1 - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu...
Probably. But put yourself in the defendant's shoes when the sentence was handed down. And then imagine what comfort is had by someone saying it "likely won't hold up on appeal".
> That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly.
Agreed. I do not think the commenters were defending the sentencing and perhaps not considering it. What I sought to provide was recognizing the punishment must fit the crime.
...maybe to the so-called Department of Justice, but not in any moral sense.
(Meanwhile, the Jan 6 insurrectionists, who were a credible threat to the peaceful transfer of power - the foundation of democracy - were all pardoned. By the guy who sent them there.)