As a result, thousands of people will serve longer prison terms.
  • mindbleach
    1·
    8 months ago

    This court is illegitimate and its nonsense rulings should be ignored at all levels.

    … but in this case the clear intent and letter of the law don’t match. The intent had to be “or,” or else (A) is completely redundant. Insufficient, even. If we’re only talking about defendants with a 3-point offense and a 2-point violent offense, it is impossible for them to have fewer than 5 criminal history points.

    !( A && B && C ) == !A || !B || !C.

    Whether the court should account for lawmakers being well-meaning fuckups is halfway to a question of philosophy.

    • Willie@kbin.social
      1·
      8 months ago

      Well, it’s worded like this:

      ‘‘(1) the defendant does not have—
      ‘‘(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
      ‘‘(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
      ‘‘© a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;’’

      This would lead me to append the header from (1) to the start of each item contained within itself. You could then read it as:

      ‘‘(A) the defendant does not have more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
      ‘‘(B) the defendant does not have a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
      ‘‘© the defendant does not have a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;’’

      If they wrote “or” instead of “and” then you would face the problems you (and the supreme court) listed, but they didn’t, so you don’t.

      • mindbleach
        1·
        8 months ago

        This would lead me to append the header from (1) to the start of each item contained within itself.

        That’s not how English works, that’s not how law works, that’s not how logic works.