MURDERERS are receiving lighter prison sentences than Proud Boys “rioters” caught at January 6 “insurrection”
The self-proclaimed ringleader of the January 6 “insurrection” has received a sentence of 22 years in prison, even though he was nowhere near the U.S. Capitol during the false flag event and was never deemed guilty by a jury of ever having committed any crime that day.
Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of Proud Boys, received a jail sentence that is two years longer than the average sentence for first-degree murder, all because he tweeted out support for the “riot” all the way from Baltimore.
Tarrio’s extremely lengthy prison sentence actually came as a result of him accepting a plea deal through a mechanism known as “trial penalty,” which PJ Media‘s Rick Moran describes as “manifestly and grossly unfair.”
The way it works is prosecutors will dangle a lighter prison sentence before a defendant in exchange for the defendant agreeing not to go to trial by a jury of his peers, as is all defendants’ constitutional right.
“Most January 6 defendants received far lighter sentences of a few months to a few years,” Moran explains. “That’s because they accepted lighter sentences in exchange for their guilty plea.”
“The Proud Boys chose to go to trial. The choice to be tried by a jury of your peers is frowned upon by prosecutors. It’s a lot of work to prepare for a trial and the outcome is a lot less certain. So prosecutors dangle light sentences in front of defendants to discourage them from going to trial.”
(Related: Fact checks determined that the January 6 “insurrection” was nothing more than a government-staged false flag event to entrap Trump supporters.)
The “trial penalty” option has fully corrupted the American justice system
Plea deals are nothing new in the American justice system, but they are, in all reality, a miscarriage of justice. And in this case, Tarrio’s life is basically over because of it – though he could have gotten as many as 33 years in prison had he gone to trial and lost.
“[Prosecutors] got a really long sentence by asking for something really absurd,” commented C.J. Ciaramella on “Reason Roundtable” about how prosecutors used the 33-year prison sentence threat to get Tarrio to agree to 22 years instead.
“In cases where January 6 defendants did plead guilty, expressed remorse, the judges were much more likely to go easy on them.”
In defense of the trial penalty option, many prosecutors argue that it helps to clear out an otherwise clogged system full of cases that are backlogged for many years. On the other hand, trial penalty perverts true justice and turns the entire justice system into bargaining table like at a casino.
“The problem with this system is that it gives us a cockeyed view of ‘justice,'” Moran says.
“In fact, it disconnects the idea of ‘justice’ from the criminal court system. In Tarrio’s case, the prosecutors asked for 33 years. Does that mean that justice wasn’t served because Tarrio ‘only’ got 22 years?”
According to the American Bar Association, average sentences for federal felony convictions are seven years longer for defendants who go to trial compared to defendants who accept a plea deal.
To further coerce defendants into accepting a plea deal, some prosecutors will tack on as many additional charges as possible, many of them completely bogus, as a scare tactic.
“The end result is that those convicted at trial go to prison for longer than even prosecutors think is necessary,” Reason reports about the matter.
Following Tarrio’s sentencing, FBI Director Christopher Wray celebrated, stating that the disturbing outcome “demonstrates that those who attempted to undermine the workings of American democracy will be held criminally accountable.”
In today’s America, up is down, black is white, and injustice has become “justice.” Learn more at Chaos.news.
Sources for this article include: