• floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    125
    ·
    8 hours ago

    She may have been MAGA, but I admire her for having principles and being able to admit to being wrong.

    • blackn1ght@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      83
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I agree, but:

      Pamela Hemphill, who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 60 days in prison,

      If her sentence was 10 years I wonder if she’d still be taking the moral stand.

      • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        75
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Out of all the hairs to split here, I personally think this is one I’d let slide. Gotta take the little flashes of hope for the next two years, at least.

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        8 hours ago

        If her sentence was 10 years I wonder if she’d still be taking the moral stand.

        I would recommend that instead of conditionally forgiving her (based on something we’ll never know), we should give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that yes she would.

    • FirstCircle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Same. Imagine being her lawyer now, having to argue on her behalf in court that she is guilty and is entitled to prison time. That she has a right to that prison time and to a permanent criminal record.

    • no banana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      I might be wrong here, but wouldn’t it basically require you to confess the crime?

      It is not an admission of guilt.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        113
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I believe that’s true, but that’s not why she did it.

        “Accepting a pardon would only insult the Capitol police officers, rule of law and, of course, our nation,” she said.

        “I pleaded guilty because I was guilty, and accepting a pardon also would serve to contribute to their gaslighting and false narrative.”

        There must always be a path to redemption, and it appears she has chosen to take it.

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I recall a reporter arguing with Joe Arpaio after he was pardoned by Trump. Joe kept saying “I never admitted got” and the reporter repeated “by accepting a pardon, you admit guilt”. It went nowhere

      • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Not necessarily. You can plead guilty while still asserting innocence, for example the Alford plea. It means the defendant accepts the sentence, but remains adamant that what they did was okay according to their conscience.

        In this case tho, the only alternative is to go free despite your wrongdoing, so it might be more of a “Fuck your pardon, orange twat” reaction.

          • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            Although the Supreme Court’s opinion stated that a pardon carries “an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,” this was part of the Court’s dictum for the case. Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed. In Lorance v. Commandant, USDB (2021) the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "there is no confession and Lorance does not otherwise lose his right to petition for habeas corpus relief for his court-martial conviction and sentence.

            That’s from the Wikipedia article about the case you’re referring to. Note that a dictum from the Supreme Court is influential but not binding as a precedent.

            However, that case has to do with a preemptive pardon for a crime that the recipient had not yet been accused of. Pardons for a crime that the recipient is currently being punished for may be different. (If the government wants to remove you from prison, can you refuse to leave?) So may pardons for a crime for which the recipient has already completed his punishment.

        • finley@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I know that in New York, you can simply plead “no contest” or “nolo contendre”

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Accepting a pardon is not an admission of guilt so I don’t think refusing one is either. The rest of what she said was a confession, though.

        • no banana@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Seems that is true since a couple of years back, at least!

          I respect her choice. She seems cool about it.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    That’s so wild that the people who tried to overthrow the election results are even capable of this much change so quickly.

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Not really. One can look at other cults where people finally snap out of their trance once they’ve been separated from their leaders for a while. Not everyone does but many do.

    • BertramDitore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      It’s pretty inspiring, really. If there’s one thing the orange assface is right about, it’s that our prison system is horrendous. Now, I’m sure he doesn’t actually care since he’s above the law and will never see the inside of a cell, but I’m willing to bet at least of few of the insurrectionists (many of whom had relatively privileged backgrounds) took their guilty verdict and prison sentence very seriously. It’s probably the first time many of them were ever properly held responsible for their actions, which makes the pardons that much more egregious.

      Not that it’s the same thing, but murderers have some of the lowest recidivism rates amongst convicted criminals, because people are first and foremost human, and when given the time most people are capable of understanding the impacts of their actions.

      Our justice system does a pretty terrible job in general, but the Jan 6 cases were a rare example of the system working properly.

        • BertramDitore@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 hours ago

          For sure, I agree. Many of the sentences could probably have been longer. But clearly some were enough to make a difference for people like this woman. People can change and understand the wrongs they’ve committed if they’re given the opportunity and empathy to do so.

          To be clear I’m not making excuses for any insurrectionists. But everybody, even them, deserves a genuine chance to understand the harm they caused with their crimes. If even a few of them can do that, then maybe this whole ordeal wasn’t a complete quagmire.