Supreme Court rules for sex offender in child pornography case testing power of judges, juries

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that even sex offenders deserve to have the reasons for their sentences determined by a jury, not a judge.

The justices ruled 5-4 that a federal law requiring sex offenders to return to prison based on a judge's new findings is unconstitutional. Supreme Court precedent gives juries, not judges, the power to determine criminal conduct.

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of President Donald Trump's two nominees on the court, wrote the opinion and was joined by the court's four liberal justices – for the fourth time this term.

"A jury must find every fact that is essential to an individual's punishment," Gorsuch said. In the case before the court, the accused received "a new prison term based instead only on facts fouynd by a judge by a mere preponderance of the evidence."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-rules-for-sex-offender-in-child-pornography-case-testing-power-of-judges-juries/ar-AADsajy?li=BBnbcA1

[Fullduplexxx]

1. Supreme Court precedent gives juries, not judges, the power to determine criminal conduct. Says the

Judges

[lark]

2. With a rapist as one of the members of SCOTUS, the court makes it harder to jail rapists.

Next they will look for a pretense to say that rape isn't rape if it's done by straight white dude and that there is no penalty unless the guy is non-white or not straight or not repug. Isn't it 17 states that now give the rapist child custody rights and make the victim let the criminal come to her house to pick up the gains of his criminal act. Of course, they don't make the rapist pay the woman anything for the child's' care, at least that is my understanding. Real translation - repug men hate women & minorities and want to be to treat us as property and do anything to us they want and don't need consent

[MicaelS]

4. In case you did not read the article......

This was the FOUR LIBERAL justices who voted for this ruling along with Gorsuch.

So your rant has nothing to do with this case.

[MicaelS]

3. This was a good ruling.

What is to prevent any Judge from changing a convicted criminal's sentence "in light of new evidence"?