mechoman444@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Your argument and answer: U.S. law, and most other modern judicial systems, rely on something called precedent. If a judge makes a ruling that creates such precedent, another judge handling a similar case cannot simply ignore it.
There was no new ruling in any of the cases Donald Trump was involved in; therefore, no new precedent was established.
When it comes to sentencing, a judge can and oftentimes does, have leeway to impose punishment as leniently or as harshly as they see fit.
If you commit a crime and are convicted, you could argue at sentencing that, since Trump received leniency, you should also receive a similarly light sentence. Unfortunately when it comes to sentencing a court is not obligated to take into consideration how other criminals were sentenced.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Citation needed. Most of the “modern” countries use civil law en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
mechoman444@lemmy.world 2 days ago
You’re right, I was overgeneralizing.
I assumed most legal systems relied on precedent, but that’s not accurate globally. The majority of countries follow civil law systems, like France and Germany, where precedent isn’t binding in the same way.
Where I was coming from is that many of the largest and most economically influential countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and India do use precedent-based systems, which probably skewed my perception. So yeah, globally I was wrong, but I can see why I thought that.