PMAC has a good point.
How a judge can sentence (and hence psuedo convict) somebody based of what he/she THINKS theyve done, not what theyve been convicted of goes against the very concept of a trial by your peers.
It specifically negates the trial. And in doing so the system itself (innocent until PROVEN guilty).
It's a very dangerous trend.
I remember reading about one NY southern district case last year. The guy was aquitted of all charges... Judge slammed him with 20 years. They call it 'aquitted conduct'. I thought the same way as you guys when I first found out about that. Which was essentially.... How?
So I read up on it. It's such a flagrantly unconstitutional practice, that it's being fought in Supreme Court.
Here is an informative discussion and explanation of the acquitted conduct sentencing enhancement.
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing...nhancement.html
