I read the maximums, and I’m just concerned the judge could be “lenient” with sentencing.

The people who write these news articles usually have no idea how sentencing guidelines work (or don’t care because bigger number = more clicks) and these numbers are much higher than someone with no criminal record would get. They also pleaded guilty and will serve federal and state time simultaneously which will reduce their sentence.

I suspect they will get at most 20 years each unless the judge really hates them regardless of what they deserve.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer

Mr. Holier than thou over here.

If the person they tortured was family/friend? And the perp held a badge while they did it?

Fucking happily, pal. Happily.

Would you be willing to shatter a jaw breaking teeth or just okay when others do it?

In this case, I’d personally be happy if both were true.

Naw. The golden rule is pretty solid, even when turned through traverse logic*. “Do unto others as they have done” seems like a reasonable position. Treat nice people nicely, but don’t reward assholes with the same respect. History has proven that pacifist “turn the other cheek” only works when the person in the other end is a decent human being, and by their actions, these men have proven that they aren’t.

Honestly, I’m also OK with the position that society is probably better with them entirely removed from existence. Maybe reform would work, and maybe one would go on to be some Mozart who contributes greatly to society, but it’s pretty low odds and guaranteed high cost to society for the benefit of torturers and murderers, and people who have betrayed a sacred trust and authority. So, maybe let the victims or their families make that choice between reform and punishment, but if they demure, then let the punishment fit the crime.

I do believe some consideration should be made for our inability to categorically prove guilt. One innocent person unjustly punished is not a small price to pay, and there’s good evidence the rate of unjust convictions is absurdly high in the US. I still think the rule works pretty well when applied to crimes with victims: who is wronged when someone shoots up smack, and what’s an appropriate punishment to fit that crime? If we can’t answer that clearly, if there’s no victim to speak up for, then maybe we turn by default to enlightened reform.

Horrible people who’ve intentionally done unspeakable harm to others, that we would shudder to show our children… no sympathy here.

Honestly, agree. People need to pick. Do you want human rights violating prisons filled to the brim with people and violence? Or do you just want that for the cops? How many innocent and non violent people are being subjected to the same or similar treatment?

In my opinion, the quality of a society can be observed on how they treat their prisoners. If you’re okay with torturing people who have gone through the judicial system, then you’re just as much a barbarian as any other.

How can you make the world a better place if you are adding suffering? To be fair, I have similar sentiments toward animals especially anything factory farmed. I can’t even tacitly accept any worldview that is okay with the suffering of anyone or anything, let alone one that cheers it on.

Fuck these fucking pigs, but I hope they live lives free of torture, save that imposed by their own consciences (hopefully).

Removed by mod

I don’t believe that the state has the right to make examples out of people, unless those people took an oath to the state and used that power to abuse people. Then, the state is obligated to do it.

Example making is a confession of impotence. It’s a way of highlighting the fact that you have up until now failed to do what you are supposed to be doing and would like to draw attention to a specific incident where you actually follow through on your responsibilities.

To put it another way, I think you must make examples out of people who abuse power you give them because it’s your fault and theirs that this happened. So they have earned being made into an example and you are obligated to make one. You must confess your impotence if you are in power.

Anything less than that is cowardice and corruption.

If you have a problem with the way that police are treated in prison then you have a problem with the way that prisons let people get treated. Under no circumstances should a police officer get special treatment at any step along the way unless that’s to make it harsher and more punitive.