Well it is not our opinion but what the judge feels. If there were cildren present or other factors he could bump it to 15 years or more if he wanted to.
It just doesn't seem particularly relevant to this case. You're not supposed to just tack years on, because you don't like our history. Using police authority to commit a crime is much, much, much more relevant.
To me it sounds like Dershowitz agrees that Chauvin should have been found guilty, but the trial should have resulted in something like a mistrial. If in fact Chauvin was guilty, as the jury found, would not a reversal on appeal (simply due to outside influence) be an even greater miscarriage of justice? Of course this begs the question, how do you hermetically seal the jury on appeal, if you could not previously?
No. The greater good would be done by protecting the rest of society from the dangers of unfair trials and intimidated juries. Also, Dershowitz believes that the crime committed was second degree manslaughter only.
Ok. But if a jury acquits someone for the "greater good", has justice really been served? I think not.
What's the evidence that the jury was influenced? There would be little miscarriage as a new trial would likely be the result; not a 'not guilty' verdict. Who said you could not previously?
If a jury convicts someone for the wrong reasons, in this case fear and emotion, then the greater good of society is tremendously harmed. The convictions for 2nd and 3rd degree murder are unlawful kangaroo convictions at best.
This will not be overturned on appeal.Judges will not set the precedent that a Congressmens words can overturn court verdicts.