Thread by @EveKeneinan

The framing of this is dishonest. He did assault the man during the “$9 robbery.”

BUT this is another example of what goes wrong when you make it illegal for JUDGES TO JUDGE. It’s a “three strikes” law effect.

I’ve been teaching my students what’s wrong with this for 25 years.

https://twitter.com/KingBnji_/status/1359978721088843776

The LAW states something universal that applies to EVERYONE.

But no CASE is universal. It is PARTICULAR.

JUDGMENT is the application of the universal law/rule to a particular case.

In these laws, the legislators pass a “one size fits all” law that FORCES the judge to do this.

Yes, this is an OBVIOUS injustice.

This has nothing to do with the man’s race.

In fact it is utterly NON-RACIST since the judge had NO CHOICE AT ALL about the sentence. The man’s race COULD NOT have played a role in this sentence. It was mandatory by law.

I hate the injustice of this.

I hate the “well-meaning” but thoroughly dishonest attempts to RACIALIZE this injustice.

I hate the “well-meaning” but thoroughly dishonest attempts to misrepresent the case as just “stealing $9.”

This is like lying about the Nazis — something that gives cover to Holocaust deniers, since they are able to catch you in such lies (e.g. the Nazis making lampshades out of the skin of Jews, etc.).

YOU DON’T NEED TO EMBELLISH THE NAZIS’ CRIMES. THEY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

It is an EVIL LIE that if you are against something evil, you have to condone, endorse, or join in the additional evil of LYING ABOUT THE EVIL THING.

If you allow yourself to get into the habit of being dishonest about things you dislike, you BECOME a dishonest person.

You’ll have become a liar, and for what? To make evil, which looks bad in itself, look “extra bad”?