1/6 -- Covering ALL the bases with discretion

The insurrection on 1/6 has led to some hard-line approaches to those involved from people who generally would be wary about mistreatment of people in the criminal justice system. I suggested in a comment (referencing Sen. Tuberville's extended involvement in the protest of the electoral results and Trump specifically calling him while the attack on the Capitol was beginning) very low level offenders should still be handled, but maybe not with prison time. 

This received pushback as too soft. This is not surprising with one person elsewhere suggesting we send people to GITMO pending sentencing. GITMO is tossed around a lot like there was actually some regular danger for American citizens (or even people on U.S. soil) to be sent there or something.  The use of the term "insurrection" itself does provide special concern, concern that warrants strong responses that otherwise might not so warrant.  

But, at some point, and this comes up from time to time [though criminal justice reform types at times also push back a bit too hard -- it's understandable, but they still are wrong at times] in other cases too, it is just too much.  I think a general principle is at stake here about trying to be consistent, even when it might be uncomfortable. I don't want to be sanctimonious about it, but still, at some times people like myself who spend more time on these sort of things are more liable to care enough to push back.  And, sometimes, it just is more akin to the trope of "the asshole has a point."  Sometimes, it is simply basic fairness kicking in, once emotion is put aside and you think "yeah, okay." 

Extended involvement inside the criminal justice system not involving prison time has been continuously cited as a threat to civil rights, but now it is a "slap on the wrist" that won't discourage people who thought they were going to get a parade and are whining when they did not.

For instance, involvement might result in loss of employment or employment activities. It might result in deprivation of licenses. It can require let's say a year of supervision by the federal justice system. Fines. Extended community service. Merely being on a publicly searchable list, very well possibly with photos, will discourage many people here. My original comment also flagged the Fourteenth Amendment, which would cover let's say someone who swore an oath as a member of the military and is part of the crowd here or perhaps was in some minor way an accessory.*  One member of Congress submitted a proposal though text is still not up.  Hopefully, the matter will carefully be considered, since this matter very well is likely to arise in future elections. 

(A basic thing here also can be that even a petty crime committed can violate the terms of the release. Lots of people commit petty crimes. That over your head is a basic way to deter.)

These are after all not people who did things like committed violence or theft. They would not be "extremely minor." Someone who just was part of the crowd inside, let's say, would very well be discouraged by a range of non-prison time penalties.  So, again, prison time might not be required in all cases, especially if it can be a means to process a bunch of minor offenses with the people involved helpful to the prosecution. There will be some tricky stuff here. Let's not by rule wipe away a sane approach.

====

* There was an interesting example of the levels of being an accessory in a Barnaby Jones episode, the show being on late nite on a classics station. I used to watch repeats back in the day -- the series was over before I was ten so unlike MASH, did not catch it live -- and it still has charms, including its kitsch-y opening. Watching a few episodes, it also seems like grandpa here repeatedly puts himself in lethal situations, at times rather gratuitously. [Mad About You once flagged concern for him.]

The mystery involved the killing of a woman that a country music singer had a scuffle with, resulting in the woman being temporarily knocked unconscious.  The singer is told by her manager that the woman was killed, the manager apparently afraid the singer was thinking of going back with her ex-husband, so this would not only allow him to have something over her, but also get her to agree to go away. (We basically was left to assume.)

The singer scared, she agrees to let him handle it. He does so by driving the woman away, at least pretending (it is unclear) to encourage her to go away and then (unnecessarily probably so it seemed staged, especially the out of the way location) kills her by hitting her with a car. He then tosses her in the lake, which he tells the singer about, without noting when she died. To continue this plot discussion, as appears typical, one murder tends not to be enough. Another guy saw the manager drive away with the woman and the manager eventually kills him.

The singer overall -- even the dead woman's father doesn't blame her -- comes off sympathetically.  Barnaby suggests the state would be satisfied that the manager confessed.  This might be true, especially since a white country music star like herself will get nice representation and can also offer helpful testimony though the confession makes that a bit less necessary.  But, she was an accessory after the fact.  If she simply went to the police, in fact, it is fairly likely the other guy would not have been killed. He too would have said what he saw -- unlike some of these episodes, he had no reason to hide such information. 

The manager would thus have two people involved who spoke of his involvement, and the singer would have found out the woman wasn't even dead.  The manager only found out that the boyfriend saw him when the guy went to see him, looking for the woman. If it was right away reported, the guy would have little reason to do that. Again, and this is an interesting tidbit, the country singer knew where the body was. If the manager didn't tell her that, it could be more complicated.  As Jones noted, she couldn't have disposed of her that way, so that helps prove his guilt. 

One probably can formulate some scenario, changing the details, where the boyfriend might still try to blackmail the manager or something. But, going by the details of the episode, the country music singer probably shares the guilt of his death. The ending focused on the woman who was killed. The other guy came off as a loser who wore his shirt open to show his chest, but he didn't seem that bad. His mom might not be as sympathetic to the coutnry music star here. 

Jones very well might be right that the state would be satisfied.  But, this extended analysis suggests the moral and legal implications here are actually possibly a tad complicated.  I'm not trying to blame the show here; even much more serious fare doesn't address all the complexities. It was just a "hmm" moment that arises from time to time. And, to tie this all together, complexities might arise in the cases here.  

A knee-jerk reaction is understandable -- ditto being upset about bail when some other types of people, often people of color [but criminal justice is not somehow hunky dory for everyone else] do not get that level of fair treatment.  Two wrongs don't make a right and as we push for bail reform, including no cash bail -- even on that very blog at times -- perhaps the rules do apply here as well. I'm also not sure how much the rules are similarly unfairly applied against federal offenders anyways.