It’s hard to imagine a less contentious or more innocent word than “and.”
But how to interpret that simple conjunction has prompted a complicated legal fight that lands in the Supreme Court on Oct. 2, the first day of its new term. What the justices decide could affect thousands of prison sentences each year.
Federal courts across the country disagree about whether the word, as it is used in a bipartisan 2018 criminal justice overhaul, indeed means “and” or whether it means “or.” Even an appellate panel that upheld a longer sentence called the structure of the provision “perplexing.”
The Supreme Court has stepped in to settle the dispute.
It’s the kind of task the justices — and maybe their English teachers — love. The case requires the close parsing of a part of a federal statute, the First Step Act, which aimed in part to reduce mandatory minimum sentences and give judges more discretion.
Tldr on the ambiguity of and?
It’s basically explained in these three sections:
“In particular, the justices will be examining a so-called safety valve provision that is meant to spare low-level, nonviolent drug dealers who agree to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors from having to face often longer mandatory sentences.”
“The provision lists three criteria for allowing judges to forgo a mandatory minimum sentence that basically look to the severity of prior crimes. Congress did not make it easy by writing the section in the negative so that a judge can exercise discretion in sentencing if a defendant “does not have” three sorts of criminal history.”
“The question is how to determine eligibility for the safety valve — whether any of the conditions is enough to disqualify someone or whether it takes all three to be ineligible.”
And since fucking asshole journalists and editors never mention the actual goddamn law, it’s 18 U.S. Code § 3553(f)(1), here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553#f
Condensed version:
The “and” is pretty clear. In order to qualify for sentencing outside the statutory minimum, you must not have more than 4 points, a 3-point offense, and a 2-point violent offense. In short, you must not have A, B, and C. If you have A, B, and C, you do not qualify. But almost nobody is going to have all three of A, B, and C.
That’s actually far more ambiguous than I expected.
It’s really not ambiguous at all. There is no reasonable way to read “and” and interpret it as “or”.
Right, but with more logic-challenged individuals in mind, this is far more ambiguous than necessary. It shouldn’t be ambiguous to anyone in law, though, and that’s all that should matter.
So the argument is basically: (A&B&C) Or (A) or (B&C)
Correct?
Looks like it but if so IMO it’s not really about and, it’s about the structure of how the conditions are written down. Another and between A & B would clarify the intent if all 3 conditions need to be met.
It would not. A, B, and C means all three. If they meant any other configuration of criteria, there are existing ways of writing it that they would have used.
The citizens’ argument is that the law is clear in that you are only disqualified from reduced sentencing if you meet all three conditions.
The other side, used by some courts and prosecutors, is that obviously Congress didn’t mean what they wrote, so they’re going to use the more punitive interpretation.
Crazy how much money we waste on the war on drugs.