? I quoted the judge in the case, who does have the evidence . . .. She didn't presume guilt. She factored evidence of guilt into her sentencing decision.
Here's how it works. If those were the only charges, then your standard of proof would be "beyond a reasonable doubt" (i.e. 97-99% likely). They aren't. Since the other charges were already proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is already going to be incarcerated for the statutory thirty years to life. Now the judge has to decide how much time to give. If the defendant is a saint who made a mistake, maybe they get thirty years. If the defendant is the devil, they might get life. I don't know what standard of evidence the judge is required to use to make this decision, but I'm under the impression that it is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is probably more like, "preponderance of evidence," (>50% likelihood). So if the judge believes the most likely scenario is that the defendant is a super bad guy, they might give a harsher sentence.
As an aside, epistemically, you seem to be confused about the meaning of "evidence." Evidence is stuff that causes you to believe something more. Evidence does not imply that there is a 100% certainty of something being true.
I'm aware of what judicial discretion is. I find the idea of using unproven allegations as input into that process to be pretty concerning, though.
> As an aside, epistemically, you seem to be confused about the meaning of "evidence." Evidence is stuff that causes you to believe something more. Evidence does not imply that there is a 100% certainty of something being true.
I'm not confused about what "evidence" is. The thing is that we have a process for determining guilt of crimes, and it's not "a judge thinks evidence is fairly compelling".
We have here someone who was convicted of a specific set of crimes but whose sentencing was driven by another set of unproven crimes. "Factoring in evidence" of those alleged crimes requires assuming that those crimes were committed as alleged, but such assumption violates the presumption of innocence. If the evidence is compelling, then try those crimes.
