Sean "Diddy" Combs was hit last week with a sentence of more than four years behind bars, with the judge in the case citing coercion and abuse as contributing factors in the ruling—except Combs was convicted for transporting individuals for prostitution purposes, and acquitted for other charges that would have included said coercion and abuse. According to a Wall Street Journal op-ed penned by Andrew George and Rebecca Brodey, considering those aggravating factors amounted to an unfairly extended sentence—far more than the 14 months that Combs' team had asked for—in a case of "acquitted-conduct sentencing," which the authors note is a "counterintuitive" practice that's "long been criticized by legal scholars, civil-rights advocates, and even a diverse group of Supreme Court justices."
In Combs' case, Judge Arun Subramanian broke things down thusly on explaining why he took charges on racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking involving coercion into consideration, even though Combs was acquitted of them, with the judge stating, "Juries don't acquit defendants of conduct. They acquit them of charges." But George and Brodey say that Subramanian stated he was allowed to "consider acquitted conduct" in making his decision, and indeed, he used the term "coercion" multiple times during the sentencing hearing. That's something that the authors think shouldn't stand, leading them to push for an appeal from Combs' team. "Flawed as their client may be, he shouldn't spend a day in prison for conduct that a jury found wasn't a crime," they write. More here.
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
