this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2025
139 points (100.0% liked)

World News

50581 readers
1326 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/52104455

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

If his defence presented it as a mitigating factor for sentencing then the judge is saying that they took it into account so that he doesn't have grounds for appeal on the basis that his sentencing didn't account for his disability. Just because the judge took it into account doesn't mean that he got a lesser sentence because of it.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 13 hours ago

Do you need any grounds for appeal?

Couldn't they just appeal regardless and e.g. argue the judge didn't take this (in their view) mitigating factor sufficiently into account for sentencing?