comment: >
  
  Kind of invalidates jury of peers don't ya think?  And ain't that one of the foundations of our justice system?  Seems this whole fucking thing is a big lie.  There are no laws for anyone but the common slobs.  There are no taxes for anyone but the common slobs.  And there is no fairness for the common slobs.
context: WASHINGTON (AP) — A jury convicted Dayonta McClinton of robbing a CVS pharmacy but acquitted him of murder. A judge gave McClinton an extra 13 years in prison for the killing anyway.
  In courtrooms across America, defendants get additional prison time for crimes that juries found they didn’t commit.
  The Supreme Court is being asked, again, to put an end to the practice. It’s possible that the newest member of the court and a former federal public defender, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, could hold a pivotal vote. >
  
  For those wondering
  
  a 1997 Supreme Court ruling that “a jury’s verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.”
  
  Crimes require "beyond a reasonable doubt," but apparently punishment does not. >
  
  It does not.  Judges have a lot of leeway in deciding punishment. >
  
  Seems odd that a judge can ignore the orders of a jury decision.  Even for US law this seems odd. >
  
  My thoughts exactly. What's the point if the judge can straight up ignore the verdict?