Current Events > How would you interpret the word "and" in this scenario?

Topic List	Page List: 1
Geiki_Ganger 10/15/23 8:19:05 PM #1:	Full clause in the body of the post. - Results (26 votes) WTF, "and" should mean "and", what a waste of time and resources. 73.08% (19 votes) 19 This is a tricky case where "and" should mean "no" because otherwise that clause makes no sense. 7.69% (2 votes) 2 I have no clue what is going on, this is too complicated for me to understand. 19.23% (5 votes) 5 Believe it or not, this is the subject of a US Supreme Court case. The "safety valve" provision of the federal sentencing statute [18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(1)-(5)] requires a district court to ignore any statutory mandatory minimum and instead follow the Sentencing Guidelines if a defendant was convicted of certain nonviolent drug crimes and can meet five sets of criteria. Congress amended the first set of criteria, in 3553(f)(1), in the First Step Act of 2018, which was a broad criminal justice and sentencing reform legislation designed to provide a second chance for nonviolent offenders. A defendant satisfies 3553(f)(1), as amended, if he does not have: "(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; (B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; *and* (C) a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines." The question presented is whether the emphasized "and" in the above clause means "and", which would mean that a defendant satisfies the provision so long as he does not have (A) more than 4 criminal history points, (B) a 3-point offense, and (C) a 2-point offense (as the Ninth Circuit holds). Alternatively, whether the "and" actually means "or," so that a defendant satisfies the provision so long as he does not have (A) more than 4 criminal history points, (B) a 3- point offense, or (C) a 2-point violent offense. The latter is the meaning that won out at the Seventh and Eighth Circuit, so it is now up to the SCOTUS to decide whether the word "and" should mean just that or it should actually mean "or". Any thoughts, CE? --- Nintendo 3DS Friend Code: 3368 - 1137 - 5460 http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q155/Gamecubesupreme/sf7y9s.jpg <cite>Geiki_Ganger posted [p:976677741] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote> Full clause in the body of the post. - Results (26 votes) WTF, "and" should mean "and", what a waste of time and resources. 73.08% (19 votes) 19 This is a tricky case where "and" should mean "no" because otherwise that clause makes no sense. 7.69% (2 votes) 2 I have no clue what is going on, this is too complicated for me to understand. 19.23% (5 votes) 5 Show Voting Form Believe it or not, this is the subject of a US Supreme Court case.The "safety valve" provision of the federal sentencing statute [18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(1)-(5)] requires a district court to ignore any statutory mandatory minimum and instead follow the Sentencing Guidelines if a defendant was convicted of certain nonviolent drug crimes and can meet five sets of criteria.Congress amended the first set of criteria, in 3553(f)(1), in the First Step Act of 2018, which was a broad criminal justice and sentencing reform legislation designed to provide a second chance for nonviolent offenders.A defendant satisfies 3553(f)(1), as amended, if he does not have:<quote>"(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and (C) a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines."</quote>The question presented is whether the emphasized "and" in the above clause means "and", which would mean that a defendant satisfies the provision so long as he does not have (A) more than 4 criminal history points, (B) a 3-point offense, and (C) a 2-point offense (as the Ninth Circuit holds).Alternatively, whether the "and" actually means "or," so that a defendant satisfies the provision so long as he does not have (A) more than 4 criminal history points, (B) a 3- point offense, or (C) a 2-point violent offense.The latter is the meaning that won out at the Seventh and Eighth Circuit, so it is now up to the SCOTUS to decide whether the word "and" should mean just that or it should actually mean "or".Any thoughts, CE? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dungeater 10/15/23 8:20:08 PM #2:	highlight the relevant part wtf --- My fate was the grandest, most brilliant of them all. <cite>Dungeater posted [p:976677757] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>highlight the relevant part wtf </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Geiki_Ganger 10/15/23 8:21:23 PM #3:	Dungeater posted... highlight the relevant part wtf It's bolded and underlined, what more do you want dawg. --- Nintendo 3DS Friend Code: 3368 - 1137 - 5460 http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q155/Gamecubesupreme/sf7y9s.jpg <cite>Geiki_Ganger posted [p:976677778] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>Dungeater posted... </cite><quote>highlight the relevant part wtf</quote>It's bolded and underlined, what more do you want dawg. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doe 10/15/23 8:22:00 PM #4:	Constitutional interpretation is sophistry. To expand, there's no right answer in terms of some platonic form of law truth, nor is there likely to be a consistent history of case law on the interpretation of such a clause; and even were there a consistent history, that wouldn't prove it true. We could all agree it's one way, but if six justices say it's the other way then that's the ruling. If two of those justices die and get replaced by two who want the other ruling, then the ruling will change. Discussion around interpretation of legal text frequently sort of presupposes that there must be some final truth at the heart of a piece of text and maybe we can find that truth, if we do extensive enough analysis or apply the correct ideas. But there just isn't. When a document like this gets signed into law, the legislature didn't even notice it as an issue. Or maybe some did, but voted for it because they were fine with either understanding, or strongly expected the court to rule in the direction they wanted. Even if we wanted to broadly accept a specific method of decision making like finding out what was in the minds of the writers/passers of the legislation, there are probably contradictory answers to that question. So really the job of the court is to just get it over with. Declare what it means, one way or the other, so the rest of the legal system agrees on what to do with it, and things can keep running. That's on the best of days, other times the job of the court is just to rule in favor of the Senate majority who placed them, since they indicated that's the way they'd rule. --- https://imgur.com/gallery/dXDmJHw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75GL-BYZFfY <cite>Doe posted [p:976677791] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>Constitutional interpretation is sophistry.To expand, there's no right answer in terms of some platonic form of law truth, nor is there likely to be a consistent history of case law on the interpretation of such a clause; and even were there a consistent history, that wouldn't prove it true.We could all agree it's one way, but if six justices say it's the other way then that's the ruling. If two of those justices die and get replaced by two who want the other ruling, then the ruling will change.Discussion around interpretation of legal text frequently sort of presupposes that there must be some final truth at the heart of a piece of text and maybe we can find that truth, if we do extensive enough analysis or apply the correct ideas. But there just isn't. When a document like this gets signed into law, the legislature didn't even notice it as an issue. Or maybe some did, but voted for it because they were fine with either understanding, or strongly expected the court to rule in the direction they wanted. Even if we wanted to broadly accept a specific method of decision making like finding out what was in the minds of the writers/passers of the legislation, there are probably contradictory answers to that question. So really the job of the court is to just get it over with. Declare what it means, one way or the other, so the rest of the legal system agrees on what to do with it, and things can keep running. That's on the best of days, other times the job of the court is just to rule in favor of the Senate majority who placed them, since they indicated that's the way they'd rule. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Philip027 10/15/23 8:24:51 PM #5:	"and" should mean both/all conditions need to be fulfilled, just like it would in a programming sense. If that isn't what is meant, it should be changed accordingly. You'd think legalese stuff would make sure to be clearer on such things. <cite>Philip027 posted [p:976677848] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>"and" should mean both/all conditions need to be fulfilled, just like it would in a programming sense. If that isn't what is meant, it should be changed accordingly.You'd think legalese stuff would make sure to be clearer on such things.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dungeater 10/15/23 8:26:29 PM #6:	Geiki_Ganger posted... It's bolded and underlined, what more do you want dawg. it was only underlined when i commented and i still couldnt find it shoulda used the citation brackets --- My fate was the grandest, most brilliant of them all. <cite>Dungeater posted [p:976677872] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>Geiki_Ganger posted... </cite><quote>It's bolded and underlined, what more do you want dawg.</quote>it was only underlined when i commented and i still couldnt find itshoulda used the citation brackets </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Geiki_Ganger 10/15/23 8:27:40 PM #7:	Dungeater posted... it was only underlined when i commented and i still couldnt find it shoulda used the citation brackets Fine, there it is. --- Nintendo 3DS Friend Code: 3368 - 1137 - 5460 http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q155/Gamecubesupreme/sf7y9s.jpg <cite>Geiki_Ganger posted [p:976677891] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>Dungeater posted... </cite><quote>it was only underlined when i commented and i still couldnt find itshoulda used the citation brackets</quote>Fine, there it is. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dungeater 10/15/23 8:28:05 PM #8:	u are a good topic creator --- My fate was the grandest, most brilliant of them all. <cite>Dungeater posted [p:976677899] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>u are a good topic creator </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GuerrillaSoldier 10/15/23 8:32:59 PM #9:	what --- Disclaimer: There's a good chance the above post could be sarcasm. Die-hard Oakland A's fan --- Keep the A's in Oakland! <cite>GuerrillaSoldier posted [p:976677977] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>what </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ellis123 10/15/23 8:37:44 PM #10:	Philip027 posted... "and" should mean both/all conditions need to be fulfilled, just like it would in a programming sense. If that isn't what is meant, it should be changed accordingly. You'd think legalese stuff would make sure to be clearer on such things. It does. TC just doesn't understand how negatives work. As it was underlined it has a "while they do not have" these conditions they are applied to the provisions. So if, say, the person has 4 criminal history points but hasn't had a 3 point offense/2 point violent offense they are excluded, if they have a 3 point offense but haven't had 4 criminal history points/a 2 point violent offense they are excluded, etc. Basically so long as any of them apply they are immediately negated from the provisions under the language given. Thus the only way to be available for the provision is to have all of them not apply, literally the definition of what "and" is used for. --- "A shouted order to do something of dubious morality with an unpredictable outcome? Thweeet!" My FC is in my profile. <cite>ellis123 posted [p:976678052] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>Philip027 posted... </cite><quote>"and" should mean both/all conditions need to be fulfilled, just like it would in a programming sense. If that isn't what is meant, it should be changed accordingly.You'd think legalese stuff would make sure to be clearer on such things.</quote>It does. TC just doesn't understand how negatives work. As it was underlined it has a "while they do not have" these conditions they are applied to the provisions. So if, say, the person has 4 criminal history points but hasn't had a 3 point offense/2 point violent offense they are excluded, if they have a 3 point offense but haven't had 4 criminal history points/a 2 point violent offense they are excluded, etc. Basically so long as any of them apply they are immediately negated from the provisions under the language given. Thus the only way to be available for the provision is to have all of them not apply, literally the definition of what "and" is used for. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Geiki_Ganger 10/15/23 8:43:48 PM #11:	ellis123 posted... It does. TC just doesn't understand how negatives work. As it was underlined it has a "while they do not have" these conditions they are applied to the provisions. So if, say, the person has 4 criminal history points but hasn't had a 3 point offense/2 point violent offense they are excluded, if they have a 3 point offense but haven't had 4 criminal history points/a 2 point violent offense they are excluded, etc. Basically so long as any of them apply they are immediately negated from the provisions under the language given. Thus the only way to be available for the provision is to have all of them not apply, literally the definition of what "and" is used for. The problem with the interpretation of "and" meaning "and" is that a person with a bunch of 3 point offenses (which is more serious), but no 2 point offense (which is less serious), would qualify for a more lenient sentence while a person who has exactly one 3 point offense and one 2 point offense would not. Is that not an absurd result? This would essentially encourage offenders to want their offenses to all be 3 points rather than have any 2 point offenses. --- Nintendo 3DS Friend Code: 3368 - 1137 - 5460 http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q155/Gamecubesupreme/sf7y9s.jpg <cite>Geiki_Ganger posted [p:976678145] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>ellis123 posted... </cite><quote>It does. TC just doesn't understand how negatives work. As it was underlined it has a "while they do not have" these conditions they are applied to the provisions. So if, say, the person has 4 criminal history points but hasn't had a 3 point offense/2 point violent offense they are excluded, if they have a 3 point offense but haven't had 4 criminal history points/a 2 point violent offense they are excluded, etc. Basically so long as any of them apply they are immediately negated from the provisions under the language given. Thus the only way to be available for the provision is to have all of them not apply, literally the definition of what "and" is used for.</quote>The problem with the interpretation of "and" meaning "and" is that a person with a bunch of 3 point offenses (which is more serious), but no 2 point offense (which is less serious), would qualify for a more lenient sentence while a person who has exactly one 3 point offense and one 2 point offense would not. Is that not an absurd result? This would essentially encourage offenders to want their offenses to all be 3 points rather than have any 2 point offenses. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doe 10/15/23 8:44:57 PM #12:	ellis123 posted... It does. TC just doesn't understand how negatives work. Why are you throwing shade at TC in particular when this, as a case that has risen to SCOTUS, has a significant cohort arguing in favor of that interpretation --- https://imgur.com/gallery/dXDmJHw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75GL-BYZFfY <cite>Doe posted [p:976678164] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>ellis123 posted... </cite><quote>It does. TC just doesn't understand how negatives work.</quote>Why are you throwing shade at TC in particular when this, as a case that has risen to SCOTUS, has a significant cohort arguing in favor of that interpretation </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xGhostchantx 10/15/23 8:46:43 PM #13:	It doesn't matter what you think it means because law language is not dictionary language. It could mean and, in addition to, as well as, or, and including. It's the same interpretive rule that applies to the 2A. --- Tiw - Min scild, min sweord Woden - Se ALLFAEDER he is, naes hwitra manna anra <cite>xGhostchantx posted [p:976678200] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>It doesn't matter what you think it means because law language is not dictionary language. It could mean and, in addition to, as well as, or, and including. It's the same interpretive rule that applies to the 2A. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Geiki_Ganger 10/15/23 10:51:04 PM #14:	xGhostchantx posted... It doesn't matter what you think it means because law language is not dictionary language. It could mean and, in addition to, as well as, or, and including. It's the same interpretive rule that applies to the 2A. If you listen to the oral arguments, you would this case throws out a lot of "interpretive rule" that you would assume to be in place. --- Nintendo 3DS Friend Code: 3368 - 1137 - 5460 http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q155/Gamecubesupreme/sf7y9s.jpg <cite>Geiki_Ganger posted [p:976680125] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>xGhostchantx posted... </cite><quote>It doesn't matter what you think it means because law language is not dictionary language. It could mean and, in addition to, as well as, or, and including. It's the same interpretive rule that applies to the 2A.</quote>If you listen to the oral arguments, you would this case throws out a lot of "interpretive rule" that you would assume to be in place. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 10/15/23 11:03:25 PM #15:	It means not counting any 1 point offenses, if you have >= than 2 2-point non violent offenses or just one 3 point non violent offense or one 2 point violent offense. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://i.imgur.com/dQgC4kv.jpg <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:976680304] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>It means not counting any 1 point offenses, if you have >= than 2 2-point non violent offenses or just one 3 point non violent offense or one 2 point violent offense. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GetMagnaCarter 10/16/23 6:16:04 AM #16:	While I'm not a lawyer (and only lawyer truly understand legalese), I believe it should be read as "A defendant satisfies 3553(f)(1) if : (A) he does not have more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; (B) he does not have a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and (C) he does not have a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines." so anyone with a prior 3-point offence would be excluded anyone with a prior 2-point violent offense would be excluded and anyone with 5 or more 2-point non-violent offences would be excluded (as ellis123 was saying) I'm a mathematician so to me the problem to me with the original statement it that it is written not (a and b and c) rather than the proper (not a) and (not b) and (not c) [which is not (a or b or c)] though being mathematically wrong is not the same as being legally wrong --- "Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did She die in vain?" <cite>GetMagnaCarter posted [p:976683709] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>While I'm not a lawyer (and only lawyer truly understand legalese), I believe it should be read as"A defendant satisfies 3553(f)(1) if :(A) he does not have more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;(B) he does not have a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and(C) he does not have a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines."so anyone with a prior 3-point offence would be excludedanyone with a prior 2-point violent offense would be excludedand anyone with 5 or more 2-point non-violent offences would be excluded(as ellis123 was saying)I'm a mathematician so to me the problem to me with the original statement it that it is writtennot (a and b and c) rather than the proper (not a) and (not b) and (not c) [which is not (a or b or c)]though being mathematically wrong is not the same as being legally wrong </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Karovorak 10/16/23 6:53:41 AM #17:	I'm not sure what the issue is supposed to be. A defendant satisfies 3553(f)(1), as amended, if he does not have: A AND (does not have) B AND (does not have) C All three together are relevant. You can do both in the logical way anyways, as MagnaCarter said. NOT(A or B or C) is the same as (NOT(A) and NOT(B) and NOT(C)) I seriously can't see anything wrong with this. --- Planning is the process of replacing chance with error. <cite>Karovorak posted [p:976683963] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>I'm not sure what the issue is supposed to be.A defendant satisfies 3553(f)(1), as amended, if he does not have:AAND (does not have)B AND (does not have)CAll three together are relevant.You can do both in the logical way anyways, as MagnaCarter said.NOT(A or B or C) is the same as (NOT(A) and NOT(B) and NOT(C))I seriously can't see anything wrong with this. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlingBling22947 10/16/23 7:20:06 AM #18:	Looking really quickly, and doesnt mean or in this context. --- When was the last time you heard your boy Nas rhyme? Never on schedule but always on time <cite>BlingBling22947 posted [p:976684180] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>Looking really quickly, and doesnt mean or in this context. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Geiki_Ganger 10/18/23 10:00:39 AM #19:	bump --- Nintendo 3DS Friend Code: 3368 - 1137 - 5460 http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q155/Gamecubesupreme/sf7y9s.jpg <cite>Geiki_Ganger posted [p:976723615] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>bump </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Serious_Cat 10/18/23 11:13:08 AM #20:	Looking into it, this case is the legal equivalent to PEDMAS. --- I are Serious Cat This is serious thread <cite>Serious_Cat posted [p:976724737] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>Looking into it, this case is the legal equivalent to PEDMAS. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smiffwilm 10/18/23 12:13:27 PM #21:	And? --- My Mario Maker 2 ID is 6RG-5XK-JCG <cite>Smiffwilm posted [p:976725704] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>And? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Geiki_Ganger 10/19/23 12:02:42 AM #22:	Smiffwilm posted... And? Or? --- Nintendo 3DS Friend Code: 3368 - 1137 - 5460 http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q155/Gamecubesupreme/sf7y9s.jpg <cite>Geiki_Ganger posted [p:976738318] in How would ... [t:80594511]...</cite> <quote>Smiffwilm posted... </cite><quote>And?</quote>Or? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > How would you interpret the word "and" in this scenario? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > How would you interpret the word "and" in this scenario?