As a result, thousands of people will serve longer prison terms.
  • Madrigal@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    This isn’t even remotely ambiguous. The DoJ’s interpretation is correct.

    The question isn’t really about the meaning of “and”; it’s about the syntactic structure of the whole section.

    A defendant is eligible if they do NOT have (A and B and C). In other words, having any of A, B or C will disqualify them.

    The law could have been written in a more readable fashion, for example:

    the defendant—

    • (A) does not have more than 4 criminal history points…;
    • (B) does not have a prior 3-point offense…; and
    • © does not have a prior 2-point violent offense…

    But the meaning is the same either way. Amazing that this got to the Supreme Court.

    It’s also entirely plausible that this is exactly what was intended when the law was written.

    • randomaccount43543@lemmy.world
      1·
      6 months ago

      Right! I feel like I’m going crazy because I don’t see how can you interpret it the other way!

      lower courts were sharply divided on the vital question of whether “and” bundles the conditions—as in, you don’t have (A), don’t have (B), and don’t have ©—which would mean a defendant who lacked any one of these conditions would be eligible for relief. The alternative reading, advocated by the Justice Department, holds that “and” really means “or”—that a defendant who met even one of the conditions would not be eligible for relief

      The reporter seems to be getting this totally wrong. It’s like he is saying the exact opposite of what I understand. From my point of view:

      If a defendant would be elegible for relief if he lacked any one of the conditions, that is actually interpreting that AND means OR.

      If a defendant would be eligible for relief if he lacked all of the conditions, that is interpreting that AND means AND.