Monday open thread: Twenty two and a half years
That is how long former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was sentenced to for the murder of George Floyd.
Hennepin County Judge Peter A. Cahill used the correct analysis for normal cases.
However, this was anything but a normal case.
Derek Chauvin should have at bare minimum gotten thirty years in prison. Twenty-two and a half years is not a slap on the wrist, but it is not sufficient punishment for the crime that was committed.
Regardless of what his mother may think, Derek Chauvin is a man beyond redemption. He broke his oath and abused his power as a police officer.
Lest anyone else think this is over, his three accomplices still need to go on trial—still not optimistic about those cases.
Their trial starts in August.
Truth be told, I am not sure if Judge Cahill should be recalled for this or not. Let me know what you think in the comments below. Both options have serious drawbacks and long-term implications.
Despite the fact that Chauvin’s crime was more serious, the closest parallel I am drawing to Judge Cahill is Judge Michael Aaron Persky, the judge in the Stanford rape case. After “sentencing” Brock Turner to only six months in jail (which in practice was only three months) for sexually assaulting Chanel Miller, Persky was recalled from his position as a judge two years later because locals were outraged over the monstrously light sentence.
In this case, there are only bad options; the question is picking the best one.
What do you all think?