So one narrow point:
I quoted an article from a journal on the issue of Dutch judicial discretion. None of the sources Graff claims supports his view have actually agreed with it. Trolls do this, cite others to support them and link to irrelevant articles. My source:
Sentencing in the Netherlands: Discretion and Disparity
Peter J. P. Tak
Federal Sentencing Reporter
Vol. 7, No. 6, Sentencing in Europe (May - Jun., 1995), pp. 300-304
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Vera Institute of Justice
DOI: 10.2307/20639821
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20639821Page Count: 5
Peter J. P. Tak was a professor at the
University of Nijmegen, which, last I looked, is in the Netherlands, and perhaps Tak knows something about Dutch law?
Ya think?I thought perhaps that the law might have changed since 1995, but (1) very unlikely, and (2) if true, our self-declared expert in Dutch law would be able to say that. Instead, he cries "lies" and uses pure ad-hominem argument. Typical for trolls. He denies being a troll, but the behavior he recommends is precisely trolling, to provoke others into harmful response.
Tak's article explains why citing a particular case where the judge applied a harsh penalty does not show general Dutch practice. Judges have very wide discretion, and this can go both ways. As a statement of what is within the bounds of reasonable possibility, Graaf was correct, except that he doesn't state it that way. Instead, he paints a wild-eyed, dramatic picture of Certain Doom. This is how very disturbed individuals think, when they stop hiding it.
He is obsessed and can be predicted to fill up an forum that permits him with rants on his favorite topic. It is possible that he can be restrained, if a moderator is willing to put up with him. (Most of his vituperation on the Discord server has been directly at the moderator here, who is also active there.) I will be doing something like it on the Discord server, having been empowered. One step at a time, I can't be everywhere at once.
