said an Orange County Superior Court judge originally sentenced Mullaney under the wrong law. He was arrested under the Fair Sentencing Act, but by the time his sentencing came around, the General Assembly had passed the Structured Sentencing Act in 1994. The newer law included mandatory jail time, but capped sentences at 10 months for people like Mullaney who had no previous criminal record. He had already served 11 months and eventually went free.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Timmons-Goodson campaign says Hudson\u2019s ad misleads viewers by taking the case out of context.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cIt didn\u2019t have anything to do with whether he was guilty of embezzlement, or whether he\u2019d been sentenced too harshly or not too harshly,\u201d said Thomas Mills of the Timmons-Goodson campaign. \u201cIt had to do with which act was he supposed to be sentenced under.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nAppellate court judges rule based on legal or procedural issues with a lower court\u2019s decision, which is different from a trial court judge who determines guilt or innocence. To say that Timmons-Goodson is \u201csoft\u201d on crime because of a procedural ruling that happened to give an embezzler less jail time is \u201cjust plain wrong,\u201d Mills said.<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cIt’s not a question of being soft on crime. It’s a question of what the law and the constitution require in this case,\u201d said Robert Orr, a former justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court and a self-described \u201cNever Trumper\u201d Republican who supports Timmons-Goodson.<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cIt\u2019s just grossly disrespectful to the court system for these sorts of ads to be run,\u201d he said.<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cJudge Softie opposed putting tracking bracelets on sex offenders because it would \u2018add to their shame.\u2019\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n
Timmons-Goodson was on the state Supreme Court 10 years ago when she dissented from the majority opinion that it was constitutional to use tracking devices to monitor sex offenders, even if they were convicted before the General Assembly passed laws allowing it. She argued that this violated state and federal \u201cex post facto\u201d laws, which protect people from being retroactively punished when new policies outlaw or legalize certain practices.<\/span><\/p>\nLike the 1998 ruling, this one also took place in an appellate court, meaning that the arguments were about procedure and constitutionality rather than a judgment on sexual offenders, Mills said. The central argument of the case was whether the use of ankle bracelets and other tracking devices constituted criminal punishment.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cDissents are based on the law, not on politics,\u201d said former state Supreme Court Justice Robert Edmunds, who served at the same time as Timmons-Goodson.<\/span><\/p>\nEdmunds, a Republican, agreed that the case centered around the constitutionality of monitoring systems, and the fact that the defendants were convicted of sexually abusing minors gave the case a high profile. But he declined to comment further on the ad\u2019s contents since he has not seen it yet and is friends with both Hudson and Timmons-Goodson.<\/span><\/p>\nEdmunds said he believed all his colleagues on the Supreme Court, including Timmons-Goodson, were very conscientious about setting aside their personal beliefs when it came to issuing judicial opinions, which is why he enjoyed working with them all so much.<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cJust in the cases I’ve voted on, sometimes I cast a vote that, if it had been in another context, I might have voted differently outside of being a judge,\u201d Edmunds said. \u201cBut having taken an oath to follow the law to the best of our abilities, sometimes doing that was inconsistent with what I personally felt.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nIt doesn\u2019t appear the Hudson campaign has any additional evidence to explain the ad. The campaign website doesn\u2019t contain any other citations and we couldn\u2019t find any other references in the ad itself.<\/span><\/p>\nThe campaign has cited two cases that really don\u2019t show what the campaign says. We rate the claim false.<\/span><\/p>\nAbove, a screenshot of the Hudson campaign ad.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Speaker: U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, Republican incumbent in North Carolina\u2019s 8th Congressional District. The district stretches from Charlotte\u2019s eastern suburbs through Fayetteville and Cumberland County.\u00a0…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4428,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[135,208,240,280],"class_list":["post-4425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-election-2020","tag-pat-timmons-goodson","tag-richard-hudson","tag-u-s-house","entry"],"yoast_head":"\n
Fact-check: Is Democrat Pat Timmons-Goodson really \u2018soft on crime\u2019? - 9th Street Journal<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n