Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

Belz... said:
We all agree that this is the case, but MikeG and myself are arguing that depending on how the judge does this it might reveal or at least seem to reveal bias or prejudice on the part of the court, potentially opening up an avenue for an appeal and allowing the scumbag to walk. Better to just stay impartial and state your legal and professional opinion, instead, regardless of your feelings.
Click to expand...

I guess this is partially a result of the fact that judges in the USA are publicly elected rather than appointed by other judges as they are in other countries including Australia, NZ and the UK

In the USA, judges are not past using cases like this one as a platform for their re-election campaign; certain actions will appeal to certain sections of the electorate.
 
smartcooky said:
In the USA, judges are not past using cases like this one as a platform for their re-election campaign; certain actions will appeal to certain sections of the electorate.
Click to expand...
Just being the judge on this case would ensure nobody tried to unseat her. No, with this grandstanding she's looking for at least a state supreme court seat.
 
Belz... said:
We all agree that this is the case, but MikeG and myself are arguing that depending on how the judge does this it might reveal or at least seem to reveal bias or prejudice on the part of the court, potentially opening up an avenue for an appeal and allowing the scumbag to walk. Better to just stay impartial and state your legal and professional opinion, instead, regardless of your feelings.
Click to expand...

there is no possible chance of this scumbag walking, and the Judge's comments explaining her sentencing reasoning despite how biased you consider them will not ever result in that scenario.
 
Babbylonian said:
Given the obvious inability for a small child (world-class gymnasts start training as early as preschool age and the training intensifies as they improve) to give informed consent, I think the sport as it's currently constituted is absolutely abuse. Anybody who has been coached in a sport can testify that coaches tend to push players hard; doing it to pre-teens seems insane to me.
Click to expand...

I do agree, and it very certainly is not only gymnastics. I distinctly remember a case from 2011 where a high school girls' swimming coach, upset that one of the swimmers did not give a full effort in her final race (because the team was already out of contention by that time), was caught on tape angrily grabbing and pulling the swimmer upwards out of the water by her hair while scolding her. He quickly resigned after the incident became public and a number of parents were upset over what was fairly clearly a case of assault; but the coach's actions were also defended by a surprising number of people in and out of the local community.

Then you have the far more recent case of the cheerleading instructor who was fired after a video emerged of him forcing a crying girl into a painful split. He still has not agreed that he did anything wrong, saying that painful practices are simply a necessary thing if you want to be a competitive cheerleader. And he has his defenders and excuse-makers as well.

So even aside from the sexual abuse component, there seems to be this very clear and old cultural norm that youth sports coaches are granted a certain liberty to cause pain and psychological stress and do other things to children that a different adult might easily find themselves in jail for doing.
 
smartcooky said:
I guess this is partially a result of the fact that judges in the USA are publicly elected rather than appointed by other judges as they are in other countries including Australia, NZ and the UK

In the USA, judges are not past using cases like this one as a platform for their re-election campaign; certain actions will appeal to certain sections of the electorate.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought about that, you're right. I guess those people who cheer this judge now will want her head if she makes on another case a personal spiel they disagree with.
 
smartcooky said:
No matter how long this disgusting individual gets in terms of years, nothing is going to be as painful for him as the butt-reaming he is in for from some of the other inmates... at least, I hope this is the case.
Click to expand...

Much like Nasser himself, rapist inmates generally prefer them young (although not as young). He is however, likely to get sharp objects inserted into other areas of his person.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
I do agree, and it very certainly is not only gymnastics.
Click to expand...
True, but I think in gymnastics it's easier to see because of the aforementioned physical effects and the fact that a female gymnast's career is going to peak before or right around the time she's old enough to vote. That puts every bit of the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the parents.

Check out this chart of gymnastics all-around champions by age. It's been 46 years since there was a female gold medal winner over 20.
 
Babbylonian said:
Yeah. Of all the things that are wrong with this country - and there are a bunch - severe treatment of child pornographers and serial child rapists isn't exactly one of them.
Click to expand...

I would say it could be.

From my understanding of how the criminal justice system works in the US, and bear in mind much of what I understand about it has been filtered through the US media, certain kinds of criminals such as child pornographers and serial child rapists meet with extremely brutal treatment at the hands of other prisoners, and this kind of retributive justice is met with widespread approbation even among the generally more liberal members of society who would usually consider retributive justice to be a hangover from religious ways of thinking. So when a judge says, "I have just signed your death warrant!" it is treated as the kind of quip that we might expect from Dirty Harry who finds that the niceties of the legal system just get in the way of a good old bit of cathartic revenge.

I have to agree with Mike G and Belz... that I prefer a certain dispassionate professionalism among those who are in charge of the justice system rather than slinging red meat.
 
JoeMorgue said:
You'd think a serial child rapist going away would be the one thing nobody would put a big show of disagreeing about.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you there. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this.

Please note what people are actually objecting to.
 
angrysoba said:
I would say it could be.

From my understanding of how the criminal justice system works in the US, and bear in mind much of what I understand about it has been filtered through the US media, certain kinds of criminals such as child pornographers and serial child rapists meet with extremely brutal treatment at the hands of other prisoners, and this kind of retributive justice is met with widespread approbation even among the generally more liberal members of society who would usually consider retributive justice to be a hangover from religious ways of thinking. So when a judge says, "I have just signed your death warrant!" it is treated as the kind of quip that we might expect from Dirty Harry who finds that the niceties of the legal system just get in the way of a good old bit of cathartic revenge.

I have to agree with Mike G and Belz... that I prefer a certain dispassionate professionalism among those who are in charge of the justice system rather than slinging red meat.
Click to expand...
You won't find a single word from me in this thread defending the judge's nonsense; my only contention in regard to her incendiary, pointless ranting was that it shouldn't be allowed to be the basis of an appeal. At the end of the day, the sentence was legal and seems pretty appropriate given this particular rapist's crimes.

I also agree with you entirely on the issue of cheering for prison rape. I don't care who the criminal is or what they've done, prison should be a safe place for inmates given that we, as a society, are taking responsibility for their care. Allowing, encouraging, or accepting prison violence is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
I am absolutely sure that if a judge in the UK spoke to a defendant the way this one did to Nassar that there would be a successful appeal and a re-trial. For example: Judge Aquilina said. "I wouldn’t send my dogs to you, sir" and "I just signed your death warrant."

I also think it utterly ridiculous to sentence people to terms of imprisonment longer than any human has ever lived. Wouldn't "rest of your natural life" do?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in many states even a "life" sentence for crimes other than 1st Degree murder allow for parole, and in some states parole can be granted even in cases of 1st degree murder.

Sentencing for multiple charges consecutively rather than concurrently for years outside of normal life expectancy is one way to ensure that the convicted party will remain in custody for the rest of their life.
 
Babbylonian said:
You won't find a single word from me in this thread defending the judge's nonsense; my only contention in regard to her incendiary, pointless ranting was that it shouldn't be allowed to be the basis of an appeal. At the end of the day, the sentence was legal and seems pretty appropriate given this particular rapist's crimes.

I also agree with you entirely on the issue of cheering for prison rape. I don't care who the criminal is or what they've done, prison should be a safe place for inmates given that we, as a society, are taking responsibility for their care. Allowing, encouraging, or accepting prison violence is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Seconded.
 
smartcooky said:
I guess this is partially a result of the fact that judges in the USA are publicly elected rather than appointed by other judges as they are in other countries including Australia, NZ and the UK
....
Click to expand...

Judges are not necessarily elected in the U.S. It depends on the state and even the county or city, depending on the level of the court. Federal judges are always appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate.
 
Babbylonian said:
You won't find a single word from me in this thread defending the judge's nonsense; my only contention in regard to her incendiary, pointless ranting was that it shouldn't be allowed to be the basis of an appeal. At the end of the day, the sentence was legal and seems pretty appropriate given this particular rapist's crimes.
.....
Click to expand...

First, the guy pleaded guilty to six or so charges, in exchange for dozens being dropped. The judge did not preside over a trial. There is no appeal from a guilty plea.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/...o-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Did you actually watch the sentencing? Nothing pointless about it. One of the things the judge was responding to was a letter the guy wrote to her claiming that he gave legitimate medical treatments to the girls and pleaded guilty only to "spare the community." She asked him directly "Do you want to withdraw your plea? Did you plead guilty because you are guilty?" She recounted his crimes and her feelings about them in detail because it was clear that he still refuses to accept responsibility. He had also complained to her that it was abusive to make him listen to the impact statements from his victims. She thought his abuse of them was much worse.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ge-rosemarie-aquilina-s-sentencing-ex-n840726

And she sentenced the guy to what he and the prosecutors agreed to. Her personal opinions didn't enter into it. Any other judge would have imposed the same sentence.
 
Bob001 said:
First, the guy pleaded guilty to six or so charges, in exchange for dozens being dropped. The judge did not preside over a trial. There is no appeal from a guilty plea.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I know. You can read this thread from the beginning for context if you're interested.
Did you actually watch the sentencing? Nothing pointless about it.
Click to expand...
It was pointless because there were days of victim testimony before the final sentencing. The victims' words should have been allowed to stand on their own without the judge choosing to star in her own closing number.
One of the things the judge was responding to was a letter the guy wrote to her claiming that he gave legitimate medical treatments to the girls and pleaded guilty only to "spare the community." She asked him directly "Do you want to withdraw your plea? Did you plead guilty because you are guilty?" She recounted his crimes and her feelings about them in detail because it was clear that he still refuses to accept responsibility. He had also complained to her that it was abusive to make him listen to the impact statements from his victims. She thought his abuse of them was much worse.
Click to expand...
If she felt she needed to respond to the letter in open court, she could have done so in a matter-of-fact, professional fashion. Instead, she wanted to be a bigger part of the story, so she decided to make her opinions of him as a human being known. Mission accomplished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom