It works both ways as well, which is why I am uncomfortable with victims feelings being brought into the criminal justice system, say for example when considering parole.
Imagine someone murders a family's 2 year old.
In scenario 1 they are given a 15 year sentence and they become eligible for parole after 8 years. The parole board considers that the family is 100% against the criminal being released on licence because of their hatred for the murderer and the terrible impact it has on their life. The parole board weighs the family's concerns and decides that shifts the balance to parole not being granted.
In scenario 2 they are given a 15 year sentence and they become eligible for parole after 8 years. The family are devote Quakers. The parole board considers that the family has totally forgiven the murderer and they wish as their faith dictates that he be released as soon as possible.. The parole board weighs the family's wishes and decides that shifts the balance to parole being granted.
Very good point. The length of a sentence should not depend on the victim's feelings, but should depend on whether the convicted is reformed enough to again be part of society. It's society that punishes for the crime, not the victim. The victim's feelings belong in the civil wrongful death suit.
For fear of upsetting those who can't bear to hear of anything outside the US, in the UK you can appeal your sentence (if there are legal grounds) without appealing your conviction. A guilty plea speaks to the conviction, but not the sentence, and one would still be free to appeal the sentence. That's why I raised the inappropriate personal comments from the judge in the first place, and that's why some of the posters in the thread are running away with the supposition that I'm begging forgiveness for a serial paedophile, or somesuch.
Is it just me or is there something just a tiny bit unseemly about the judge's speechifying at the sentencing? Nassar of course richly deserves a very severe punishment, this is not a defense of him.
It's a bit troubling that she was reading social media posts about on ongoing trial. She seems to be saying she was considering information from outside the courtroom which a judge ought not to do. I'll defer to those more expert as to whether or not this was judicial misconduct.
That said the sentence seems about right considering the number of victims and amount of time this went on.
Those words still exist; the videos and the transcripts are out there. How does "the judge talking" change anything that was said?
Spoiler alert: all judges give a talk, after the victim statements and before the announcement of the sentence, about the convicted criminal's character and why he or she deserves the sentence he's about to get. How much time was allotted to victim testimony makes absolutely no difference to how long the judge's verbal justification of the sentence is. The comments of the judge in this case weren't even all that unusually harsh or unprecedented, or particularly notable among judge commentary.
I don't know how common such a display is north of the border; but in all corners of the US, it is quite customary for judges to verbally acknowledge that the convicted is an inhuman piece of garbage when that is the case, especially when the crime is particularly infamous in scope such as Nassar's.
Persecutors take guilty pleas for convenience all the time, like in every immigration fraud or smuggling case I've ever seen referred to an AUSA. Generous offers are made on cases that bring no glory all the time.
Persecutors take guilty pleas for convenience all the time, like in every immigration fraud or smuggling case I've ever seen referred to an AUSA. Generous offers are made on cases that bring no glory all the time.
For fear of upsetting those who can't bear to hear of anything outside the US, in the UK you can appeal your sentence (if there are legal grounds) without appealing your conviction. A guilty plea speaks to the conviction, but not the sentence, and one would still be free to appeal the sentence. That's why I raised the inappropriate personal comments from the judge in the first place, and that's why some of the posters in the thread are running away with the supposition that I'm begging forgiveness for a serial paedophile, or somesuch.
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."
"The widely reported exchange, which triggered complaints from the public, occurred last summer when Patricia Lynch QC informed the repeat offender John Hennigan that he would be sent to prison for breaching an antisocial behaviour order (asbo).
The defendant, who was appearing at Chelmsford crown court, interrupted her, saying: “It’s obvious, isn’t it? Because you’re a **** and I’m not.” The judge then responded: “Well, you’re a bit of a **** yourself. Being offensive to me doesn’t make things better at all.”
When Lynch confirmed the defendant’s sentence, Hennigan, 50, said: “Go **** yourself.” Lynch retorted: “You too. Take him down.”"
You cocked up writing your question. It makes no sense. I took a stab at answering what I thought you might have been trying to ask. How about trying again? Maybe you'll get a response more in line with what you are after.
I think some of those statements by other judges are not okay either. If you are wondering why nobody condemned them in this thread it is probably because they are not the topic of the thread which is the sentencing of Larry Nassar.
But even then, I think the remarks made here are worse, unless you endorse death sentences or punishment-by-inmate and believe that prison violence is a feature rather than a bug.
You cocked up writing your question. It makes no sense. I took a stab at answering what I thought you might have been trying to ask. How about trying again? Maybe you'll get a response more in line with what you are after.
I don't know. You have access to the same source material as I have, and you'll note the date. I believe (but don't know for certain) that sentence appeals have changed since the 1990s. The point of linking to that article was to provide proof of my claim that judges comments can lead to successful appeals.
I don't know. You have access to the same source material as I have, and you'll note the date. I believe (but don't know for certain) that sentence appeals have changed since the 1990s. The point of linking to that article was to provide proof of my claim that judges comments can lead to successful appeals.
Anyone can bring up irrelevant statistics and pretend they matter. Those statistics are entirely irrelevant to the facts of this case because they were about statements at entirely different phases of the trial and with ones that were not guilty pleas.
Here is another judge acting hugely inapropraitely in a way that has no bearing on this case.
That's a good point. It's one of those facts that I've seen mentioned before, in articles and news pieces about gymnastics - in fact I think (not 100% sure) I may have seen someone argue it as one reason to suspect that gymnastics as a sport, at least in the way it is currently trained, could be considered harmful to the children involved, if not physically abusive in its own way.
I recall reading an interview with the British gymnast Annika Reeder when she was 18, and she said she'd not gone through puberty yet, attributing it directly to her training, but thought it was a acceptable trade-off, as she'd travelled the world and otherwise achieved so much (she would probably have won medals at the 2000 Olympics, had she not been one of those severely injured due to the infamous mis-set vault).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
