Ghislaine Maxwell

[Darat]

First, they are talking about white collar criminals - you think child trafficking is a non-violent, white collar offense?

Second, I don't know whether she will remain in solitary, but I don't think she will enjoy being in general population either. Many of those women in the are hard as nails; they will see her white-privileged arse as a target!

And again - violence against a prisoner by other inmates should not be part of a sentence.

 

[zooterkin]

Is it just me, or does that article not actually report any details of the verdict? No listing of the charges, no listing of which ones the jury returned a guilty verdict on.

Just you? Or possibly the article was updated, as it was a breaking news item; it currently has this:

Maxwell was convicted on five of the six charges she faced. In addition to sex-trafficking, Maxwell was found guilty of conspiracy to entice individuals under the age of 17 to travel in interstate commerce with intent to engage in illegal sexual activity, conspiracy to transport individuals under the age of 17 to travel in interstate commerce with intent to engage in illegal sexual activity; transportation of an individual under the age of 17 with intent to engage in illegal sexual activity; and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of individuals under the age of 18.

Maxwell was found not guilty of one count: enticement of an individual under the age of 17 to travel with intent to engage in illegal sexual activity. Jurors reached their verdict after 40 hours of deliberations over the course of six days.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

BBC have apologised for giving Dershowitz a platform and, in another poorly judged decision, have changed their headline that was sympathetic to Maxwell.

The Prince Andrew coverage is still pretty biased

 

[whoanellie]

Here is a twitter thread from a well-informed source about the possibility of Maxwell cooperating with prosecutors post-conviction:
https://twitter.com/eliehonig/status/1476397253531250695

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Replies were, "Who is Alan Dershowitz?"

That's much worse. The BBC had him on as some neutral expert on the law, and many Brits don't seem to be aware of his glaring conflict on interest in this case as a named associate of the notorious child traffickers. To them, he's just some American law expert and probably a good source to decipher this largely foreign affair.

At least in the US more people are aware of his connection and might be appropriately skeptical of his claims, but giving him this platform to an unaware audience is doing a huge disservice to the truth.

Anyone watching that segment might have thought that Giuffre and her claims were important in the verdict, which they weren't at all. Giuffre was not a witness and Maxwell's trial did not name her as a victim. The only reason Dershowitz brought it up is because of his personal crusade to clear his name and smear his accuser as a liar, taking advantage of an unwary audience thanks to the BBC.

 

[Bob001]

First, they are talking about white collar criminals - you think child trafficking is a non-violent, white collar offense?

Second, I don't know whether she will remain in solitary, but I don't think she will enjoy being in general population either. Many of those women in the are hard as nails; they will see her white-privileged arse as a target!

I certainly don't minimize her crimes, but for the purposes of her classification, she was not convicted of committing assault or using force or weapons. I just don't think they'll treat her like a bank robber or murderer.

And one of the Club Fed links I posted noted that prisoners in lower-security places tend to be very well-behaved because they know if they screw up they'll be shipped to someplace much tougher.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I certainly don't minimize her crimes, but for the purposes of her classification, she was not convicted of committing assault or using force or weapons. I just don't think they'll treat her like a bank robber or murderer.

Really?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I certainly don't minimize her crimes, but for the purposes of her classification, she was not convicted of committing assault or using force or weapons. I just don't think they'll treat her like a bank robber or murderer.

And one of the Club Fed links I posted noted that prisoners in lower-security places tend to be very well-behaved because they know if they screw up they'll be shipped to someplace much tougher.

The most severe charge she was convicted of was "sex trafficking a minor". I'm not sure how this is classified visa vie a violent crime vs a nonviolent, "white collar" crime.

As a matter of plain fact, there's really nothing about Ghislaine's crimes to indicate she's a violent threat, and I abhor the idea of unnecessarily cruel treatment in prisons being celebrated as a punishment.

Everyone should be imprisoned in the most humane conditions reasonably possible, including notorious child traffickers like Maxwell. Maxwell doing time at a lower security facility seems appropriate.

 

[Bob001]

Really?

A lot will depend on the actual length of her sentence, but the federal system provides five options. She's a loathsome human being and a convicted felon, but she's not El Chapo either.
https://prisonfinder.org/prison-security-levels/

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A lot will depend on the actual length of her sentence, but the federal system provides five options. She's a loathsome human being and a convicted felon, but she's not El Chapo either.
https://prisonfinder.org/prison-security-levels/

I would assume she would qualify as "sex offender", which could be the driving factor in where she is placed.

ETA: This author seems to think the sexual nature of her crimes will land her in medium security:

Because she was convicted of sex crimes, Maxwell won’t be assigned to a minimum-security prison camp like the one in Alderson, West Virginia, that housed Stewart, with its dormitory-style housing and limited fencing, according to prison consultant Justin Paperny. Alderson has been called “Camp Cupcake” by critics who fault it for its cushy conditions and activities that include “progressive relaxation.”

If Maxwell is given closer to the high end of what she faces she’ll likely end up in a medium-security prison, according to Paperny, who runs White Collar Advice, which advises clients facing prison.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-30/maxwell-s-next-abode-will-be-a-prison-that-s-no-camp-cupcake

I'm not sure if this is something her defense can contest or not. I would guess the Bureau of Prisons has a lot of discretion in these matters.

 

[Bob001]

I would assume she would qualify as "sex offender", which could be the driving factor in where she is placed.

ETA: This author seems to think the sexual nature of her crimes will land her in medium security:


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-30/maxwell-s-next-abode-will-be-a-prison-that-s-no-camp-cupcake

I'm not sure if this is something her defense can contest or not. I would guess the Bureau of Prisons has a lot of discretion in these matters.

From your link:

“She’s enduring arguably the worst and filthiest prison in the country,” said Paperny. “Wherever she serves her time will feel like Disneyland compared to where she is right now.”

So things are looking up for her!

 

[TurkeysGhost]

From your link:


So things are looking up for her!

She was apparently on suicide watch, which can probably best be described as "let's watch while we do things that would make most anyone want to commit suicide".

 

[Fast Eddie B]

And anyway, after the guilty verdict is usually far too late for any deals. Reduced sentences are offered in exchange for cooperation and a guilty plea. You don't reject a plea deal, lose, and then get to negotiate again.

Notwithstanding your qualifier of “usually”, as I mentioned above - with a link - there is precedent in the law for “post-verdict” consideration. It sure seems she will be highly motivated to do anything in her power to shorten her sentence. Years of appeals mean little if she’s incarcerated throughout. Of course, any testimony she gives against others at this point will be highly suspect, and for good reason.

As an aside, I usually feel a sense of schadenfreude when the guilty get their just desserts. I’m not feeling that in this case, and I honestly don’t know why. I don’t think it’s because she’s a woman. I don’t think it’s because I want to minimize the impact of her actions. It’s just weird not feeling the satisfaction I expected from the verdict, but there you have it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Former fed that got the popehat seal of approval has this to say about what sentence Maxwell faces:

After a three week trial and five days of deliberation, the Ghislaine Maxwell jury today found her guilty on five (out of six) counts of sex trafficking, conspiracy and interstate travel for purpose of criminal sex with minors. After today’s conviction, it is unlikely that she will ever step foot outside of jail as a free woman. Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, I expect that she will face a presumptive sentence of 235-293 months (19 - 24 years). For a 60 year old, that would be tantamount to a death sentence.

https://mitchellepner.substack.com/p/ghislaine-maxwell-convicted-of-sex?r=125jgx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Although press accounts will report that Maxwell faces “up to” 65 years in jail, that is not the way federal sentencing works. Federal judges do not determine a sentence by stacking the maximum penalties on top of each other. Rather, federal judges are required to consider the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which provide a range of sentencing terms based upon the counts of conviction and other factors. Those Sentencing Guidelines likely lead to (essentially) a life sentence for Maxwell.

 

[smartcooky]

I think Maxwell's first and most obvious move at this point will be to appeal, which requires she maintain that she is not guilty at all, and that means nothing coming out about anyone anytime soon.

And anyway, after the guilty verdict is usually far too late for any deals. Reduced sentences are offered in exchange for cooperation and a guilty plea. You don't reject a plea deal, lose, and then get to negotiate again.

Not according to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure › TITLE VII. POST-CONVICTION PROCEDURES › Rule 35. Correcting or Reducing a Sentence

"(b) Reducing a Sentence for Substantial Assistance.

(1) In General. Upon the government's motion made within one year of sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant, after sentencing, provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person."​

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_35
.
.
.

 

[smartcooky]

As an aside, I usually feel a sense of schadenfreude when the guilty get their just desserts. I’m not feeling that in this case, and I honestly don’t know why. I don’t think it’s because she’s a woman. I don’t think it’s because I want to minimize the impact of her actions. It’s just weird not feeling the satisfaction I expected from the verdict, but there you have it.

I feel the exact opposite. I'm glad her white-privilege hasn't saved her, and I hope she gets a long sentence for what she's done. I feel that way because she is a woman; a woman who enticed and coerced vulnerable girls into her world, and then served them up to her scumbag boyfriend so he could **** them.

As it should be. Disgusting conditions for prisoners should not be part of the sentence.

While I do not advocate disgusting conditions for prisoners as part of a sentence, they are supposed to be getting punished for their crimes - prison should not be a holiday, it should be a bloody inconvenience and a place you do not want to be - a place where you regret what you've done that has landed you there for every waking minute of every day.

And again - violence against a prisoner by other inmates should not be part of a sentence.

And again, I do not advocate violence towards prisoners, but I don't have to care what happens to them either.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'm glad her white-privilege hasn't saved her, and I hope she gets a long sentence for what she's done.

I share your sentiment. I would have been disappointed by an acquittal.

Just not feeling the smug satisfaction I expected at the verdict.

 

[Bob001]

.....
While I do not advocate disgusting conditions for prisoners as part of a sentence, they are supposed to be getting punished for their crimes - prison should not be a holiday, it should be a bloody inconvenience and a place you do not want to be - a place where you regret what you've done that has landed you there for every waking minute of every day.
.....

The punishment is the loss of liberty. You could lock somebody up in a four-star hotel and it would still be punishment. From a broader perspective, it's clear that prisoners who are treated decently and offered educational opportunities and job training are much less likely to re-offend than people who are warehoused in hellholes. There's also a lot of evidence that many people convicted of crimes are mentally ill to some degree. Providing appropriate treatment, which they should have gotten much earlier, has a measurable practical return.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Providing appropriate treatment, which they should have gotten much earlier, has a measurable practical return.

Off topic..

 

[smartcooky]

The punishment is the loss of liberty. You could lock somebody up in a four-star hotel and it would still be punishment.

Insufficient IMO.

From a broader perspective, it's clear that prisoners who are treated decently and offered educational opportunities and job training are much less likely to re-offend than people who are warehoused in hellholes.
There's also a lot of evidence that many people convicted of crimes are mentally ill to some degree. Providing appropriate treatment, which they should have gotten much earlier, has a measurable practical return.

Well you have a different, much more liberal view of criminal sentencing than I do. For mine, there are three priorities for imprisonment sentencing.

1. Public safety; to prevent criminals for causing harm to the public at large.

2. Punishment for their actions.

3. Rehabilitation.

In that order. Rehabilitation is the last consideration on my priority list.

In the case of Maxwell, No. 1 probably does not apply, but No. 2 certainly does.