Harshest sentence ever?

[The Big Dog]

It was always going to be USA, wasn't it?

To me, this is on par with 1000 lashes for blogging.

No it is not, that is ridiculous.

Some would say that it is not even quite as harsh a sentence as the famine genocide that sentenced a million irish to death for being irish, but I wait for you to make a convincing case on that.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

No it is not, that is ridiculous.

Some would say that it is not even quite as harsh a sentence as the famine genocide that sentenced a million irish to death for being irish, but I wait for you to make a convincing case on that.

And...Thailand?
Never heard of it.

 

[The Atheist]

No it is not, that is ridiculous.

Personal view, I suppose.

22 years or 1000 lashes - I'd probably go with the lashes. 22 years in prison is 22 years of torture; 1000 lashes - how long does that take? I knew kids at school who took a couple of hundred a term without too much trouble.

Similarly victimless crimes, similarly cruel and ridiculous punishments.

Some would say that it is not even quite as harsh a sentence as the famine genocide that sentenced a million irish to death for being irish, but I wait for you to make a convincing case on that.

Nah, I don't bother creating, attacking, or defending, strawmen.

 

[Cylinder]

1. What is the minimum time she will serve?

224 months, which is 18 years plus 8 months.

Florida law requires every person convicted of a crime to serve 100% of any mandatory minimum (which doesn't seem to apply here), then 85% of any remaining sentence as imposed. Good time reductions can be applied to the remaining 15%. Florida hasn't had parole since the mid 80s.

2. What is the maximum time she will serve?

22 years under this sentence.

3. What is the probable time she will serve?

~224 months under this sentence. She'll need 120 months of gain time at the max rate of 10 days/month to to make up the difference between the minimum and maximum sentence.

So if she draws good time for roughly half her sentence, she'll be flat after her 85%.

Also, she loses her state pension.

 

[The Big Dog]

Personal view, I suppose.

22 years or 1000 lashes - I'd probably go with the lashes. 22 years in prison is 22 years of torture; 1000 lashes - how long does that take? I knew kids at school who took a couple of hundred a term without too much trouble.

Similarly victimless crimes, similarly cruel and ridiculous punishments.

Nah, I don't bother creating, attacking, or defending, strawmen.

Well one is exercising free speech in the name of personal liberty and the other is statutory rape. The first one isn't a crime at all, of course.

Next time you "don't bother creating a strawman," try not to title your thread "harshest sentence ever" lest you run into someone who understands what real injustice means.

Drops mic.

 

[Cylinder]

22 years in prison is 22 years of torture; 1000 lashes - how long does that take? I knew kids at school who took a couple of hundred a term without too much trouble.

1000 lashes with a whip would probably be fatal. I got 36 licks assigned in a single day in 6th grade -- I was going for the record. Coach Vereen lit my ass up on the first dozen. I can still remember that pain. Good times.

 

[The Atheist]

Well one is exercising free speech in the name of personal liberty and the other is statutory rape.

They are both victimless crimes.

 

[The Atheist]

1000 lashes with a whip would probably be fatal.

Administered in one punishment, it probably would be, but it isn't.

There are plenty of cases of women receiving 180-200 lashes for "adultery"(read: being raped) who have survived, so I don't see why 1000 isn't feasible.

(36 in one day is pretty damned good going!)

 

[lobosrul]

Administered in one punishment, it probably would be, but it isn't.

There are plenty of cases of women receiving 180-200 lashes for "adultery"(read: being raped) who have survived, so I don't see why 1000 isn't feasible.

(36 in one day is pretty damned good going!)

Depends on what sort of lashes are given and what type of medical care is given afterwards. 1000 lashes with a cat-o-nine tail by someone (or with THAT many, people taking turns) who really puts their back into it is 100% a death sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_o'_nine_tails

 

[The Atheist]

Lovely non sequitur.

Saudi doesn't use the cat o' nine tails, and I know what that looks like thanks to having seen photos of a great uncle who was whipped with it c1900.

In fact, if Saudi follows their own rules, a copy of the Quran must be held under the arm while flogging, meaning the flogger cannot put his weight or even a full arm action into the blows.

And an Australian victim of 300 lashes says it "wasn't as bad as you'd imagine".

Not fun, but infinitely preferable to 22 years in jail, which for an attractive young woman, may be very nasty indeed.

 

[lobosrul]

Lovely non sequitur.

Saudi doesn't use the cat o' nine tails, and I know what that looks like thanks to having seen photos of a great uncle who was whipped with it c1900.

In fact, if Saudi follows their own rules, a copy of the Quran must be held under the arm while flogging, meaning the flogger cannot put his weight or even a full arm action into the blows.

And an Australian victim of 300 lashes says it "wasn't as bad as you'd imagine".

Not fun, but infinitely preferable to 22 years in jail, which for an attractive young woman, may be very nasty indeed.

Non sequitur, really? You said you'd prefer 1000 lashes to 22 years imprisonment. It depends on what sort of lashes, and if they are given all at once. I absolutely guarantee you that with the right sort of whip that will be fatal. Why would a woman sentenced in Florida be flogged by someone with a Quran under thair arm?!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/04/bangladeshi-girl-whipping-fatwa Just as relevant as your links.

 

[Cylinder]

I'm just left wondering if she pleads the remaining three charges in exchange for concurrent sentencing of if she tries to prolong her stay in county jail and risks consecutive (pretty unlikely, but you better have some good local knowledge before you make that call). She has get below 15 years to be reclassified out of close custody - which means living in a cell, guards/restraints, etc... Most people would probably prefer the county's accomodations.

 

[The Atheist]

Non sequitur, really? You said you'd prefer 1000 lashes to 22 years imprisonment. It depends on what sort of lashes, and if they are given all at once.

I was clearly referring to one specific example and Saudi Arabia, unless you know of other examples of people being given 1000 lashes for blogging, which is what I said in post #1.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Harshest sentence ever? Not even close.

How about a child victim of rape, stoned to death?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/03/somalia-rape-amnesty

Then there's the justice meted out by Daesh/ISIS/ISIL (delete as appropriate).

Now twenty-two years is a significant period of incarceration, but as others have said, if the gender of the perpetrator and victims were reversed would we even be having this discussion?

 

[erwinl]

Indeed.

Or what we did to Balthasar Gerards. Granted, he had just killed William of Orange.

But still. I'm not completely convinced 22 years in a modern prison is worse than what he had to suffer. But I might be persuaded to change my mind about that.

 

[Vixen]

Jennifer Fichter is a thoroughly disgusting and immoral person.

IMV She derserves her sentence, but should be allowed fair parole and rehabilitation.

One has to wonder whether had these been female pupils and the teacher male, would the sentence have been so harsh?

 

[Cylinder]

One has to wonder whether had these been female pupils and the teacher male, would the sentence have been so harsh?

In the words of the prosecutor, "If a man came in here today, your honor, and told you that he continually had sex with his teenage female students over a period of years, because it made him feel good about himself, he would be buried under the jail."

 

[Beerina]

It fits the category of statutory rape, as set out by the legislature that makes the laws. Crimes are defined in the criminal codes, so yes, it was rape, per Florida's statutory rape statute. Anyway, where do you draw the line? 16, 15, 14? Clearly you are using your own definition or rape, so at what age do you consider sex with a minor non-consensual?

You emphasize that the charge is "sex with a minor" not "rape". Well, it is still a felony in her state under Florida's statutory rape statute. Now, just because it is a law doesn't make it just, I will give you that. That being said, I'm curious if you think what this woman did anything punishable at all.



How much worse is 16 than 17? I am not much for retributive punishment in the first place, and I doubt if this woman was sentenced to 5 years instead of 22, she would be much of a threat to minors anymore once she got out.

What would you change in the law if you could?

There was a famous study that demonstrated 14 and 15 year olds who consented to sex with adults suffered no statistical psychological damage later in life, much less damage akin to "being mauled by a large dog", the justification for such tremendous sentences.

The Senate voted 99-0 to censure this scientific paper, and called for investigations. A blue ribbon panel took its time then issued a judgement: no major flaws in the study, but found the political meddling "troublesome".

The skeptic magazines covered this in detail years ago.

This, of course, does not address the issue of a position of power and possible coercion. But it does suggest asking the 17 year olds if they were coerced and felt bad about it before ladling on a punishment equivalent to attempted murder, or murder in a European country.

 

[The Atheist]

Harshest sentence ever? Not even close.

How about a child victim of rape, stoned to death?

Fair enough. I'll amend that to "In a developed country".

... if the gender of the perpetrator and victims were reversed would we even be having this discussion?

You bet. The gender of those involved is irrelevant.

Sex with 17 years olds of either gender is perfectly ok in most countries.

Jennifer Fichter is a thoroughly disgusting and immoral person.

IMV She derserves her sentence, but should be allowed fair parole and rehabilitation.

That is priceless!

In what way is having sex with a 17 year old "disgusting and immoral"?

Does that mean that France, Germany, UK, Australia, New Zealand and other countries where sexual consent is 16 are all "disgusting and immoral" countries?

 

[mike81]

There was a famous study that demonstrated 14 and 15 year olds who consented to sex with adults suffered no statistical psychological damage later in life, much less damage akin to "being mauled by a large dog", the justification for such tremendous sentences.

The Senate voted 99-0 to censure this scientific paper, and called for investigations. A blue ribbon panel took its time then issued a judgement: no major flaws in the study, but found the political meddling "troublesome".

The skeptic magazines covered this in detail years ago.

This, of course, does not address the issue of a position of power and possible coercion. But it does suggest asking the 17 year olds if they were coerced and felt bad about it before ladling on a punishment equivalent to attempted murder, or murder in a European country.

Be careful, you might be accused of being a pedophile who wants to bang some little kid all because you try to bring some logic into this discussion. Even so called skeptics tend to lose their minds when it comes to sex.