Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

[Checkmite]

ITT: Rapist gets 175 years for raping and assaulting 150 young girls; female sentencing judge criticized for speaking out of turn while passing sentence.

 

[Babbylonian]

ITT: Rapist gets 175 years for raping and assaulting 150 young girls; female sentencing judge criticized for speaking out of turn while passing sentence.

You know, if there hadn't been days of victim testimony, I might not be as critical. I think the words of the victims and the sentence itself were more compelling and important than the judge talking tough.

 

[Puppycow]

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.

http://fortune.com/2018/01/24/judge-transcript-sentence-larry-nassar/

Some quotes:

It stops now. Speak out like these survivors; become part of the army.

I do one case at a time. And I really so very much appreciate all of the ‘thank yous.’ I read some of the Twitters and the Facebooks, all of what’s going on in the media. I’m not special. I’m doing my job. If you come into my courtroom any Wednesday and watch sentencing, I give everybody a voice. I give defendants a voice, their families when they’re here. I give victims a voice. I try to treat everybody like family because that’s the justice system I was raised to believe in.

I came to this country stateless. I’m naturalized. My father’s Maltese, my mother’s German, and I was raised on old country values. My grandmother always told me and my parents always told me, my grandfather too, that America is the greatest country. I believe that. That’s why I served in the military, that’s why I’ve always done community service. I’m not really well liked because I speak out. I don’t have many friends because I speak out. You ask me a question, you better be ready for an answer.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Perhaps, but this one was elected...

https://ballotpedia.org/Rosemarie_Aquilina

Rosemarie Elizabeth Aquilina is a judge for the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County, Michigan. She was elected to the court on November 4, 2008, and assumed office on January 1, 2009. Aquilina was re-elected to the court on November 4, 2014, for another six-year term commencing on January 1, 2015, and expiring on December 31, 2020

However, I may have been a bit hasty in my judgement, because the more I read about her, the less I think her comments would have had anything to do with elections or hidden agendas

https://www.bustle.com/p/who-is-jud...trial-wouldnt-be-the-same-without-her-8000032

Teaches as a Professor at a Law School.
Former JAG officer.
Published Crime fiction writer
Mother of five.
Former Radio Host (Ask the Family Lawyer, a syndicated radio talk show).

I think this woman lives and breathes the Law, Justice and the legal profession.

 

[MikeG]

Is it just me or is there something just a tiny bit unseemly about the judge's speechifying at the sentencing?.......

You might want to have a little read of the rest of the thread.

 

[Puppycow]

You might want to have a little read of the rest of the thread.

Mea Culpa.

In my defense, it is already a multi-page thread.

It's not just the lecture she gave him, or the corny one-liners, but the stuff like "I was raised on old country values"

Sounds like she's about to run for office or something. Or at least turn this into an opportunity for self-promotion.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Quite so, Puppycow. How she was raised, how much of a warm inner glow the constitution gives her, or how committed she is to community service (committed enough to have served in the military, in case you missed it) are no doubt very important when you're persuading people to vote for you. Why are they relevant at a sentencing, which is supposed to be about applying objective legal standards?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

As much as dudalb meant that as some kind of rhetorical jab, ultimately I think it would be preferable for advanced AI to do that job.

So yes, I want computers as judges.

But you live in Japan. They want robots as toilets over there...

 

[Puppycow]

One more thing she said that is even more unseemly for a judge:

Our Constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. If it did, I have to say, I might allow what he did to all of these beautiful souls—these young women in their childhood—I would allow someone or many people to do to him what he did to others.

Link

What a shame that that pesky Constitution prohibits medieval forms of punishment. I for one would like to see him drawn and quartered (or something)!! /sarcasm

I'm not a lawyer, but some of the things she said might come up on appeal.

 

[Bob001]

....
I'm not a lawyer, but some of the things she said might come up on appeal.

As noted above, he pleaded guilty in exchange for reduced charges, and was sentenced to the term he agreed to with prosecutors. There is no appeal.

 

[3point14]

Yea what a meanie dirty poo. She should never have said all those bad things to that nice man.

You don't think there's any reasonable argument that the law should be dispassionate?

 

[Darat]

As noted above, he pleaded guilty in exchange for reduced charges, and was sentenced to the term he agreed to with prosecutors. There is no appeal.

In the UK a sentence can still be appealed regardless of the guilty plea - obviously if there are legal grounds for appealing, don't know if her comments (in a UK case) would be enough to appeal his sentencing but I doubt it.

 

[MikeG]

In the UK a sentence can still be appealed regardless of the guilty plea - obviously if there are legal grounds for appealing, don't know if her comments (in a UK case) would be enough to appeal his sentencing but I doubt it.

I don't know either, but I think there would be a good chance. Here is a study of appeals made in 1990, and of 300 appeals about 100 were successful, and of those 100, 16 were because of stuff the judge said at the end of the trial:

Sixteen defendants were backed by the Court of Appeal when they claimed that the judge's summing-up was biased or poor

 

[MikeG]

As noted above, he pleaded guilty in exchange for reduced charges, and was sentenced to the term he agreed to with prosecutors. There is no appeal.

Again, this can't happen in the UK where there is no plea bargaining.

Are you really saying that Nassar agreed to 175 years and 60 years before even entering the courtroom?

 

[Bob001]

I don't know either, but I think there would be a good chance. Here is a study of appeals made in 1990, and of 300 appeals about 100 were successful, and of those 100, 16 were because of stuff the judge said at the end of the trial:

A/ The U.S. is not the UK;
B/ The judge did not determine the sentence. She imposed the sentence that the defendant and the prosecution agreed to in exchange for a reduction of the charges.

 

[MikeG]

A/ The U.S. is not the UK;B/ The judge did not determine the sentence. She imposed the sentence that the defendant and the prosecution agreed to in exchange for a reduction of the charges.

Gee thanks. Even if you've no interest in looking at this through the perspective of other jurisdictions, I'm sure others might be more broad-minded.

It was a simple question. The defendant had agreed to 175 years and 60 years before entering the court. Yes or no?

 

[3point14]

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.

You want to leave justice to Bubba and his mates inside?

Really, if you think this criminal should be punished by being raped in turn - and by therefore providing an awful lot of enjoyment to other convicted criminals - then don't you think that 'daily arserape' should be a sentence available to the judge?

 

[Bob001]

Again, this can't happen in the UK where there is no plea bargaining.

Are you really saying that Nassar agreed to 175 years and 60 years before even entering the courtroom?

The way it generally works is that in exchange for a plea, the prosecution recommends a sentence that is less than the maximum the defendant could get if he went to trial and lost. The judge can accept it, or impose more or less time. According to press reports, he pleaded guilty in exchange for the prosecution dropping most of the charges and recommending a sentence of 40 to 175 years. He might well have hoped that the judge would impose less, but didn't have any basis to expect it. The judge accepted the prosecution recommendation. He previously had pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 60 years on the separate federal charges.

It was a simple question. The defendant had agreed to 175 years and 60 years before entering the court. Yes or no?

Yes. He agreed to a sentence of 40 to 175 years. He had previously been sentenced to 60 years in separate proceedings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/sports/larry-nassar-sentencing.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...sar-gymnastics-sentencing-20180124-story.html

 

[MikeG]

You want to leave justice to Bubba and his mates inside?

Really, if you think this criminal should be punished by being raped in turn - and by therefore providing an awful lot of enjoyment to other convicted criminals - then don't you think that 'daily arserape' should be a sentence available to the judge?

"You can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners." Dostoyevski (Others with more time might look up the exact wording).

 

[Checkmite]

You know, if there hadn't been days of victim testimony, I might not be as critical. I think the words of the victims and the sentence itself were more compelling and important than the judge talking tough.

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.

Example

“You’ve chosen to come to this country a number of different times, because you wanted to be here,” McClendon said at the end of the bench trial. “And you will be here. You’re going to be here for a long, long time. This is a first-degree felony. You will do at least half of your time before you are eligible for parole. I don’t know if you’ll ever be a free man. My intention is to make certain you don’t do this to anybody else, in this country or your home country.”

“You can’t come here and do these types of things to the people in our community,” McClendon said. “We won’t tolerate it. Our children will not be preyed upon without serious consequences.”

Example:



Example

In handing down the sentence, U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin repeatedly slammed Hastert as a "serial child molester" who not only violated the trust of the boys he'd coached but also tried to mislead federal authorities years later by claiming he was being blackmailed by one of his victims.

"Nothing is more stunning than having the words 'serial child molester' and 'speaker of the House' in the same sentence," Durkin said.

In his lengthy remarks, the judge ripped Hastert's attempts to blame Individual A as "unconscionable." His lies led the FBI to open an extortion investigation against Individual A, including pulling his bank records, tapping his phone and conducting surveillance on his activities.

"You tried to set him up," Durkin said. "You tried to frame him ...The full weight of the federal government's investigative resources were thrown at him. And he didn't deserve it — he was a victim decades ago and you tried to make him a victim again."

Durkin's voice choked with emotion as he talked about the trust parents put in teachers and coaches to do right by their children, and how the parents of Hastert's victims have been left to agonize over how they missed the warning signs. The judge also noted that Hastert took advantage of the desire of many teens to simply fit in and avoid embarrassment in front of their peers.

"Can you imagine the whispers, the finger-pointing, the sideways glances if you're a 14-year-old boy and you accuse the town hero of molesting you?" Durkin asked.

Throughout the judge's remarks, Hastert sat in his wheelchair without expression, glasses low on his nose. At one point, as Durkin made it clear that probation was not in the cards, Hastert clasped his hands in front of his face and dropped his eyes.

In commending the victims in coming forward, Durkin told Burdge she could rest assured that people finally believed her.

Sitting in the courtroom gallery, Burdge nodded, smiled sadly and whispered, "Thank you."

Example

Queens Supreme Court Justice Gregory Lasak blasted Kevin McClinton as the 24-year-old killer mumbled condolences to the family of D’aja Robinson.

“Your words are meaningless. Don’t waste your time,” Lasak sniped at McClinton for telling the beautiful teen’s kin in court, “I apologize for my actions. I apologize for hanging out with the wrong people that night.”

The judge also came down on McClinton for not cleaning up his act even after he’d previously served time in an unrelated case.

“That’s what we call a lesson. Why didn’t you learn your lesson?” asked Lasak. “You have no respect for authority. You have no respect for human life. Was it worth it? Do you feel like a tough guy now?”

And another

JACKSON, MI - While sentencing a 70-year-old man who investigators say sexually abused at least seven girls, a judge said he knows there are many who think "the only money we should waste on you is the cost of a bullet."

After a short applause from the gallery, Jackson County Chief Circuit Judge Thomas Wilson continued, saying he thinks the cost of imprisoning James Tingley for the next 25 to 50 years in prison "is worth every penny to lock you up for the rest of your life.

"Children will be a lot safer. They won't have to go through the victimization that the victims went through here," Wilson said. "Mr. Tingley, basically you are a monster who has destroyed the innocence of numerous children."

And it appears to be a thing in Canada too.

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.