Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

His letter about hearing the testimony of his victims being to hard on him was particularly galling.
 
dudalb said:
I could not disagree more. he derserved the tongue lashing he got from the judge.
If the judge would have spoken this way during a trial, yes it would be wrong. But his was the sentencing
I will save my sympathy for the guy's victims, thank you.
Click to expand...

I don't think it has anything to do with sympathy, but rather with professionalism. If the judge's comments make him appear biased or ideological in some way, it might appear to affect his sentencing.
 
Belz... said:
I don't think it has anything to do with sympathy, but rather with professionalism. If the judge's comments make him appear biased or ideological in some way, it might appear to affect his sentencing.
Click to expand...

True, but a judge is certainly allowed to express anger and even disgust at the actions of which the defendant was convicted, particularly for unusually heinous crimes. That is why judges have the authority (the responsibility) for choosing a particular sentence from among the range of sentences available- to match the nature of the crime. Part of the judge's responsibility invokes explaining the basis for the sentence imposed. I believe the judge's comments in this case fit well within that criterion and are appropriate.
 
Babbylonian said:
Life without the possibility of parole is not an available sentence for rape in the US. However, consecutive sentences can be assigned for multiple crimes adding up to an amount of prison time that would prevent the possibility of parole.

As for the judge's comments, they can't be the subject of an appeal since Nassar pleaded guilty and the sentence is a lawful one.
Click to expand...

And in the US, a chewing out of the criminal about to be sentenced happens quite a bit. Most of the time,though, they are not as witty as the Judge in this case.
 
NoahFence said:
Yea what a meanie dirty poo. She should never have said all those bad things to that nice man.
Click to expand...

Is that really what you took from what I wrote? Wow.

I'm much more interested in the independence and status of the judiciary, and about due process in which the judges' personal views are subservient to their duties in impartially dealing with matters before them. If a judge displays repugnance for the defendant, that would hand the defendant a perfect thing to take to appeal: the judge was biased. Many a judgement has been later thrown out, you'll recall, because of biased or erroneous summing up by the judge.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
True, but a judge is certainly allowed to express anger and even disgust at the actions of which the defendant was convicted, particularly for unusually heinous crimes. That is why judges have the authority (the responsibility) for choosing a particular sentence from among the range of sentences available- to match the nature of the crime. Part of the judge's responsibility invokes explaining the basis for the sentence imposed. I believe the judge's comments in this case fit well within that criterion and are appropriate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, though some judges go a bit far, essentially using their bench as a soapbox to air their views and sound very moral.

I'm not saying it's what happened necessarily in this case.
 
Giordano said:
True, but a judge is certainly allowed to express anger and even disgust at the actions of which the defendant was convicted, particularly for unusually heinous crimes. That is why judges have the authority (the responsibility) for choosing a particular sentence from among the range of sentences available- to match the nature of the crime. Part of the judge's responsibility invokes explaining the basis for the sentence imposed. I believe the judge's comments in this case fit well within that criterion and are appropriate.
Click to expand...

And I suspect that some UK judges has administered tongue lashings to criminals about to get a severe sentence.
The key here is it takes place after the case has been decided,not during the trial stage.
 
Babbylonian said:
.......As for the judge's comments, they can't be the subject of an appeal since Nassar pleaded guilty and the sentence is a lawful one.
Click to expand...

Really? That sentence could be appealed here (IANAL). The judge's remarks would certainly form part of an appeal case, as they display clear personal bias.......the one thing which judges are not supposed to do. They're supposed to be neutral.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Is that really what you took from what I wrote? Wow.

I'm much more interested in the independence and status of the judiciary, and about due process in which the judges personal views are subservient to their duties in impartially dealing with matters before them. If a judge displays repugnance for the defendant, that would hand the defendant a perfect thing to take to appeal: the judge was biased. Many a judgement has been later thrown out, you'll recall, because of biased or erroneous summing up by the judge.
Click to expand...
Are there a lot of judges who don't find confessed child rapists repugnant? With reasonable doubt completely off the table, I don't see how the judge's comments could have any relevance to an appeal, especially after days of victim testimony.
 
Babbylonian said:
Are there a lot of judges who don't find confessed child rapists repugnant? With reasonable doubt completely off the table, I don't see how the judge's comments could have any relevance to an appeal, especially after days of victim testimony.
Click to expand...

You don't see how a judge expressing personal repugnance at a defendant prior to handing down an enormous sentence doesn't present the defendant with an opportunity to appeal? Well, OK, I probably can't help any more with that, other than just keep repeating the same thing.
 
MikeG said:
You don't see how a judge expressing personal repugnance at a defendant prior to handing down an enormous sentence doesn't present the defendant with an opportunity to appeal? Well, OK, I probably can't help any more with that, other than just keep repeating the same thing.
Click to expand...

Hmm, might be good, just replay the days of testimony about all the crimes he committed and tried to get out of hearing again. He said that listening to the testimony of his victims would be mentally taxing and so he shouldn't have to after all.

And for what practical purpose, he is still subject to the 60 years for child pornography. She didn't bais the trial as he pled guilty so at most it would be to appeal the sentence and for what?

I don't think this is likely to be useful for him.
 
Babbylonian said:
Are there a lot of judges who don't find confessed child rapists repugnant? .....
Click to expand...

He pleaded guilty to sexual assault, as I understand it. Not rape. So this is hyperbole.

-

Look, I see how this looks.....but you're wrong. I am not defending this nauseating man and his repugnant actions. I am querying the behaviour of the judge, as much as anything because if that happened here it would give the guy a fair chance of getting out of prison very much sooner than otherwise he might.
 
MikeG said:
He pleaded guilty to sexual assault, as I understand it. Not rape. So this is hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Pleading guilty to lesser included charges does not make someone any less a rapist.
Look, I see how this looks.....but you're wrong. I am not defending this nauseating man and his repugnant actions. I am querying the behaviour of the judge, as much as anything because if that happened here it would give the guy a fair chance of getting out of prison very much sooner than otherwise he might.
Click to expand...
And I'm not defending judges who won't keep their mouths shut when nothing more needs to be said. All I am saying is that the idea that the comments should constitute grounds for appeal is ridiculous.

I think this is particularly true since we in the US have a system that unfortunately includes electing judges, such as the judge in this case.
 
Babbylonian said:
.......All I am saying is that the idea that the comments should constitute grounds for appeal is ridiculous.......
Click to expand...

We've grown up with very different systems, and we're clearly never going to agree on this. I personally want judges to be neutral and dispassionate.
 
Did he actually confess to rape? That's a simple yes/ no question, and the reason for asking it is that this is precisely what you claimed.

You've just committed a really silly logical fallacy. Let's see if an analogy would help.

Man walks into a police station and says "I confess to a driving offense".

Policeman says "Death by dangerous driving is a driving offense, so I'm charging you with that".
 
Last edited:
It is a sentencing statement that explains the Judge's reasoning for giving the sentence she did and provides no real grounds for appeal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom