Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

[angrysoba]

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:

Certainly there have been some famous examples of judges saying dumb things in the UK. “She was no angel herself” about a rape victim and if Lady Chatterley’s Lover was the kind of book that people would want their wife or servants to read.

 

[Craig B]

I'm no longer going to call it "rape". From now on, it's gonna be "criminal sexual conduct (first degree) in Michigan law, if you know what I mean and I think you do (unless you're CraigB for some reason".

I have not participated in this discussion, and I have no position on Michigan state law, so why this reference to me here?

 

[smartcooky]

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?

Pi

Probably not. I'm a dad who has had kids in sport (and grand-kids in sport too). I guess I'm just venting how I feel about this piece of garbage. IMO, he doesn't deserve to be treated as a human

 

[Checkmite]

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:

Those were all appeals of convictions, not of sentences. It's difficult to argue that a sentencing judge is unfairly biased against a defendant who has pleaded guilty; in fact, it's so difficult I expect it's never actually been argued.

 

[angrysoba]

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?

Yeah, and then he turned to his counsel and said, “phew! I thought I was going to get life!”

 

[smartcooky]

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

The summing up is BEFORE the jury retires to consider a verdict, so the summing up can, and does have a impact on the verdict.

In this case, the Nassar plead guilty and agreed to the sentence before the case was heard. In US Law, that is end of; there is no grounds for appeal of the verdict or the sentence, regardless of what the judge said.

 

[Darat]

In the US it is not even the least bit uncommon, as an aside, for the judge to admonish or deride a convicted person's character before giving sentence. I've never heard of an appeal claiming unfair bias due to a sentencing judge's comments even being filed, let alone succeeding.

Honestly, after an entire week listening to over a hundred victims give statements describing what they suffered, if a judge signaled that they didn't have as much contempt for the guilty party I'd consider them unfairly biased toward the convicted.

Same happens in the UK. The judge is having to make a determination of sentence so of course they have to consider the person found guilty and that person's character is one of the attributes they should have to consider. I've read summaries from judges doing the opposite when someone has been found not-guilty saying that they leave the court without a blemish on their character and so on.

 

[3point14]

Pi

Probably not. I'm a dad who has had kids in sport (and grand-kids in sport too). I guess I'm just venting how I feel about this piece of garbage. IMO, he doesn't deserve to be treated as a human

But he is human. Much as we'd all like him not to be, he's the same species as we all are.


This child molester is extremely deserving of punishment. I personally believe that both the sentence and the punishment should be dispassionate and defined, not because I have any sympathy at all for the convicted but because the law must operate under the same procedures every time.

Once we allow emotion and pointless rhetoric* and extra judicial punishment to become part of the justice process on an ad-hoc, when we feel angry enough basis, then the dispassionate nature of the law, which I believe to be paramount, is in question.




(*all that the judge said had already been said with more than enough eloquence and feeling by those to whom the terrible events actually happened. They were brave, she was grandstanding, she gets the credit. Jesus, I could have presided over that trial, it was not legally difficult, all she did was say 'yes')

 

[Darat]

gain, 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?

Yes there is - https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/plea-bargaining/

 

[angrysoba]

Pi

Probably not. I'm a dad who has had kids in sport (and grand-kids in sport too). I guess I'm just venting how I feel about this piece of garbage. IMO, he doesn't deserve to be treated as a human

It’s natural for people to feel this way, but that’s exactly why we don’t allow vigilante justice or hand over criminals to families so that they can exact their own revenge. We need the justice system to step in to prevent our vengeful fantasies taking over.

Now, I suppose it could be argued that the judge may also be seen as the person who speaks eloquently about the anger that the society feels. I could be persuaded of that.

 

[Darat]

It’s natural for people to feel this way, but that’s exactly why we don’t allow vigilante justice or hand over criminals to families so that they can exact their own revenge. We need the justice system to step in to prevent our vengeful fantasies taking over.

Now, I suppose it could be argued that the judge may also be seen as the person who speaks eloquently about the anger that the society feels. I could be persuaded of that.

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.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

I have no problem with either of those scenarios. The simple solution for the killer is, don't murder someone's 2 year old in the first place, then you won't be facing this scenario at all.

The victim suffers a death sentence, and the victim's family suffers a life sentence. Why should the perp be able to come back to society and get on with his/her own life?

(As you may gather, I am a proponent of life means life for child murderers... "lock 'em up and throw away the key!")

 

[Darat]

I have no problem with either of those scenarios. The simple solution for the killer is, don't murder someone's 2 year old in the first place, then you won't be facing this scenario at all.

The victim suffers a death sentence, and the victim's family suffers a life sentence. Why should the perp be able to come back to society and get on with his/her own life?

(As you may gather, I am a proponent of life means life for child murderers... "lock 'em up and throw away the key!")

Given the rest of your post I'm confused about the first bit!

In one scenario the criminal is released after 8 years, the other after 15 years because the family's views formed part of the decision. Given you want longer sentencing anyway how come you are happy with the murderer being released earlier? That seems contradictory to me?

 

[3point14]

I have no problem with either of those scenarios. The simple solution for the killer is, don't murder someone's 2 year old in the first place, then you won't be facing this scenario at all.

The victim suffers a death sentence, and the victim's family suffers a life sentence. Why should the perp be able to come back to society and get on with his/her own life?

(As you may gather, I am a proponent of life means life for child murderers... "lock 'em up and throw away the key!")

I don't think punishment should be dependent upon the religion of the victim or victims family, which it is in the, entirely possible, scenario Darat described. In that scenario either one criminal has been punished to excess or the other has been punished too little. They can't both be right.

The law needs to be consistent. To allow external influence based on the morality, religion and general bloodthirstiness of untrained victims/families who will, entirely naturally, be unable to see the situation dispassionately, is to risk the consistency that the law must /should have.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ha, you edited between the time I first saw your post and click reply. You've clearly already figured out ponderingturtle is crazily enough correct. Now, no one gets charged with Adultery in Michigan, and it is very likely any such charge would lead to a Supreme Court decision ultimately striking down the statute in question. So just looking at the laws on the books, yes adultery is a felony and sex while committing a felony is 1st degree CSC. However when you consider that the law is de facto not in force, and likely unconstitutional to boot, it isn't really a felony.

It came up when a judge was really pissed at charging someone trading prescription drugs for sex with rape a number of years ago. The prosecutor had a recent rather public affair and so the judge mentioned that. It is a pretty nasty part of michigan law.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Think he will go for the "not technically a pedophile" tattoo?

These are gymnasts, you really think there were developed?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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:

And what of those appeals were after a guilty plea?

 

[Belz...]

You won't find a single word from me in this thread defending the judge's nonsense; my only contention in regard to her incendiary, pointless ranting was that it shouldn't be allowed to be the basis of an appeal. At the end of the day, the sentence was legal and seems pretty appropriate given this particular rapist's crimes.

I also agree with you entirely on the issue of cheering for prison rape. I don't care who the criminal is or what they've done, prison should be a safe place for inmates given that we, as a society, are taking responsibility for their care. Allowing, encouraging, or accepting prison violence is unacceptable.

Well, for once we seem to be in complete agreement!

 

[Belz...]

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

Ah, yes. Paint everyone who wants an impartial judge as a misogynist! That'll help the discussion for sure, and it's not a lie at all.

Hell, I didn't even know the judge was a woman at first.

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.

Once again, I'd like to point out how insane things have become that you had to include a disclaimer in a post that was otherwise very clearly NOT defending the criminal.

 

[ddt]

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:

Thank you for that link. Dutch TV had shown a few snippets, and this confirms my first impression.

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.

Take that up with the judge. She said so herself in her sentencing: "you have 21 days to appeal". So yes, there is an appeal possible.

FWIW, I too think that the judge's comments are unprofessional. She says "this is not about me", but a significant part of her comments are about her own life experience, and the rest is phrased in a personal way. She should have left out her personal life story completely, and rephrased the others. For instance:

So up until the time you pled I believed maybe there was a defense here despite the felony information. I was ready for trial. Your counsel was ready for trial. The attorney general’s office was ready for trial. You sir, decided to plead because there was no medical treatment. You did this for your pleasure and your control.

The "I"s make it personal. But it's not about judge Ms. Aquilina. It's Eaton County Circuit Court who thought so. The whole speech is replete with that. And then there's this bit:

And I want you to know as much as it was my honor and privilege to hear the sister survivors,

No, she is not herself a "survivor" and should not identify with the victims.

She has every right to comment on his non-apology letter. That that letter again speaks of treatment while there was absolutely no defense that what he did was legitimate treatment. That the letter complained that it was an undue burden to hear witness statements even though his lawyer agreed to that.

And if she thought that letter was a disgrace and showed an utter lack of remorse - I agree from the parts quoted - then she should have simply raised the sentence accordingly. She doesn't have to honor the plea bargain between the AG and the defense. I think it's very odd anyways that he first gets 60 years minimum for child porn and then only 40 years minimum for actual sexual assault with 168 victims.