Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

[Dr. Keith]

Many US judges are elected. Some of the electorate expect and appreciate such speeches. If they don't they can vote her out.

I tend to think this speech could have taken some of the focus off the powerful speeches given by the victims, but really, it didn't. We will all remember those women long after we have forgotten about the judge.

From a legal standpoint, I think the doctor will consult an attorney about filing an appeal, but it will not get very far simply because the judge stayed within the range the victim agreed to in his plea bargain. There will be no practical impact on his sentence even if an appeal is filed.

I know a criminal like this brings out a lot of emotion, but there is no reason to cheer on extra-judicial crimes being committed by other criminals as part of our "justice" system. Prison rape is still rape. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[smartcooky]

Person A getting a heavier sentence than Person B because Person A has someone to stand up in court and gush about how wonderful of a person they were just doesn't sit well with me.

The poor, unloved hobo doesn't deserve less justice than the prom queen and I don't see how this sort of mentality isn't just different variations on and degrees of that.

Again, I go back to what I said earlier about parole. If you don't like the idea of the statements by a victim or the victim's families being able to affect your sentencing, don't put yourself in that position in the first place.... don't commit crimes!

Its like those people who complain that speed cameras are just revenue gathering devices for government, and that they don't contribute to road safety, and are just another way for governments to gather taxes from road users. My reply is... it may well be a tax, but is the easiest tax to avoid... just don't speed!

 

[MikeG]

.......How about we just get back ON TOPIC now, OK with you?

Report me. I'm happy to let the mods judge whether or not discussion about the validity of comparing other jurisdictions with US legal practise is a deliberate attempt to derail a thread on US legal practise. Oh, and don't forget to report Darat as well, by that same criteria.

 

[smartcooky]

Come on, man. We compare things all the time while discussing a topic. I don't see why you want the discussion to be very narrowly on topic like this.

Yes, I know we do, but there are plenty of discussion points within the framework of the subject at hand without bring in stuff that happens in other countries. Useful contributions are those which could have directly impacted this case

The Judge's attitude and demeanour
The impact statements
The sentencing Laws in the State/USA
The victims and what happened to them
The wider implications for USAG and the USOC

There is so much to discuss... I don't care what would have happened if this case had been in another country... it wasn't, end of.

 

[3point14]

Again, I go back to what I said earlier about parole. If you don't like the idea of the statements by a victim or the victim's families being able to affect your sentencing, don't put yourself in that position in the first place.... don't commit crimes!

This logic allows for any punishment for any crime.

"Yes, I know he only stole a penny chew and beheading seems a little excessive, but let's face it, he shouldn't have put himself in that position in the first place"

You can justify anything at all done to any citizen convicted of any crime using this logic. It could even apply to you if you are wrongly convicted of a crime.

Once you get to 'I don't care what punishment they get, they're criminals then you've absolutely dehumanised all convicted criminals. All of them.

Its like those people who complain that speed cameras are just revenue gathering devices for government, and that they don't contribute to road safety, and are just another way for governments to gather taxes from road users. My reply is... it may well be a tax, but is the easiest tax to avoid... just don't speed!

What if every tenth camera the conviction came, at random, with confiscation of the individuals house? Are you still on for 'shouldn't have done the crime?'

Your attitude leaves lots of room to put every criminal convicted of any crime behind bars forever. I don't think it's tenable. I think you have to have consideration even for convicted criminals.

 

[smartcooky]

This logic allows for any punishment for any crime.

No, it doesn't

T"Yes, I know he only stole a penny chew and beheading seems a little excessive, but let's face it, he shouldn't have put himself in that position in the first place"

This doesn't happen in the real world. Strawman argument anyway.

What if every tenth camera the conviction came, at random, with confiscation of the individuals house? Are you still on for 'shouldn't have done the crime?'

This doesn't happen in the real world. Another strawman.

 

[3point14]

No, it doesn't

Does the described attitude only apply to victim statements as they pertain to sentencing and parole and not to any other area of the justice system?

This doesn't happen in the real world. Strawman argument anyway.

I didn't say it happened, I said it was a logical extension of your position of:

If you don't like the idea of the statements by a victim or the victim's families being able to affect your sentencing, don't put yourself in that position in the first place.... don't commit crimes!"

Of course, if your attitude only applies to victim statements and to no other area, then I've misinterpreted, but that exclusion would also come with some logical inconsistencies. I don't see the strawman at all.

This doesn't happen in the real world. Another strawman.

Again, I know it doesn't. I was aiming for an analogy or equivalence to illustrate a point. Again, I don't see the strawman. You clearly state that you don't care what happens to convicted criminals in terms of sentencing at least in the case of victim statements. You are perfectly prepared to accept, in this instance a random outcome for sentencing based not on the crime committed but on the random element of how well the victim can influence the emotions of the sentencing party.

 

[smartcooky]

Just to make my position clear on this, IMO, the incarceration of criminals serves three purposes. In priority order they are...

1. Prevention and protection.
To prevent the criminal from further criminal activity and to protect the public at large

2. Punishment to fit the crime committed.
To punish the criminal for his behaviour.

3. Rehabilitation.
To normalize the criminal, bring him/her back into society in such a way that they do not offend again.

IMO, rehabilitation is a long, long way down the priority list. The first consideration is public safety, and then adequate punishment for the level of offending. Only when considerations related to 1 and 2 are met, should rehabilitation become a consideration.

3.14's ridiculous strawman suggestion of beheading for stealing a lolly simply doesn't fit into this. The level of punishment would not fit the crime committed, and a person committing such a crime would never be incarcerated therefore never face a parole board or victim impact statements.

In the Larry Nassar case, his crimes were reprehensible. This man used his position as a doctor to systematically sexually abuse over 150 girls and young women, betraying their trust and that of their parents. His actions had varying degrees of severe and traumatic effects on them. Personally, I have no sympathy for this scrumbag. I have much sympathy for the victims; the court should do anything it can to help these victims get through this, and if that means giving them a forum such as making victim impact statement to vent their anger at Nassar, then I'm happy with that. Now that Nassar has been found guilty, I don't give a rats arse about his rights.

 

[dudalb]

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.

She was the first women to head a state JAG office when she took charge of the Michigan National Guard Jag. Retired as a full bird colonel.

 

[3point14]

3.14's ridiculous strawman suggestion of beheading for stealing a lolly simply doesn't fit into this.

You accept a random element into sentencing because you don't care about convicted criminals.

The level of punishment would not fit the crime committed, and a person committing such a crime would never be incarcerated therefore never face victim impact statements.

Would that indicate that you only accept this element of randomness where victim statements are concerned?

 

[smartcooky]

Does the described attitude only apply to victim statements as they pertain to sentencing and parole and not to any other area of the justice system?

Go back an read what I actually said, and you will have your answer

Darat suggested it was unfair to have a person's parole chances affected by the feelings/opinions of the victims and/or their families. JoeMorgue said something similar about victim impact statements.

My position is that if you don't like those inequities in the parole board, don't put yourself in the position of having your fate decided by one. If you don't like the idea of having victim impact statements affecting your sentencing, then don't put yourself in the position of having to face them.

People who have to front parole boards or have to face victim impact statements are always serious criminal offenders; murderers, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers, burglars etc, not people who get caught by speed cameras or people who steal candy from the corner shop.

 

[smartcooky]

You accept a random element into sentencing because you don't care about convicted criminals.

Did you not read what I posted?

"2. Punishment to fit the crime committed. "

Where are you getting this idea about random sentencing?

 

[dudalb]

And the fallout from the cover up begins;
President of Michigan State University resigned today because she ignored complaints against Nassar.
It is really going to be interesting when the heat is turned up on the US Gymnist Olympic Committee.which apparently was the major offender in the cover up.

 

[MikeG]

And the fallout from the cover up begins;
President of Michigan State University resigned today because she ignored complaints against Nassar.
It is really going to be interesting when the heat is turned up on the US Gymnist Olympic Committee.which apparently was the major offender in the cover up.

Was it a cover-up? Or just disbelief?

 

[smartcooky]

And the fallout from the cover up begins;
President of Michigan State University resigned today because she ignored complaints against Nassar.
It is really going to be interesting when the heat is turned up on the US Gymnist Olympic Committee.which apparently was the major offender in the cover up.

Heads must roll.

Anyone who knew about the complaints against Nassar and did nothing about them cannot be trusted to keep young athletes safe from these kind of predators.

ETA: Perhaps it was disbelief followed by a cover up

Disbelief in the first place, then a cover up once they realised there was real merit in the complaints.

ETA: One of the victims, McKayla Maroney, claims she was paid by USAG to keep quiet about what happened to her

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326665

If true, then this smells like a cover-up to me.

 

[Bob001]

Was it a cover-up? Or just disbelief?

Not much difference. Disbelief without full investigation pretty much results in a cover-up. Numerous officials received reports of his misconduct, but the university had too much to protect to take a close look.

Reports of sexual misconduct by Dr. Larry Nassar reached at least 14 Michigan State University representatives in the two decades before his arrest, with no fewer than eight women reporting his actions, a Detroit News investigation has found.

Among those notified was MSU President Lou Anna Simon, who was informed in 2014 that a Title IX complaint and a police report had been filed against an unnamed physician, she told The News on Wednesday.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/te...sident-told-nassar-complaint-2014/1042071001/

 

[dudalb]

Was it a cover-up? Or just disbelief?

Does'nt matter:Happened on her watch,she took no action, she has to go.

With the USAG , there is no debate,it was a cover up . Including intimidation of witnesses,bribery, etc.

 

[dudalb]

Not much difference. Disbelief without full investigation pretty much results in a cover-up. Numerous officials received reports of his misconduct, but the university had too much to protect to take a close look.


http://www.detroitnews.com/story/te...sident-told-nassar-complaint-2014/1042071001/

What gets to me is by now they should know better;every time an organization tries to cover something like this up it leaks out and makes them look much worse then if they took action when it came to their attention.

 

[dudalb]

I honeslty think the idea of individuals being held responsible for their actions instead of blaming "society" in general upsets some people.

 

[smartcooky]

I honeslty think the idea of individuals being held responsible for their actions instead of blaming "society" in general upsets some people.

Don't get me started.

This attitude goes right back to politically correct philosophies in school education. This has resulted in generations of children...

- learning that there are no real consequences for bad behaviour
- being taught there are no winners or losers
- being brought up with ill-defined boundaries
- having no sense of personal responsibility for their actions

Society is reaping the rewards now that these children have grown into adults

I was a teacher once. I got out of the game once I saw what was happening.