Another example of why we need minimum sentencing

[Lewkowski]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/20...-sentence.html

"An online petition calling for the impeachment of a Montana judge over the sentencing of a 40-year-old man to 60 days in jail after he pleaded guilty to raping his 12-year-old daughter has more than 30,000 signatures."

Frankly the appropriate punishment for child rapists should be drawing and quartering. I get that won't happen so at the very least I'd expect some hard prison time not this joke of a sentence.

[coinich]

His sentence was deferred, not reduced. I was under the impression that he had mental issues, and the judge chose to see if there were alternative treatment methods instead of straight prison.

[LittleFuzzy]

His sentence was deferred, not reduced. I was under the impression that he had mental issues, and the judge chose to see if there were alternative treatment methods instead of straight prison.

Lewk's not interested in alternative methods (except perhaps summary execution by vigilantes or cops), nor "coddling" concepts like rehabilitation. He wants punishment only, and is convinced that the ONLY thing that can affect behavior is fear of punishment.

[coinich]

Lewk's not interested in alternative methods (except perhaps summary execution by vigilantes or cops), nor "coddling" concepts like rehabilitation. He wants punishment only, and is convinced that the ONLY thing that can affect behavior is fear of punishment.

Yeah, I should know that by now.

[RandBlade]

Paedophilia should be punished regardless of any fear motive though.

[Lewkowski]

His sentence was deferred, not reduced. I was under the impression that he had mental issues, and the judge chose to see if there were alternative treatment methods instead of straight prison.

He raped a 12 year old child. I don't give a shit if he has a legitimate mental illness for the sake of society he shouldn't be out on the streets.

[coinich]

He raped a 12 year old child. I don't give a shit if he has a legitimate mental illness for the sake of society he shouldn't be out on the streets.

I'm explaining the judge's decision, not agreeing with it. I've met enough mentally challenged folk to know.

[Loki]

Reading between the lines, it seems the guy's family wants him to pay child support, which he can't do if he's in prison. Lewk, does your outrage at pedophiles extend to having the government support their families?

[Lewkowski]

Reading between the lines, it seems the guy's family wants him to pay child support, which he can't do if he's in prison. Lewk, does your outrage at pedophiles extend to having the government support their families?

I'm confused as to why you would think those two things are interconnected at all. We shouldn't be changing someone's prison sentence because they have obligations.

[Loki]

I'm confused as to why you would think those two things are interconnected at all. We shouldn't be changing someone's prison sentence because they have obligations.

Just pointing out that your caring for victims of pedophilia doesn't extend to keeping those victims off the streets.

[Lewkowski]

Just pointing out that your caring for victims of pedophilia doesn't extend to keeping those victims off the streets.

There are existing welfare programs already in existence. That being said I wouldn't have an issue with prison labor being used and the monetary benefit of that labor being sent to the victims. That would truly be 'repaying your debt to society.'

[Loki]

I'm sure he'd provide a good income to his family making 50 cents an hour.

[RandBlade]

So you're suggesting you should be able to buy your way out of serving your time?

Want to rape a child? Just make sure to have enough income to pay off the victims family first and go ahead ...

[Loki]

I'm saying we should do more to help victims of crime to prevent something like this from happening.

[RandBlade]

Absolutely we should, but we should also put incestual paedophile rapists behind bars too.

[EyeKhan]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/20...-sentence.html

"An online petition calling for the impeachment of a Montana judge over the sentencing of a 40-year-old man to 60 days in jail after he pleaded guilty to raping his 12-year-old daughter has more than 30,000 signatures."

Frankly the appropriate punishment for child rapists should be drawing and quartering. I get that won't happen so at the very least I'd expect some hard prison time not this joke of a sentence.

Here's a more in-depth look at the case...

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...est-sentencing

I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one emotional level, I'd like to see the guy dead in a painful way. But judicial decisions should not be emotional decisions, and they should take into account many factors specific, and often unique, to a case. On the surface, minimum sentences sound great, particularly when you're outraged from your look in from the outside. But minimum sentencing laws have caused a lot of social trouble in the US, seen lots of people imprisoned for no sensible reason, and cost the overall community a great deal. The reason we have judges is to weigh the various nuances found in every case -- fair and reasonable sentencing requires it. Maybe this asshole really should have gone to jail forever, and maybe not. The judge, who weighed the facts and the testimony, and presumably a whole lot of factors we don't know much about, didn't think so. That's his job. It can't be easy, and I don't presume to know better by reading a news report. Isn't this why there is an appeals process, why there are 'layers' of court in our judicial system, to review and reconsider a potentially bad decision? Well, nobody has appealed this judgement. What does that say?

[Flixy]

But judicial decisions should not be emotional decisions,

This is really important but often forgotten it seems.

[Lewkowski]

Here's a more in-depth look at the case...

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...est-sentencing

I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one emotional level, I'd like to see the guy dead in a painful way. But judicial decisions should not be emotional decisions, and they should take into account many factors specific, and often unique, to a case. On the surface, minimum sentences sound great, particularly when you're outraged from your look in from the outside. But minimum sentencing laws have caused a lot of social trouble in the US, seen lots of people imprisoned for no sensible reason, and cost the overall community a great deal. The reason we have judges is to weigh the various nuances found in every case -- fair and reasonable sentencing requires it. Maybe this asshole really should have gone to jail forever, and maybe not. The judge, who weighed the facts and the testimony, and presumably a whole lot of factors we don't know much about, didn't think so. That's his job. It can't be easy, and I don't presume to know better by reading a news report. Isn't this why there is an appeals process, why there are 'layers' of court in our judicial system, to review and reconsider a potentially bad decision? Well, nobody has appealed this judgement. What does that say?

I'm not an expert on the appellate courts but primarily they almost never reverse a decision to make it worse for a defendant. There primary function (in criminal court) appears to be to give those accused of a crime additional ways to get out of prison.

[Flixy]

Over here that does happen. Plus over here the prosecution can also appeal a acquittal, so it's fairly common the the prosecution appeals for a higher sentence and may get it.

[RandBlade]

Over here too if a sentence is too lenient then it can be appealed to be made longer (which is not the same as appealing an innocent verdict).

[Flixy]

Oh if I wasn't clear, both are possible here as well. It's not even that uncommon that both defense and prosecution appeal for a lower and higher sentence, respectively.

[LittleFuzzy]

The prosecution can appeal here as well. Appeals for BOTH SIDES is limited to procedural/technical issues though. You can't appeal an acquittal (or a guilty verdict) you can appeal some flaw/error that "tainted" the outcome. And those appeals can be about a "taint" on the sentencing outcome rather than a verdict of innocent/guilty. It's often not worth it for the prosecutor though because the double jeopardy prohibition in the Constitution means an appellate court can't enter a ruling more in their favor, it can only declare a mistrial so they have to bring the whole case all over again. They often opt not to bother trying to re-try someone after a mistrial because they've got so much other work already and chances of conviction almost always go down the more time has passed since the crime was committed. That's not on the appellate courts though. So Lewk is semi-right, since the appellate courts will not act against criminal defendants directly, but only semi because they do provide an opportunity for the lower court a second chance to make things worse for the defendant.