Girl provoked pedophile - judge

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't feel that dressing in this manner makes the criminals actions justified, I do however feel that it may invoke this type of crime from an already sick individual, more so than conservative dress would.

That being said, rape is rape .. I'm sure that the judge in this case was far too lenient, but as stated earlier in this thread the LAW determines the minimum and maximum sentences for crimes.

Can you imagine a rapist used the same excuse after raping a woman... He would never get away with it.

At least if this had happened in the US the appropriate justice would be served.

Do you like not read anything that's been said? This will get reviewed and almost certainly overturned. You're saying that a US judge can't be incompetent or make a mistake?

Edited June 29, 2007 by erekose

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I've heard those arguments before from the Bush lot re: the Supreme Court - and the desire intended or not, appears to be the weakening of that particular institution.

Should have known as I saw the direction that this thread was going in that the spin would bring it back to Bush Bashing at some point ..

Jeez

This thread is see-sawing across international judicial systems. The point is that these claims about needing to "reign in" "rogue judges" have been heard before - in the US, and the real goal (intended or otherwise) is to weaken the powers of judges to perform their duty. As there are oversight procedures in place for bad verdicts - there is no need for anything of that sort.

[GaryC 7]

I've heard those arguments before from the Bush lot re: the Supreme Court - and the desire intended or not, appears to be the weakening of that particular institution.

Should have known as I saw the direction that this thread was going in that the spin would bring it back to Bush Bashing at some point ..

Jeez

This thread is see-sawing across international judicial systems. The point is that these claims about needing to "reign in" "rogue judges" have been heard before - in the US, and the real goal (intended or otherwise) is to weaken the powers of judges to perform their duty. As there are oversight procedures in place for bad verdicts - there is no need for anything of that sort.

Your way off base here. First of all, there isn't any oversight in the US for bad sentancing that I am aware of. The only recourse is to impeach the judge. Many states already have manditory minimum sentances and our judicial system didn't break down.

You also say my goal is to weaken the powers of judges to preform their duties. That is totaly wrong. The judges can still conduct their courtroom as they see fit, make judgments as they see fit and do any of their other duties as they want. The only difference is the judge will have a range of sentancing he can pass down instead of being able to make up some off the wall punishment.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Judge Condemns Minimum Mandatory Sentence and Addresses Restitution Issues

Federal Judge Paul Cassell, who has offered some of the most compelling opinions on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines post-Blakely, issued two opinions in two days that may have a profound impact on the Guidelines.

On Monday, Cassell reluctantly sentenced first time offender Weldon Angelos to 55 years in prison for money laundering and selling small bags of marijuana to a police informant. Cassell told Angelos, "I have no choice." Cassell said that he was required, because a jury determined that the defendant possessed a gun during at least two of the drug transactions, to impose the 55 year sentence--the minimum mandatory--under the guidelines. Cassell called the guidelines, "unjust, cruel and irrational." He also added that the 25 year-old defendant "will serve more time than rapists, murderers or airline hijackers - and won't be eligible for release until he's 70." Cassell urged Angelo's lawyer to seek an appeal and to request clemency from President Bush after all appellate options had been exhausted. Cassell said that he would personally call on President Bush to commute Angelo's sentence. President Bush appointed Cassell to the federal bench in July of 2002.

http://www.acsblog.org/criminal-law-judge-...ion-issues.html

Edited June 30, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[GaryC 7]

Judge Condemns Minimum Mandatory Sentence and Addresses Restitution Issues

Federal Judge Paul Cassell, who has offered some of the most compelling opinions on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines post-Blakely, issued two opinions in two days that may have a profound impact on the Guidelines.

On Monday, Cassell reluctantly sentenced first time offender Weldon Angelos to 55 years in prison for money laundering and selling small bags of marijuana to a police informant. Cassell told Angelos, "I have no choice." Cassell said that he was required, because a jury determined that the defendant possessed a gun during at least two of the drug transactions, to impose the 55 year sentence--the minimum mandatory--under the guidelines. Cassell called the guidelines, "unjust, cruel and irrational." He also added that the 25 year-old defendant "will serve more time than rapists, murderers or airline hijackers - and won't be eligible for release until he's 70." Cassell urged Angelo's lawyer to seek an appeal and to request clemency from President Bush after all appellate options had been exhausted. Cassell said that he would personally call on President Bush to commute Angelo's sentence. President Bush appointed Cassell to the federal bench in July of 2002.

http://www.acsblog.org/criminal-law-judge-...ion-issues.html

So, whats your point? You have found a misguided judge that agrees with you. This case he sites sounds like he deserved 55 years. Just because he will serve less than a rapist or murderer has nothing to do with it. It sounds more like we need to stiffen the penalties for rape and murder.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I've heard those arguments before from the Bush lot re: the Supreme Court - and the desire intended or not, appears to be the weakening of that particular institution.

Should have known as I saw the direction that this thread was going in that the spin would bring it back to Bush Bashing at some point ..

Jeez

This thread is see-sawing across international judicial systems. The point is that these claims about needing to "reign in" "rogue judges" have been heard before - in the US, and the real goal (intended or otherwise) is to weaken the powers of judges to perform their duty. As there are oversight procedures in place for bad verdicts - there is no need for anything of that sort.

Your way off base here. First of all, there isn't any oversight in the US for bad sentancing that I am aware of. The only recourse is to impeach the judge. Many states already have manditory minimum sentances and our judicial system didn't break down.

You also say my goal is to weaken the powers of judges to preform their duties. That is totaly wrong. The judges can still conduct their courtroom as they see fit, make judgments as they see fit and do any of their other duties as they want. The only difference is the judge will have a range of sentancing he can pass down instead of being able to make up some off the wall punishment.

Your argument falls down because you're using a UK case to make a point about the US judicial system, and if the US judicial system doesn't have oversight - that's your problem right there.

[GaryC 7]

I've heard those arguments before from the Bush lot re: the Supreme Court - and the desire intended or not, appears to be the weakening of that particular institution.

Should have known as I saw the direction that this thread was going in that the spin would bring it back to Bush Bashing at some point ..

Jeez

This thread is see-sawing across international judicial systems. The point is that these claims about needing to "reign in" "rogue judges" have been heard before - in the US, and the real goal (intended or otherwise) is to weaken the powers of judges to perform their duty. As there are oversight procedures in place for bad verdicts - there is no need for anything of that sort.

Your way off base here. First of all, there isn't any oversight in the US for bad sentancing that I am aware of. The only recourse is to impeach the judge. Many states already have manditory minimum sentances and our judicial system didn't break down.

You also say my goal is to weaken the powers of judges to preform their duties. That is totaly wrong. The judges can still conduct their courtroom as they see fit, make judgments as they see fit and do any of their other duties as they want. The only difference is the judge will have a range of sentancing he can pass down instead of being able to make up some off the wall punishment.

Your argument falls down because you're using a UK case to make a point about the US judicial system, and if the US judicial system doesn't have oversight - that's your problem right there.

No, I posted a case from vermont to back up my point. Unless I am mistaken on only a convicted person can appeal a verdict and the sentence can be upheld or reduced. There is no way to increase a sentence.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I've heard those arguments before from the Bush lot re: the Supreme Court - and the desire intended or not, appears to be the weakening of that particular institution.

Should have known as I saw the direction that this thread was going in that the spin would bring it back to Bush Bashing at some point ..

Jeez

This thread is see-sawing across international judicial systems. The point is that these claims about needing to "reign in" "rogue judges" have been heard before - in the US, and the real goal (intended or otherwise) is to weaken the powers of judges to perform their duty. As there are oversight procedures in place for bad verdicts - there is no need for anything of that sort.

Your way off base here. First of all, there isn't any oversight in the US for bad sentancing that I am aware of. The only recourse is to impeach the judge. Many states already have manditory minimum sentances and our judicial system didn't break down.

You also say my goal is to weaken the powers of judges to preform their duties. That is totaly wrong. The judges can still conduct their courtroom as they see fit, make judgments as they see fit and do any of their other duties as they want. The only difference is the judge will have a range of sentancing he can pass down instead of being able to make up some off the wall punishment.

Your argument falls down because you're using a UK case to make a point about the US judicial system, and if the US judicial system doesn't have oversight - that's your problem right there.

No, I posted a case from vermont to back up my point. Unless I am mistaken on only a convicted person can appeal a verdict and the sentence can be upheld or reduced. There is no way to increase a sentence.

Then there surely should be, no? Judicial Review (what's that?). This would seem to be the answer - not enforcing minimum sentences that don't take account of the specifics of an individual case.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I've heard those arguments before from the Bush lot re: the Supreme Court - and the desire intended or not, appears to be the weakening of that particular institution.

Should have known as I saw the direction that this thread was going in that the spin would bring it back to Bush Bashing at some point ..

Jeez

This thread is see-sawing across international judicial systems. The point is that these claims about needing to "reign in" "rogue judges" have been heard before - in the US, and the real goal (intended or otherwise) is to weaken the powers of judges to perform their duty. As there are oversight procedures in place for bad verdicts - there is no need for anything of that sort.

Your way off base here. First of all, there isn't any oversight in the US for bad sentancing that I am aware of. The only recourse is to impeach the judge. Many states already have manditory minimum sentances and our judicial system didn't break down.

You also say my goal is to weaken the powers of judges to preform their duties. That is totaly wrong. The judges can still conduct their courtroom as they see fit, make judgments as they see fit and do any of their other duties as they want. The only difference is the judge will have a range of sentancing he can pass down instead of being able to make up some off the wall punishment.

Your argument falls down because you're using a UK case to make a point about the US judicial system, and if the US judicial system doesn't have oversight - that's your problem right there.

No, I posted a case from vermont to back up my point. Unless I am mistaken on only a convicted person can appeal a verdict and the sentence can be upheld or reduced. There is no way to increase a sentence.

Then there surely should be, no? Judicial Review (what's that?). This would seem to be the answer - not enforcing minimum sentences that don't take account of the specifics of an individual case.

Bill O'Lielly loves to get ordinary Americans all riled up over this kind of sh!t because it keeps his ratings up.

[archie07 0]

I've heard those arguments before from the Bush lot re: the Supreme Court - and the desire intended or not, appears to be the weakening of that particular institution.

Should have known as I saw the direction that this thread was going in that the spin would bring it back to Bush Bashing at some point ..

Jeez

This thread is see-sawing across international judicial systems. The point is that these claims about needing to "reign in" "rogue judges" have been heard before - in the US, and the real goal (intended or otherwise) is to weaken the powers of judges to perform their duty. As there are oversight procedures in place for bad verdicts - there is no need for anything of that sort.

Your way off base here. First of all, there isn't any oversight in the US for bad sentancing that I am aware of. The only recourse is to impeach the judge. Many states already have manditory minimum sentances and our judicial system didn't break down.

You also say my goal is to weaken the powers of judges to preform their duties. That is totaly wrong. The judges can still conduct their courtroom as they see fit, make judgments as they see fit and do any of their other duties as they want. The only difference is the judge will have a range of sentancing he can pass down instead of being able to make up some off the wall punishment.

Your argument falls down because you're using a UK case to make a point about the US judicial system, and if the US judicial system doesn't have oversight - that's your problem right there.

No, I posted a case from vermont to back up my point. Unless I am mistaken on only a convicted person can appeal a verdict and the sentence can be upheld or reduced. There is no way to increase a sentence.

Then there surely should be, no? Judicial Review (what's that?). This would seem to be the answer - not enforcing minimum sentences that don't take account of the specifics of an individual case.

Bill O'Lielly loves to get ordinary Americans all riled up over this kind of sh!t because it keeps his ratings up.

And I thought the Subic Rape Case caused alot of excitement and Dan Smith was sentenced to 40 years in prison and he may be innocent.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's a great read...hope you'll read this Gary and consider what this judge is saying...

The following reflections of Missouri Chief Justice Michael A. Wolff make up his July 2006 Law Matters column.

"If you do the crime, you'll do the time." To law-abiding citizens, this catch-phrase may sound like a simple yet perfect sentencing formula. Simple in theory, but reality is ... not so simple.

When a thief steals your car, your first emotional response may be that he should be put in prison for the rest of his life. At least that would keep him from stealing any more cars. Even if a life sentence feels, for the moment, like it fits the crime, it may not serve the traditional notions of justice or fit the public's pocketbook.

When legislators enact laws prescribing ranges of punishments, they may take incentives into account: if stealing a car were to carry the same punishment as shooting a person, for example, wouldn't the car thief shoot you and then take your car? The punishment would be the same. That is one reason the law establishes different ranges of punishment for different crimes.

Legislators also may consider the cost of prison versus the alternatives. There currently are more than 30,000 individuals in prison and nearly 70,000 on probation or parole. The cost of prison is $39.13 per day per inmate, not including costs of building prisons. Intensive or community-structured supervision, including drug court supervision, costs $6.25 per day; electronic monitoring is $10 per day; and regular probation averages $2.17 per day. Operating costs for prisons and correctional programs is about $638 million per year and does not include construction costs.

Sentencing to prevent future crime

Sentencing options include prison, probation, a community-structured sentence consisting of an intensely supervised probation with strict conditions, or a "shock" probation sentence in which offenders are evaluated during the first 120 days to determine whether they should remain in prison for a longer term or be released to community supervision.

The 120-day sentence can include institutional treatment, substance abuse or sex-offender evaluation.

As every parent learns about discipline, the punishment has to fit the offense. When a judge – like a parent – chooses a punishment, the judge tries to make sure that a particular offender does not repeat bad behavior.

Avoiding future crimes is important because more than 97 percent of felony offenders in Missouri eventually are released from prison.

In any sentencing, a judge's foremost concerns are justice – an elusive concept – and public safety. Violent felonies raise concern for public safety and typically draw long sentences. In less severe cases, for example, drug possession, theft or vandalism, the judge tries to set sentences that will help prevent offenders from repeating their criminal behavior.

The judge is not alone in considering justice and public safety in sentencing. Prosecutors, defense lawyers and probation officers also play roles in sentencing. And in a few cases, juries recommend sentences. Many sentences result from plea agreements between prosecutors and defense attorneys. In those cases, the judge may allow the attorneys to agree on the sentence or on the range of punishment, but the judge is free to reject the agreement. This requires a trial or a new agreement.

Fully informed judicial discretion

Each crime carries a range of punishments that can be imposed. Some offenses carry mandatory minimum terms; for some violent offenses, the law prescribes a certain percentage of the sentence be served in prison before parole.

But in the end, within the limits of the law, the sentence is within the discretion of the trial court judge.

To support this judicial discretion in felony cases, the Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission – working in close cooperation with the Department of Corrections, the Board of Probation and Parole, and the Missouri Judiciary – has developed a system of recommendations that includes the various options available.

These recommendations help make all who deal with sentencing – courts, prosecutors and defense counsel – as fully informed as possible of the options available for managing the offenders, the risk factors that may predict whether an offender may re-offend, and the guidelines and practices of the parole board in releasing offenders on parole.

The recommended sentences – which are based on the actual sentences for each offense – become progressively more severe depending on the offender's prior criminal history.

Before sentencing an offender, a judge may ask for a sentencing assessment report. The report, prepared by one of the state's 1,200 probation officers, includes the details of the offense; the impact on the victim; the offender's prior criminal history; an evaluation of the offender's characteristics that relate to the risk of re-offending, including education, job status and substance abuse; and a management plan for dealing with the offender, whether in prison, in a 120-day sentence for evaluation or treatment, on probation, or in some community-based alternative setting.

The commission's information-based system, fully implemented since November 2005, continues to be evaluated. Detailed information about the commission's composition, processes, analyses and recommendations – as well as the sentencing options and alternatives available in Missouri's courts – is available on the commission's Web site, www.mosac.mo.gov.

Sentencing is probably the most difficult task facing any trial judge. Trial court judges sometimes worry whether a particular sentence is the "right" one ... whether it will make the offender do the right "time" for the crime, whether in prison or on community supervision … and whether the sentence ultimately will serve justice and protect the public. The information available will help the judge make better decisions in many cases, but there are no easy answers.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.asp?id=1075

[ramos96 1]

thats just wrong!!! all 3 need to be in jail.... sad sad

Ramos

[Caladan 19]

Gary, you think 55 years is appropriate for a non-violent crime? When murder only gets you 25 or so? I'm not sure what options are open to this guy, but I think if he appeals his sentence, the court will say, sorry, the law won't allow us to give you any less than the minimum.

The government is allowed to appeal a sentence (though not a finding of innocence) if they can show, like any other appeal, that the judge didn't properly consider some relevant information. A case where this happened: U.S. vs. Canova, where government argued that a one-year probationary sentence for someone who had stolen (but repaid) $5 million from Medicare wasn't sufficient. They won the appeal; the court threw out the sentence and told the lower court to redo the verdict. That's how it works.

[sparkofcreation 0]

Christ. What a ###### up judge. I would still, on balance, rather have a system, though, where decisions like sentencing in some matters should be at the judge's discretion, subject to review by attorneys general and guidelines.

Please tell me you misspoke. Your statement that the Attorney General should have the discretion to review sentences is like saying "If a plaintiff in a civil suit thinks they didn't get enough money, they should be allowed to review the judge's decision and take more if they think the decision was unfair." The Attorney General is the plaintiff in a criminal case.

Decisions are subject to review by appellate courts. Not the Attorney General.

As far as I know, in every state and the federal government, sentences are determined by guidelines and then the judge can, for good cause shown, impose less or more than the guidelines, subject to review by the next court up. [Although the Supreme Court has held that *some* reasons need to be proven to a jury, the judge can't just decide they happened and impose more because of them. The death penalty being the classic example, that always needs to be decided by a jury.]

The article is about the UK though - I believe the attorney general, has ultimate authority over public prosecutions and can refer a case for judicial review.

According to Gareth, that used to be the case, until the European Court of Human Rights, and I quote, "smacked them down hard for it."

[sparkofcreation 0]

Unless I am mistaken on only a convicted person can appeal a verdict and the sentence can be upheld or reduced. There is no way to increase a sentence.

You are wrong. I work for the courts and prosecutors appeal sentences and get them raised all the time.

Edited June 30, 2007 by sparkofcreation