Girl provoked pedophile - judge

[sparkofcreation 0]

Oops, wanted to add:

Only the defendant can appeal the verdict (decision that the defendant is guilty or not guilty) because you can't be tried twice for the exact same crime, however either side can appeal the sentence imposed after the verdict or after the guilty plea.

[GaryC 7]

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.

Thats a new one on me. Are they appealing the sentence to the same judge or to a higher court? I have never heard of a judge handing down a sentence and then at a later date have his judgment changed to a higher penalty. Since I am not a lawyer I am not calling you out on it but if you can show me an example I would appreciate it.

[GaryC 7]

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

Just what is your point here?

[Caladan 19]

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.

Thats a new one on me. Are they appealing the sentence to the same judge or to a higher court? I have never heard of a judge handing down a sentence and then at a later date have his judgment changed to a higher penalty. Since I am not a lawyer I am not calling you out on it but if you can show me an example I would appreciate it.

There's a linked example in my previous post. We're not making this up. The judge's discretion is limited by the minimum and maximum; when people say they're 'for mandatory minimums', what they usually mean is that they want to remove the judge's ability to commute a sentence or to give community service or counseling in lieu of jail time, not that the judges could have done whatever. When people say they're against it, they usually want that option restored to the judge (to avoid sentencing someone for 55 years for buying some weed from an undercover cop.)

Some crimes allow the judge more leeway than others. And if the verdict is too lenient, in the U.S. the prosecutor can appeal it to a higher court, who will either uphold the judge's original ruling, or remand it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Thats a new one on me. Are they appealing the sentence to the same judge or to a higher court? I have never heard of a judge handing down a sentence and then at a later date have his judgment changed to a higher penalty. Since I am not a lawyer I am not calling you out on it but if you can show me an example I would appreciate it.

There's a linked example in my previous post. We're not making this up. The judge's discretion is limited by the minimum and maximum; when people say they're 'for mandatory minimums', what they usually mean is that they want to remove the judge's ability to commute a sentence or to give community service or counseling in lieu of jail time, not that the judges could have done whatever. When people say they're against it, they usually want that option restored to the judge (to avoid sentencing someone for 55 years for buying some weed from an undercover cop.)

Some crimes allow the judge more leeway than others. And if the verdict is too lenient, in the U.S. the prosecutor can appeal it to a higher court, who will either uphold the judge's original ruling, or remand it.

If the process of oversight works - then there's really no issue. Removing a key part of the judges discretionary ability seems heavy-handed to me - I mean, how representative are these 'extreme' judges of an average trial judge? You can't legislate against human error.

[GaryC 7]

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.

Thats a new one on me. Are they appealing the sentence to the same judge or to a higher court? I have never heard of a judge handing down a sentence and then at a later date have his judgment changed to a higher penalty. Since I am not a lawyer I am not calling you out on it but if you can show me an example I would appreciate it.

There's a linked example in my previous post. We're not making this up. The judge's discretion is limited by the minimum and maximum; when people say they're 'for mandatory minimums', what they usually mean is that they want to remove the judge's ability to commute a sentence or to give community service or counseling in lieu of jail time, not that the judges could have done whatever. When people say they're against it, they usually want that option restored to the judge (to avoid sentencing someone for 55 years for buying some weed from an undercover cop.)

Some crimes allow the judge more leeway than others. And if the verdict is too lenient, in the U.S. the prosecutor can appeal it to a higher court, who will either uphold the judge's original ruling, or remand it.

Then how in the hell do we get sentences of 60 days for a child rapist and it stands? Something still isn't adding up here. It seems the oversight isn't working. I didn't see anyone appeal that sentence and get it upped. That means we need to do something else. That is mandatory minimums. If the minimum sentence is to harsh then change the law to make it right but we can't have child rapists let go with a 60 day sentence. Oh, and you are failing to mention that that guy who got 55 years had a gun on him and was buying drugs. 55 years may be a little harsh but not out of line.

[Caladan 19]

Having a gun on him and buying drugs to me is not a more serious crime than murder or rape. It's more serious than a fine, maybe, but the mandatory minimum stuff includes a lot of three-strikes-and-you're-out stuff that seems to be overboard if it's making buying drugs while armed more serious than actually killing someone.

I'm not sure if this sentence was appealed, Gary; the article indicates that the UK guys plan to appeal it.

[GaryC 7]

Having a gun on him and buying drugs to me is not a more serious crime than murder or rape. It's more serious than a fine, maybe, but the mandatory minimum stuff includes a lot of three-strikes-and-you're-out stuff that seems to be overboard if it's making buying drugs while armed more serious than actually killing someone.

I'm not sure if this sentence was appealed, Gary; the article indicates that the UK guys plan to appeal it.

I am refering to the Vermont case. The nutsy judge wouldn't budge and the sentence stood. The guy is out right now. Tell me about "oversight". And I totally agree with the three strikes and your out rules. The habitual criminals need to go away for a very long time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Going back to the UK - this is a little old, but it might explain something of the processes at work.

Judge Coombe, 71, said he felt obliged to pass a similar sentence on Davenport on Tuesday.

But he criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for dropping two more serious charges against Davenport, which would have carried a longer sentence. He said the sentence Davenport was receiving was "woefully inadequate" for the offence he had committed, which he described "as cowardly a case of bullying that I can recall".

"It is quite beyond the pale of normal understanding. I have many years on the bench and criminal bar and although I have been concerned in more serious cases such as murder, I cannot remember any quite so revolting and degrading as this one." When he sentenced the 17-year-olds, Judge Coombe said discretion was being taken increasingly from a judge's power.

At Davenport's sentencing, he repeated his criticism, saying the sentencing system was "a fetter on a judge's discretion".

"Only a trial judge can be in a position to decide what is appropriate," he said.

Judge Coombe's stance won support from former High Court judge Sir Michael Davies, who told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday that judges were "unnecessarily harnessed" in their sentencing options.

He said judges felt tied by a legal code enforced by ministers.

"It is the duty of politicians to lay down general principles but not to try to think they can lay down a code which will decide the sentence in all cases.

"Here we had a very experienced and very competent judge, and he wouldn't have blown his top without good reason. I think he had good reason in this case.

"The judge brought it out that in his view ... the Crown Prosecution Service was at fault because they had dropped a more serious charge which would have justified a longer sentence."

And by way of a contrast....

[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.

Thats a new one on me. Are they appealing the sentence to the same judge or to a higher court? I have never heard of a judge handing down a sentence and then at a later date have his judgment changed to a higher penalty. Since I am not a lawyer I am not calling you out on it but if you can show me an example I would appreciate it.

To the higher court.

Most such decisions are unpublished (most appellate decisions are unpublished, period, actually). So no, I can't show you examples. All that I can tell you is that I have personally been present in a courtroom many times when a defendant has been re-sentenced by the trial court [that is, the judge who imposed the original sentence] because the prosecution appealed the sentence and the appellate court ruled the original sentence was too low.

As I said, a verdict of not guilty cannot be appealed, but a sentence can. In my experience it's rare for judges to impose a sentence lower than what's recommended and usually when they do, the circumstances are so compelling that the prosecution doesn't object, which is probably why you hear more about sentences being appealed by the defendant than the prosecution. (Also, in most cases, the sentence isn't something that the prosecutor takes personally, things like rape and child abuse being obvious examples. But it's always personal to the defendant, so I don't think it's surprising that defendants are more likely to appeal.) But if a judge imposes a sentence that the prosecution considers too low, they can and do appeal and ask for a higher sentence.

I had a quick look over the NJ court system's web page (which is not where I work, but I know they put their unpublished opinions online) and did find this unpublished opinion in a case where the prosecution appealed an aspect of the sentence imposed. (Judge failed to impose a period of parole ineligibility, prosecution appealed, remanded [sent back to the trial court] for re-sentencing to impose the period of ineligibility. So not exactly what you asked, but the prosecution did ask for and receive a somewhat more severe sentence.)

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a3399-05.pdf

Edited June 30, 2007 by sparkofcreation

[GaryC 7]

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.

Thats a new one on me. Are they appealing the sentence to the same judge or to a higher court? I have never heard of a judge handing down a sentence and then at a later date have his judgment changed to a higher penalty. Since I am not a lawyer I am not calling you out on it but if you can show me an example I would appreciate it.

To the higher court.

Most such decisions are unpublished (most appellate decisions are unpublished, period, actually). So no, I can't show you examples. All that I can tell you is that I have personally been present in a courtroom many times when a defendant has been re-sentenced by the trial court [that is, the judge who imposed the original sentence] because the prosecution appealed the sentence and the appellate court ruled the original sentence was too low.

As I said, a verdict of not guilty cannot be appealed, but a sentence can. In my experience it's rare for judges to impose a sentence lower than what's recommended and usually when they do, the circumstances are so compelling that the prosecution doesn't object, which is probably why you hear more about sentences being appealed by the defendant than the prosecution. (Also, in most cases, the sentence isn't something that the prosecutor takes personally, things like rape and child abuse being obvious examples. But it's always personal to the defendant, so I don't think it's surprising that defendants are more likely to appeal.) But if a judge imposes a sentence that the prosecution considers too low, they can and do appeal and ask for a higher sentence.

I had a quick look over the NJ court system's web page (which is not where I work, but I know they put their unpublished opinions online) and did find this unpublished opinion in a case where the prosecution appealed an aspect of the sentence imposed. (Judge failed to impose a period of parole ineligibility, prosecution appealed, remanded [sent back to the trial court] for re-sentencing to impose the period of ineligibility. So not exactly what you asked, but the prosecution did ask for and receive a somewhat more severe sentence.)

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a3399-05.pdf

Ok, so it's the same judge that the sentence is appealed to. There isn't another body that can over-rule the trial judges sentence. That still leaves it open for the nut case judges to let the criminals off. We need some mechanism to reign in these idiots. Whether it be mandatory minimum sentences or some other way like Erekose is suggesting. I really don't care as long as child rapist get the punishment that is deserved.

[Caladan 19]

Gary, if the court sends it back to the original judge, and the judge repeats the nutball sentence, the prosecutor can appeal it again, and the appellate court can find that the judge abused his discretion. It's not a one-time shot.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, if the court sends it back to the original judge, and the judge repeats the nutball sentence, the prosecutor can appeal it again, and the appellate court can find that the judge abused his discretion. It's not a one-time shot.

My point is that this system isn't working at least in the case I pointed out. We need something that is more sure.

[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.

Thats a new one on me. Are they appealing the sentence to the same judge or to a higher court? I have never heard of a judge handing down a sentence and then at a later date have his judgment changed to a higher penalty. Since I am not a lawyer I am not calling you out on it but if you can show me an example I would appreciate it.

To the higher court.

Most such decisions are unpublished (most appellate decisions are unpublished, period, actually). So no, I can't show you examples. All that I can tell you is that I have personally been present in a courtroom many times when a defendant has been re-sentenced by the trial court [that is, the judge who imposed the original sentence] because the prosecution appealed the sentence and the appellate court ruled the original sentence was too low.

As I said, a verdict of not guilty cannot be appealed, but a sentence can. In my experience it's rare for judges to impose a sentence lower than what's recommended and usually when they do, the circumstances are so compelling that the prosecution doesn't object, which is probably why you hear more about sentences being appealed by the defendant than the prosecution. (Also, in most cases, the sentence isn't something that the prosecutor takes personally, things like rape and child abuse being obvious examples. But it's always personal to the defendant, so I don't think it's surprising that defendants are more likely to appeal.) But if a judge imposes a sentence that the prosecution considers too low, they can and do appeal and ask for a higher sentence.

I had a quick look over the NJ court system's web page (which is not where I work, but I know they put their unpublished opinions online) and did find this unpublished opinion in a case where the prosecution appealed an aspect of the sentence imposed. (Judge failed to impose a period of parole ineligibility, prosecution appealed, remanded [sent back to the trial court] for re-sentencing to impose the period of ineligibility. So not exactly what you asked, but the prosecution did ask for and receive a somewhat more severe sentence.)

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a3399-05.pdf

Ok, so it's the same judge that the sentence is appealed to. There isn't another body that can over-rule the trial judges sentence. That still leaves it open for the nut case judges to let the criminals off. We need some mechanism to reign in these idiots. Whether it be mandatory minimum sentences or some other way like Erekose is suggesting. I really don't care as long as child rapist get the punishment that is deserved.

Was I not clear enough? The sentence is appealed TO A HIGHER COURT. To the APPELLATE COURT. NOT to the same judge. I'm pretty sure I said that. Repeatedly.

Edited June 30, 2007 by sparkofcreation

[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.

Thats a new one on me. Are they appealing the sentence to the same judge or to a higher court? I have never heard of a judge handing down a sentence and then at a later date have his judgment changed to a higher penalty. Since I am not a lawyer I am not calling you out on it but if you can show me an example I would appreciate it.

To the higher court.

Most such decisions are unpublished (most appellate decisions are unpublished, period, actually). So no, I can't show you examples. All that I can tell you is that I have personally been present in a courtroom many times when a defendant has been re-sentenced by the trial court [that is, the judge who imposed the original sentence] because the prosecution appealed the sentence and the appellate court ruled the original sentence was too low.

As I said, a verdict of not guilty cannot be appealed, but a sentence can. In my experience it's rare for judges to impose a sentence lower than what's recommended and usually when they do, the circumstances are so compelling that the prosecution doesn't object, which is probably why you hear more about sentences being appealed by the defendant than the prosecution. (Also, in most cases, the sentence isn't something that the prosecutor takes personally, things like rape and child abuse being obvious examples. But it's always personal to the defendant, so I don't think it's surprising that defendants are more likely to appeal.) But if a judge imposes a sentence that the prosecution considers too low, they can and do appeal and ask for a higher sentence.

I had a quick look over the NJ court system's web page (which is not where I work, but I know they put their unpublished opinions online) and did find this unpublished opinion in a case where the prosecution appealed an aspect of the sentence imposed. (Judge failed to impose a period of parole ineligibility, prosecution appealed, remanded [sent back to the trial court] for re-sentencing to impose the period of ineligibility. So not exactly what you asked, but the prosecution did ask for and receive a somewhat more severe sentence.)

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a3399-05.pdf

Ok, so it's the same judge that the sentence is appealed to. There isn't another body that can over-rule the trial judges sentence. That still leaves it open for the nut case judges to let the criminals off. We need some mechanism to reign in these idiots. Whether it be mandatory minimum sentences or some other way like Erekose is suggesting. I really don't care as long as child rapist get the punishment that is deserved.

Was I not clear enough? The sentence is appealed TO A HIGHER COURT. To the APPELLATE COURT. NOT to the same judge. I'm pretty sure I said that. Repeatedly.

Damn it. I was trying to add, that by definition "to appeal" means "to ask a higher court to review a lower court's decision" and "remand" means "to send a case back to the lower court to make a different decision because the higher court didn't like the lower court's decision." But I ran out of time editing.