Other than giving Nassar something to do while he’s growing old and dying in prison, it won’t affect the final outcome. He pled guilty, and with his other separate conviction on child pornography plus even minimum sentencing on this, he’s never walking free again (unless he also discovers the secret to immortality while behind bars).
Apparently she is supposed to be emotionless when sentencing someone to be hanged from the neck until he is dead, dead, dead. I disagree with Bazelon, and totally agree that this is an excellent time for Chimera’s “righteous anger of the state.”
“Hey judge, quit bein’ so judge-y.”
It seems the stink at MSU goes well beyond Nassar. Essentially they have long and established history of overlooking/ ignoring sexual assaults when the sports teams are involved.
Beginning to hear reports that Tom Izzo is being pressured to resign. Some want him gone soonest, Tom wants to stay until the end of the season.
This is so not over.
MSU told Amanda Thomashow in 2014 that Nassar’s procedures were appropriate. They told Nassar otherwise. Although they recommended “protocol changes” to Nassar’s practice, they never followed up or enforced them, and hid the full details of the Title IX investigation from Thomashow and others.
Any speculation as to how much MSU will pay out in lawsuits?
If that link doesn’t work, try this one. Nassar victim’s copy of MSU Title IX report left out key info
He will, don’t worry about that.
Judges are not supposed to be impartial. They’re supposed to be strongly biased in favor of justice.
I give Judge Aquilina full marks for her restraint and professionalism. Were I up there I’d probably have taken one look at his “complaint” letter and started pounding on his head with my gavel.
though this photo says it all.
Now imagine, in the current hyper-partisan era, a known liberal judge dispassionately issuing a sentence upon a man who blew up 47 Southern Baptist churches.
They’d be calling for that judge’s head, because he was obviously not truly supportive of the sentences he levied upon such an evil, murderous man.
I guess I have to go back and take a look at who in this thread was insisting that the judge had to be completely without bias or passion, because I don’t think we can trust people who insist that everyone else has to act completely without emotion all of the time (we can’t) and I don’t care for people who set themselves up as moral gateways over minor, everyday human behavior. Good lord, spend less time judging people for actually being human, ok? Are you the kind of person who would actually ignore and throw away a completely correct answer because you didn’t like the tone of the person saying it? Because that’s not how logic and reason work. That’s not how any of this works.
challenge based on what? he entered a “guilty” plea. There was no trial. he was for all intents and purposes already convicted of his crimes.
Judges are supposed to be “impartial” during a trial in that they can’t use personal reasons to “favor” one side or the other; they must render decisions based only on the legal evidence and arguments presented in court.
as far as that MSN article goes, well, all I can say is… Lots of people have opinions. Not all of them are worth listening to.
A thousand times this, because I’m sure that the same is true on many, many other campuses. At the time of the Sandusky scandal, I pointed out that this has probably happened elsewhere, and sure enough, it has. I also argued on another website that athletic departments complicit in cover-ups of sexual assault - child or adult - should get an automatic 5-year death penalty. I was nothing short of amazed at the number of people who said “It’s unfair to the athletes - they had nothing to do with it.”
That is not the point - like, at all.
Employees at Enron and Arthur Anderson had nothing to do with their company’s malfeasance, but guess what? They paid the price for it, just like everyone else. The way I see it, the athletes can transfer - it’s not the end of the world. The students and the school community, meanwhile, can use that 5-year period to reflect on what is more important: having a good athletic program, or valuing human life. Some things are a hell of a lot bigger than winning an athletic championship.
And none of this even begins to address the potential legal implications, which should obviously be explored as well.
I basically agree.
They’re required to be fair and impartial insofar as preserving the defendant’s right to a fair hearing, which Nasser had. Post-conviction, Nasser was basically the judge’s property. She was free to wad him up and throw him into the trash can, or into the paper shredder.
Yep. During this stage he is someone who was convicted of (and admitted) sexually assaulting at least 150 young women so long as Judge Aquilina stayed within sentencing guidelines (if any) or otherwise handed down a reasonable sentence, ain’t shit he can do to contest it. He can try but he ain’t gonna find a single shoulder to cry on.
I recently found out that my ex-wife is cheating on her husband. With his daughter. Who is 16. You bet your ass that I reported her to Child Protective Services.
I have zero sympathy for this asshole who was just sentenced.
ETA: quoted post snipped.
If my memory serves, Nasser is now facing a total of 235 years in prison, betweem the assault and child porn sentences.
If he wants an appellate court to knock it down to, say, 160, I think justice will still be served.
Understand that I think the judge is a fucking hero. Those girls are never going to get real justice, nothing close to it, but she at least made it clear that one institution cared what they thought, cared what had happened to them, put their safety and dignity and right to agency above that of whatever suited the institution’s purpose. So bravo.
That said, it’s pretty clear to me that she didn’t allow 150 witness statements in order to clarify what sentence she should hand down. I think she was probably pretty clear about what she was going to do, regarding his sentence, by statement 50. Is that wrong, according to legal ethics? It’s the kinda thing I can see doing anyway, because there’s a higher purpose. And I am glad she did it. But are there any guidelines about not taking witness statements when you don’t need them? From Nassar’s point of view, I am sure it felt like a cruel and unusual punishment, though I think it was more about giving the girls the chance to face him than it was about making his suffer. The suffering was a side effect.
It sounds like if she based the sentence on an unrelated bias (You get life because I hate you damn glasses wearing people!), then he could have a case to say her sentencing was unfair. But if she’s disgusted with him because of the crimes he has committed and the victim statements, then that bias is okay even if it leads to a very high sentence.