Ex Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was sentenced to 15 months incarceration. As you may know, he was convicted of illegaly moving money to pay hush money to buy the silence of a man he had sexually molested decades ago, when Hastert was the man’s HS wrestling coach. The statute of limitations had run on the molestation offense. The US Atty had requested 6 mos incarceration.
During sentencing, the judge repeately referred to Hastert as a “serial child molester,” allowed testimony from one of Hastert’s victims, and imposed a sentence 2.5x greater than suggested.
Also, there is an issue of Hastert having apparently lied while being investigated - an action that often seems to bear worse implications that the initial offense.
So what do you think? I never was a fan of Hastert, even before I knew what a creep and hypocrite he is. But I’m not sure his past misdeeds - no matter how foul - should exacerbate the crime for which he was tried and convicted. (Full disclosure, I’m not a huge fan of the financial reporting requirements he ran afoul of.)
It is a shame he wasn’t convicted of child abuse decades ago, but that ship has sailed. 15 months impresses me as excessive for the crime for which he was convicted.
The judge is absolutely allowed to take other considerations of the criminal into account when determining a sentence. The maximum is five years, so I’d say he got off light.
Hastert apologized for the abuse in court, so he directly admitted to abusing minors even though he didn’t say exactly what he did. That’s quite a bit different than the ship having already sailed.
Taking Frank’s word that Hastert faced up to 5 years for the crime he was convicted of, leaving aside the abuse, I’d say 15 months is not unfair.
I’m not completely comfortable with the judge bringing up the history of sexual abuse as a factor, though. The punishment should suit the presenting crime on its own merit - otherwise, why have a statute of limitations at all? (Not that I would be opposed to re-examining the SoL on sexual abuse).
Far from an expert in federal sentencing practices, but I guess I don’t see how the sex abuse is an aggravating factor for the specific crime for which he was convicted. I expected that aggravating factors should relate to the specific offense, rather than the offender’s general nature or unrelated actions. (Similarly, and conversely, I was troubled by the Beanie Babies guy getting a lenient sentence because he had donated to charities.)
My reaction was the same as Frank’s - given that maximum for the crime is 5 years and the abuse can be considered in sentencing 15 months seemed on the light side to me.
Anyone with insight as to whether or not the previously victimized man who got (requested?) the hush money would be or should be subject to blackmail charges?
A statute of limitations is necessary for all crimes. The further you get from a crime, the murkier and less reliable the evidence becomes, until it becomes impossible to hold an actually fair trial.
That’s kind of hard to do with crimes like hiding cash transfers though, since the point of the crime isn’t that its bad in and of itself, but that its used to facilitate other crimes. So considering it absent what the “other crime” actually is doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I’d have to agree that for the crime he was in court for that day 15 months is arguably fair.
Aggravating factors are allowed.
Sexual abuse was the underlying reason Hastert was playing “structure the payments” to the other party. If he hadn’t molested/raped the man as a teenager there would have been no reason for hush money. So yes, Hastert’s prior conduct was a related factor even if the statute of limitations had run out on sexual abuse.
I believe that I’ve read that he is actually suing because he hasn’t been fully paid. I guess it’s being viewed as more of an agreement than blackmail? The Feds listened in on some phone calls because Hastert originally claimed he was being blackmailed. Sounds like the Feds thought it was no such thing, and then the charges came regarding financial shenanigans.
Keeping in mind I heard all this on the TV so I can’t link to anything specific, but you probably could research it if you wanted to do so:
My understanding is that Hastert approached the FBI saying he was being blackmailed/extorted. The FBI investigated, including recording conversations between the two men concerning their agreement regarding the money. The FBI says that there were no threats made and nothing that would constitute extortion and compared the agreement to an out-of-court settlement.
So no, apparently (barring other information I don’t have) the Hastert victim has a potentially legally binding verbal contract witnessed by the FBI for Hastert to pay him, in essence, monetary compensation for what happened decades ago. That is why that individual is currently pursuing a lawsuit for Hastert to fulfill his part of the agreement, that is, pay the victim the remainder of the promised money.
Oh, so that’s why there’s a statute of limitation for murder… oh, wait, there isn’t.
Just because there’s a statute of limitations NOW for certain crimes doesn’t mean the concept shouldn’t be revisited. Not all countries have a statute of limitations.
The Chicago Tribune ran an investigative article a couple of weeks ago, in which they spoke with the three victims who are still alive, as well as the sister of the victim who had died in the 1990s. IIRC, the accusations were along the line of fondling under the guise of giving them “massages”.
No, you got it wrong. Hastert was structuring withdrawals of over $900,000 from his own bank accounts so that they would not trigger the required bank reporting requirements for transactions > $10,000. The FBI approached Hastert and were investigating the withdrawals from his account. He initially lied to investigators, saying he didn’t trust banks and later changed his story to say that he was being extorted for false molestation charges. After further investigation, the FBI determined that these payments were for an agreed settlement between Hastert and his victim.
Asked my wife - who teaches business law - about the hush money contract. In her opinion, there was nothing obvious to suggest that the contract was invalid or unenforceable as either illegal or against public policy.
Also heard/read something the other day about the feds being reluctant to use Hastert’s lies to them against him. Something about how suspects often lie when discussing matters under “proffer.” Didn’t fully understand the difference between good and bad lies to investigators…
I guess I would be interested in seeing what types of sentences are given for similar offenses. Perhaps it makes sense if - say - folk who fail to report cash transfers in support of terrorism are given longer sentences than folk who do so - perhaps to avoid taxes. But I don’t feel strongly about it. A good part of me feels that if you aren’t able to get the wrongdoer for the primary offense, you don’t get to impose a sentence for that greater offense when you convict them for a lesser crime.