Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

dudalb

Penultimate Amazing
dudalb
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
63,927
Location
Sacramento
The Ex Olympic GYmnastics doctor will spend the rest of his life in prison aftter multiple convictions of sexual harassment


https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/us/nassar-sentencing-latest/index.html

I gotta love the judges reading his phony letter or regret, then tossing it.

Next step: a full investigation of how US Gymanstic team officials covered up for the bastard;would not mind them behind bars either.
 
175 for harassment? I don't know anything about this case but that sounds a bit much.

Unless his actions were particularily vile and egregious.
 
Belz... said:
175 for harassment? I don't know anything about this case but that sounds a bit much.

Unless his actions were particularily vile and egregious.
Click to expand...

He sexually assaulted more than 150 women and girls.

His actions were especially egregious just by number of assaults.
 
Belz... said:
175 for harassment? I don't know anything about this case but that sounds a bit much.
Click to expand...
It might be wise to find "anything" out before commenting.

ETA: Admittedly, it might also have been wise for the OP to read at least two lines of his own link before attempting a summary.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
The Ex Olympic GYmnastics doctor will spend the rest of his life in prison aftter multiple convictions of sexual harassment


https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/us/nassar-sentencing-latest/index.html

I gotta love the judges reading his phony letter or regret, then tossing it.

Next step: a full investigation of how US Gymnastic team officials covered up for the bastard;would not mind them behind bars either.
Click to expand...
160 accusers!

I gather the sentence was 40 to 175 years (with 40 being a mandated low end of the range) in jail. He is 54 years old, so unfortunately if he is long-lived or released early for good behavior he has some chance of seeing the outside as an old man. Too bad- I would have preferred that he have no hope of ever being released.

I wonder if his whiny letter only increased his sentence? What a pathetic evil creep!

I just noticed that he already plead guilty to possession of child pornography with a sentence of 60 years- I hope the sentences run sequentially.

And yes, let's start with a full investigation of how US Gymnastic team officials ever permitted this to occur. Given what we have learned of various Olympics committees, it appears that "amateur" sports as a whole has frequently attracted particularly sleazy officials into their supervising organizations.
 
Last edited:
I should have used the term abuse instead of harassment. In fact, some of it, when you read the details, was borderline rape.
But my main point is that this can't stop here. Those in the Olympic comitee who covered up for him need to be brough to justice as accessories. There needs to be a through investigation into the US Gymnastics committee complicity in this.
 
Belz... said:
Ah, see, that's "better". The OP talked about harassment.



I clicked on the link and got nothing, so I asked here instead of looking further. I figured it would be a discussion insteaf of a put down. I was wrong.
Click to expand...

You have not heard about the Nassar case before?

It has been getting a lot of coverage in the media.
 
I am absolutely sure that if a judge in the UK spoke to a defendant the way this one did to Nassar that there would be a successful appeal and a re-trial. For example: Judge Aquilina said. "I wouldn’t send my dogs to you, sir" and "I just signed your death warrant."

I also think it utterly ridiculous to sentence people to terms of imprisonment longer than any human has ever lived. Wouldn't "rest of your natural life" do?
 
Giordano said:
160 accusers!

I gather the sentence was 40 to 175 years (with 40 being a mandated low end of the range) in jail. He is 54 years old, so unfortunately if he is long-lived or released early for good behavior he has some chance of seeing the outside as an old man. Too bad- I would have preferred that he have no hope of ever being released.

I wonder if his whiny letter only increased his sentence? What a pathetic evil creep!

I just noticed that he already plead guilty to possession of child pornography with a sentence of 60 years- I hope the sentences run sequentially.

And yes, let's start with a full investigation of how US Gymnastic team officials ever permitted this to occur. Given what we have learned of various Olympics committees, it appears that "amateur" sports as a whole has frequently attracted particularly sleazy officials into their supervising organizations.
Click to expand...

The Judge;s "I would not send my dogs to you" statement is just classic.
 
MikeG said:
I am absolutely sure that if a judge in the UK spoke to a defendant the way this one did to Nassar that there would be a successful appeal and a re-trial. For example: Judge Aquilina said. "I wouldn’t send my dogs to you, sir" and "I just signed your death warrant."

I also think it utterly ridiculous to sentence people to terms of imprisonment longer than any human has ever lived. Wouldn't "rest of your natural life" do?
Click to expand...

I could not disagree more. he derserved the tongue lashing he got from the judge.
If the judge would have spoken this way during a trial, yes it would be wrong. But his was the sentencing
I will save my sympathy for the guy's victims, thank you.
 
MikeG said:
I also think it utterly ridiculous to sentence people to terms of imprisonment longer than any human has ever lived. Wouldn't "rest of your natural life" do?
Click to expand...
Life without the possibility of parole is not an available sentence for rape in the US. However, consecutive sentences can be assigned for multiple crimes adding up to an amount of prison time that would prevent the possibility of parole.

As for the judge's comments, they can't be the subject of an appeal since Nassar pleaded guilty and the sentence is a lawful one.
 
MikeG said:
I also think it utterly ridiculous to sentence people to terms of imprisonment longer than any human has ever lived. Wouldn't "rest of your natural life" do?
Click to expand...

The maximum sentences are tied (by law) to the crime committed. For the crime of "sexual assault" (or whatever specific thing he was prosecuted for), "Life without Parole" was probably not a legal option for the judge to apply.

However, since he was convicted on multiple counts of the same crime, the judge can (and did) add up the individual sentences to get the same effect.
 
dudalb said:
I could not disagree more. he derserved the tongue lashing he got from the judge.
Click to expand...

I tend to think that the sentence was the bit that he deserved. The kind of theatrics engaged in by the judge are beneath the majesty of the law, IMHO.
 
MikeG said:
I also think it utterly ridiculous to sentence people to terms of imprisonment longer than any human has ever lived. Wouldn't "rest of your natural life" do?
Click to expand...

People don't get sentenced that way because we like large numbers. No crime has a longer prison term than "Life". But the prison time for multiple crimes can either be served concurrently, or consecutively. When you see numbers like this it means that the person has been given consecutive sentences for multiple crimes that just happen to add up to well over the human lifetime.

In other words, he wasn't sentenced to 175 years in prison. His sentences were simply made consecutive, so they happen to add up that way.

edit:

For anyone interested he was charged with 26 separate crimes: 15 charges of 1st degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, 5 charges of 3rd degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, and 6 charges that were dismissed.

The maximum the judge could have given him was 15 consecutive life sentences + 75 consecutive years. Let's ignore the sentence contribution from the 3rd degree charges. Let's say she had given him 15 consecutive life sentences. In Michigan a life sentence with the possibility of parole like this is up for review after 15 years. So he gets paroled on his first life sentence after 15 years. Now he has to start his second life sentence.....etc...... If he were given the maximum penalty he couldn't even potentially be free for 225 years.

So he got off easy ;)
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
I am absolutely sure that if a judge in the UK spoke to a defendant the way this one did to Nassar that there would be a successful appeal and a re-trial. For example: Judge Aquilina said. "I wouldn’t send my dogs to you, sir" and "I just signed your death warrant."

I also think it utterly ridiculous to sentence people to terms of imprisonment longer than any human has ever lived. Wouldn't "rest of your natural life" do?
Click to expand...

Yea what a meanie dirty poo. She should never have said all those bad things to that nice man.
 
His letter about hearing the testimony of his victims being to hard on him was particularly galling.
 
dudalb said:
I could not disagree more. he derserved the tongue lashing he got from the judge.
If the judge would have spoken this way during a trial, yes it would be wrong. But his was the sentencing
I will save my sympathy for the guy's victims, thank you.
Click to expand...

I don't think it has anything to do with sympathy, but rather with professionalism. If the judge's comments make him appear biased or ideological in some way, it might appear to affect his sentencing.
 
Belz... said:
I don't think it has anything to do with sympathy, but rather with professionalism. If the judge's comments make him appear biased or ideological in some way, it might appear to affect his sentencing.
Click to expand...

True, but a judge is certainly allowed to express anger and even disgust at the actions of which the defendant was convicted, particularly for unusually heinous crimes. That is why judges have the authority (the responsibility) for choosing a particular sentence from among the range of sentences available- to match the nature of the crime. Part of the judge's responsibility invokes explaining the basis for the sentence imposed. I believe the judge's comments in this case fit well within that criterion and are appropriate.
 
Babbylonian said:
Life without the possibility of parole is not an available sentence for rape in the US. However, consecutive sentences can be assigned for multiple crimes adding up to an amount of prison time that would prevent the possibility of parole.

As for the judge's comments, they can't be the subject of an appeal since Nassar pleaded guilty and the sentence is a lawful one.
Click to expand...

And in the US, a chewing out of the criminal about to be sentenced happens quite a bit. Most of the time,though, they are not as witty as the Judge in this case.
 
NoahFence said:
Yea what a meanie dirty poo. She should never have said all those bad things to that nice man.
Click to expand...

Is that really what you took from what I wrote? Wow.

I'm much more interested in the independence and status of the judiciary, and about due process in which the judges' personal views are subservient to their duties in impartially dealing with matters before them. If a judge displays repugnance for the defendant, that would hand the defendant a perfect thing to take to appeal: the judge was biased. Many a judgement has been later thrown out, you'll recall, because of biased or erroneous summing up by the judge.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
True, but a judge is certainly allowed to express anger and even disgust at the actions of which the defendant was convicted, particularly for unusually heinous crimes. That is why judges have the authority (the responsibility) for choosing a particular sentence from among the range of sentences available- to match the nature of the crime. Part of the judge's responsibility invokes explaining the basis for the sentence imposed. I believe the judge's comments in this case fit well within that criterion and are appropriate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, though some judges go a bit far, essentially using their bench as a soapbox to air their views and sound very moral.

I'm not saying it's what happened necessarily in this case.
 
Giordano said:
True, but a judge is certainly allowed to express anger and even disgust at the actions of which the defendant was convicted, particularly for unusually heinous crimes. That is why judges have the authority (the responsibility) for choosing a particular sentence from among the range of sentences available- to match the nature of the crime. Part of the judge's responsibility invokes explaining the basis for the sentence imposed. I believe the judge's comments in this case fit well within that criterion and are appropriate.
Click to expand...

And I suspect that some UK judges has administered tongue lashings to criminals about to get a severe sentence.
The key here is it takes place after the case has been decided,not during the trial stage.
 
Babbylonian said:
.......As for the judge's comments, they can't be the subject of an appeal since Nassar pleaded guilty and the sentence is a lawful one.
Click to expand...

Really? That sentence could be appealed here (IANAL). The judge's remarks would certainly form part of an appeal case, as they display clear personal bias.......the one thing which judges are not supposed to do. They're supposed to be neutral.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Is that really what you took from what I wrote? Wow.

I'm much more interested in the independence and status of the judiciary, and about due process in which the judges personal views are subservient to their duties in impartially dealing with matters before them. If a judge displays repugnance for the defendant, that would hand the defendant a perfect thing to take to appeal: the judge was biased. Many a judgement has been later thrown out, you'll recall, because of biased or erroneous summing up by the judge.
Click to expand...
Are there a lot of judges who don't find confessed child rapists repugnant? With reasonable doubt completely off the table, I don't see how the judge's comments could have any relevance to an appeal, especially after days of victim testimony.
 
Babbylonian said:
Are there a lot of judges who don't find confessed child rapists repugnant? With reasonable doubt completely off the table, I don't see how the judge's comments could have any relevance to an appeal, especially after days of victim testimony.
Click to expand...

You don't see how a judge expressing personal repugnance at a defendant prior to handing down an enormous sentence doesn't present the defendant with an opportunity to appeal? Well, OK, I probably can't help any more with that, other than just keep repeating the same thing.
 
MikeG said:
You don't see how a judge expressing personal repugnance at a defendant prior to handing down an enormous sentence doesn't present the defendant with an opportunity to appeal? Well, OK, I probably can't help any more with that, other than just keep repeating the same thing.
Click to expand...

Hmm, might be good, just replay the days of testimony about all the crimes he committed and tried to get out of hearing again. He said that listening to the testimony of his victims would be mentally taxing and so he shouldn't have to after all.

And for what practical purpose, he is still subject to the 60 years for child pornography. She didn't bais the trial as he pled guilty so at most it would be to appeal the sentence and for what?

I don't think this is likely to be useful for him.
 
Babbylonian said:
Are there a lot of judges who don't find confessed child rapists repugnant? .....
Click to expand...

He pleaded guilty to sexual assault, as I understand it. Not rape. So this is hyperbole.

-

Look, I see how this looks.....but you're wrong. I am not defending this nauseating man and his repugnant actions. I am querying the behaviour of the judge, as much as anything because if that happened here it would give the guy a fair chance of getting out of prison very much sooner than otherwise he might.
 
MikeG said:
He pleaded guilty to sexual assault, as I understand it. Not rape. So this is hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Pleading guilty to lesser included charges does not make someone any less a rapist.
Look, I see how this looks.....but you're wrong. I am not defending this nauseating man and his repugnant actions. I am querying the behaviour of the judge, as much as anything because if that happened here it would give the guy a fair chance of getting out of prison very much sooner than otherwise he might.
Click to expand...
And I'm not defending judges who won't keep their mouths shut when nothing more needs to be said. All I am saying is that the idea that the comments should constitute grounds for appeal is ridiculous.

I think this is particularly true since we in the US have a system that unfortunately includes electing judges, such as the judge in this case.
 
Babbylonian said:
.......All I am saying is that the idea that the comments should constitute grounds for appeal is ridiculous.......
Click to expand...

We've grown up with very different systems, and we're clearly never going to agree on this. I personally want judges to be neutral and dispassionate.
 
Did he actually confess to rape? That's a simple yes/ no question, and the reason for asking it is that this is precisely what you claimed.

You've just committed a really silly logical fallacy. Let's see if an analogy would help.

Man walks into a police station and says "I confess to a driving offense".

Policeman says "Death by dangerous driving is a driving offense, so I'm charging you with that".
 
Last edited:
It is a sentencing statement that explains the Judge's reasoning for giving the sentence she did and provides no real grounds for appeal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom