US Gymnastics/ Larry Nassar Scandal

Marauder06 said:
Really? What part of a judge's oath was upheld by the behavior I described?
Click to expand...

I don't see that any part of the judge's "behavior" either upholds or negates her oath in any way. That isn't my argument.
Nor is it an argument that the doctor pleaded guilty, because in this calculation, he avoided going to trial and in this we can read what we choose to. However, because he chose not to go to trial, I doubt this goes to appellate action. I wish it did in a way because a trial may uncover many more accomplices and perpetrators. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

And rather than launch into bromides about "absolute power", I'd say this (to me) is a major instance of corruption made worse by Nassar's status and position, it exemplifies one of the main causes of social injustice, the kind that the justice system is designed to redress but often fails to because of human nature's foibles, weaknesses and malice.

Which brings me to the judge. I'm glad you personally agree with much of what she said, though I myself don't. I read an article on Vox penned by a public defender arguing the judge crossed a line by positioning herself as a victims' advocate during the sentencing proceedings and in this way "reinforced the dangerous idea that judges can and should be in sync with public sentiment."

But at the same time, the author is "not challenging whether the sentence Aquilina imposed was the right call".

The times are challenging, we can bemoan the power of #courtofpublicopinion and link this case to #metoo, activist judges and what have you.

We could argue the impartiality of Aquilina's comments on one side of the scale vs the offenses of Nassar's. But I'll end with this opinion: her handling of the proceedings shed as much light as possible on said offenses, considering that his guilty plea would otherwise limit their exposure. One thing about civilian life I noticed over the years is that no one speaks of resolving issues, they use the term 'addressing' instead. To use a few similar examples to the topic of the thread, after Penn State, Baylor and now this, any attempt at redress is needed, even when uncomfortable.
 
Frank S. said:
I don't see that any part of the judge's "behavior" either upholds or negates her oath in any way. That isn't my argument.
... .
Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand your argument then, because that is exactly what you said in response to my earlier post. You specifically said she upheld her oath.

I wasn't familiar with a judge's oath until you mentioned it, so I looked it up, and no where in there does it appear to say "make the trial and sentencing at least as much about yourself as about the victims, and let your actions potentially open the door for appellate actions." It does, however, say a judge needs to be impartial. A reasonable person, even a layperson like myself, might draw a conclusion that she wasn't. If Nasser's defense team uses this as part of an appeal, at a minimum it will cost the government time and money that didn't need to be spent defending something the judge didn't need to do, that wasn't part of her duly-appointed responsibilities. She could have meted out justice without mixing it with attention-garnering hyperbole.
 
Last edited:
Her sentencing is probably irrelevant anyway considering in Dec. he picked up 60 years for Federal child porn. They can appeal every day she gave him and he'll still probably die in prison.
 
SaintKP said:
I might misinterpreting your statement, but why would you hope Nasser's defense team file an appeal? Just looking for clarification.
Click to expand...

I should have been more clear in my post. What I wrote made it sound like I was concerned about the time and expense that the defense would incur. I meant time and expense for the government. I think Frank was responding to the former when I meant the latter. I will change my post for clarity.
 
Marauder06 said:
I should have been more clear in my post. What I wrote made it sound like I was concerned about the time and expense that the defense would incur. I meant time and expense for the government. I think Frank was responding to the former when I meant the latter. I will change my post for clarity.
Click to expand...

You're fine, I was referring to Frank's post. I had forgotten that he had wished that it would go to a trial so that other people possibly involved might be uncovered and that was what he was referencing in his last post.
 
Judges make those types of statements multiple times a day in trials throughout the nation that are never seen through any type of media coverage.

I can't tell you the times I have heard judges tell the subjects exactly what they think of them. It happens all the time.
 
First, in practical terms @AWP is likely right. The federal sentence will probably render debate over the state sentence moot.

Second, Aquilina’s sentencing will stand.

It’s true she was a little long winded in her sentencing but she didn’t say anything that pointed to any bias on her part. Oratory from judges is not uncommon in major cases. In any case, neither she nor a jury under her charge had to weigh facts in this case. He pled.

When someone pleads guilty, they lose a number of very important rights. Essentially, they lose virtually all their appeal rights, outside of what Michigan refers to as a Ginther appeal (ineffective counsel). I doubt Nassar can make that argument. Even Aquilina commented on the quality of his representation.

As to the length of the sentencing she imposed the key is to understand that while a particular offense may be graded a certain level (felony of the 2nd degree, for example) it is often not sentenced in accordance with the statutory penalty for a like offense. Rather, sentencing guidelines are used that take into account prior history, offense severity, and many other factors. Crimes are essentially given scores that are combined with other scores and a matrix is used to compute a sentence.

However, there are crimes with mandatory minimums. Nassar was charged with many counts of Criminal Sexual Conduct 1st Degree, as well as other crimes. Just that one used to carry a 25 year minimum, but apparently the guidelines were recently revised to allow judges to give a reasonable sentence. Nota bene, reasonable could well mean more than 25 years once everything is taken into account.

Given the number of counts he was charged with, his attitude, the number of victims, and his history I have no doubt Judge Aquilina discharged her duty to the people of Michigan properly.

Fuck this asshole.
 
ThunderHorse said:
Girlfriend is a graduate of MSU Law...she's not happy. But my big question with this is why they did not seek the federal death penalty?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if this is a serious question or not but I'll bite.
1. There is no federal death penalty for child porn.
2. With a 60 year sentence it's life in prison.
3. Even if the abuse charges were federal (not state) it is still not a capital offense.
 
That's irrelevant, it's not her question. It was my question, not hers. The point of the qualifier was to say that this strikes pretty close to home. She's also a Baylor Alumna, another shit show.
 
Back
Top