Jared from Subway

[4merper4mer]

OK. So what happens to the guys who aren't child molesters who get wedged in a position where they basically have to forfeit their trial rights because the system's been rigged, and then get shafted with a bait and switch with no recourse?

Because when you can do this there is nothing that confines the practice to just child molesters or just people who actually are guilty.

It doesn't happen to them because they are no threat to the DA.

[LeviF]

Of course he CAN. That's the problem. He has discretion and he abused it.

 

I think you're missing the bigger point. People often forego defenses and plead guilty to crimes because they're willing to make that sacrifice to avoid the penalties they might face of they lose at trial. For the judge to then give them the same penalty is a miscarriage of justice and a threat to our justice system as a whole.

 

They know exactly what they're getting into when they plead out. If his defense attorney didn't tell him this was a possibility, then Jared has bigger problems. With the way child porn laws are written, Jared faced a hell of a lot more than 15.6 years at trial.

 

It's called a sentencing recommendation for a reason.

 

This this this this this. Tacking on three years to the top end of the sentencing recommendation is hardly an abuse of judicial discretion. It's part of why judicial discretion exists.

[Rob's House]

What a load. So if some famous guy can find anyone in the food chain to lighten his punishment in an effort to avoid a circus trial or whatever then the rest of the system should fall in line? What are the chances a non-famous guy could do the same thing?

 

The DA effed upped. The judge didn't honor the eff up.

You don't get to shop for DAs. And it's entirely likely a non-famous guy would have gotten the same deal. Less likely, but still possible, that the judge decides to give him a sentence outside the accepted realm because he feels like it.

 

With the millenials who view financial success as on par with child molestation becoming adults and infiltrating the work force you should be concerned too. Imagine 15-20 years from now one of your accountants makes an error and you're on the hook for a white collar crime. You didn't know anything about it, but they've got enough evidence that they have a good chance of getting a conviction.

 

You're offered a deal by which you forfeit your right to trial and plea guilty to an offense that calls for 2-4 years under the guidelines, because the DA is going to up the charges and go for one that calls for 10 years. So you take the deal, but your millenial judge thinks fat cats driving around with Bentley's and Googlebots are hoarding all the money so people in the projects can't have any and thinks your deal doesn't call for enough time so he gives you 8 years. You decide you'd rather withdraw your plea and go to trial.

 

Too Late.

It doesn't happen to them because they are no threat to the DA.

Yeah, except it does.

 

They know exactly what they're getting into when they plead out. If his defense attorney didn't tell him this was a possibility, then Jared has bigger problems. With the way child porn laws are written, Jared faced a hell of a lot more than 15.6 years at trial.

 

 

This this this this this. Tacking on three years to the top end of the sentencing recommendation is hardly an abuse of judicial discretion. It's part of why judicial discretion exists.

 

Again, you're missing the bigger picture. And what they call it its a horrible basis for determining how something should be handled. The fact that people are pressured into giving up their right to trial and then have to hope that a basically unaccountable judge doesn't decide to deviate up from the guidelines is not any kind of system I would ever choose to be subject to.

 

We as a society are too short-sighted to see the problems it poses. And I'll never understand why otherwise intelligent people who are rightly skeptical of the government are so quick to give unaccountable judges unfettered power to imprison people.

[FireChan]

You don't get to shop for DAs. And it's entirely likely a non-famous guy would have gotten the same deal. Less likely, but still possible, that the judge decides to give him a sentence outside the accepted realm because he feels like it.

 

With the millenials who view financial success as on par with child molestation becoming adults and infiltrating the work force you should be concerned too. Imagine 15-20 years from now one of your accountants makes an error and you're on the hook for a white collar crime. You didn't know anything about it, but they've got enough evidence that they have a good chance of getting a conviction.

 

You're offered a deal by which you forfeit your right to trial and plea guilty to an offense that calls for 2-4 years under the guidelines, because the DA is going to up the charges and go for one that calls for 10 years. So you take the deal, but your millenial judge thinks fat cats driving around with Bentley's and Googlebots are hoarding all the money so people in the projects can't have any and thinks your deal doesn't call for enough time so he gives you 8 years. You decide you'd rather withdraw your plea and go to trial.

 

Too Late.

 

Yeah, except it does.

 

 

Again, you're missing the bigger picture. And what they call it its a horrible basis for determining how something should be handled. The fact that people are pressured into giving up their right to trial and then have to hope that a basically unaccountable judge doesn't decide to deviate up from the guidelines is not any kind of system I would ever choose to be subject to.

 

We as a society are too short-sighted to see the problems it poses. And I'll never understand why otherwise intelligent people who are rightly skeptical of the government are so quick to give unaccountable judges unfettered power to imprison people.

Some folks can't separate this particular case from what you're saying.

[4merper4mer]

Some folks can't separate this particular case from what you're saying.

Because the particular case is what drove the DA into a horrific error in judgement.

 

Because the particular case is what drove the DA into a horrific error in judgement. He says this would happen in other non-famous cases too. He shows a total of zero examples. In his described world all anyone would need is one lenient link in the chain.

 

I could come up with a hundred irrational examples of things that could happen in the opposite direction of his irrational use of this case. What if a pedophile hid his whole life and got elected DA and recommended no punishment for any pedophiles for his 4 year tenure? He wouldn't get re-elected but the damage would be done. See I can be hysterical too.

Edited November 21, 2015 by 4merper4mer

[FireChan]

Because the particular case is what drove the DA into a horrific error in judgement.

 

Because the particular case is what drove the DA into a horrific error in judgement. He says this would happen in other non-famous cases too. He shows a total of zero examples. In his described world all anyone would need is one lenient link in the chain.

 

I could come up with a hundred irrational examples of things that could happen in the opposite direction of his irrational use of this case. What if a pedophile hid his whole life and got elected DA and recommended no punishment for any pedophiles for his 4 year tenure? He wouldn't get re-elected but the damage would be done. See I can be hysterical too.

That's the price to pay. That scenario does not justify signing over a "blank check" to the whims of a judge. It is worse for one innocent man to be imprisoned than one guilty man go free. That's the idea our government is based on.

[Rob's House]

Because the particular case is what drove the DA into a horrific error in judgement.

 

Because the particular case is what drove the DA into a horrific error in judgement. He says this would happen in other non-famous cases too. He shows a total of zero examples. In his described world all anyone would need is one lenient link in the chain.

 

I could come up with a hundred irrational examples of things that could happen in the opposite direction of his irrational use of this case. What if a pedophile hid his whole life and got elected DA and recommended no punishment for any pedophiles for his 4 year tenure? He wouldn't get re-elected but the damage would be done. See I can be hysterical too.

The hypo I gave you was loosely based on a real world scenario.

 

Your argument seems to be that Jared is a POS and so therefore it doesn't matter how the system works, and you've alleged this error by the DA on ? with minimal knowledge of the evidence. Your position here is weak.

 

Somehow I think you'd have a different take if the judge had used his discretion to deviate down and gave him a much shorter scentence than the DA asked for.

 

FTR, I'm not completely opposed to SOME discretion by the judge. I just think it should be more structured, subject to stricter review, and require some concrete reasoning as to why a particular case falls outside of the normal guidelines.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Rob's House

[FireChan]

The hypo I gave you was loosely based on a real world scenario.

 

Your argument seems to be that Jared is a POS and so therefore it doesn't matter how the system works, and you've alleged this error by the DA on ? with minimal knowledge of the evidence. Your position here is weak.

 

Somehow I think you'd have a different take if the judge had used his discretion to deviate down and gave him a much shorter scentence than the DA asked for.

 

FTR, I'm not completely opposed to SOME discretion by the judge. I just think it should be more structured, subject to stricter review, and require some concrete reasoning as to why a particular case falls outside of the normal guidelines.

Bingo.

[4merper4mer]

The hypo I gave you was loosely based on a real world scenario.

 

Your argument seems to be that Jared is a POS and so therefore it doesn't matter how the system works, and you've alleged this error by the DA on ? with minimal knowledge of the evidence. Your position here is weak.

 

Somehow I think you'd have a different take if the judge had used his discretion to deviate down and gave him a much shorter scentence than the DA asked for.

 

FTR, I'm not completely opposed to SOME discretion by the judge. I just think it should be more structured, subject to stricter review, and require some concrete reasoning as to why a particular case falls outside of the normal guidelines.

Ridiculous.

 

My argument is that the DA avoided a lot of work because he either:

 

a - Did not want a circus trial

 

or

 

b - Had some small level of concern that Jared could buy his way out

 

I see a as more likely than b.

 

Your argument seems to be that our society is crumbling because one judge was able to cut through the BS. You gave no examples of other reality...just pure wild speculation. You say you're not opposed by some discretion from the judge, but he added 3 years to a 12 year proposed sentence. It isn't like he doled out the death penalty or something. How much leeway should he have ? Add 1 day?

 

There are a lot more signs of decay in our society than a judge adding 25% to a proposed punishment of an admitted child rapist and kiddie porn trafficker. Please spare me the condescending view from atop your soap box and use logic if you care to continue this argument. A good idea might be to show other similar things that happened with judges and how they led to worse....in real life this time...or show as you claim that a non-famous guys committing these crimes would get accorded such leniency.

Edited November 21, 2015 by 4merper4mer

[FireChan]

Ridiculous.

 

My argument is that the DA avoided a lot of work because he either:

 

a - Did not want a circus trial

 

or

 

b - Had some small level of concern that Jared could buy his way out

 

I see a as more likely than b.

 

Your argument seems to be that our society is crumbling because one judge was able to cut through the BS. You gave no examples of other reality...just pure wild speculation. You say you're not opposed by some discretion from the judge, but he added 3 years to a 12 year proposed sentence. It isn't like he doled out the death penalty or something. How much leeway should he have ? Add 1 day?

 

There are a lot more signs of decay in our society than a judge adding 25% to a proposed punishment of an admitted child rapist and kiddie porn trafficker. Please spare me the condescending view from atop your soap box and use logic if you care to continue this argument. A good idea might be to show other similar things that happened with judges and how they led to worse....in real life this time...or show as you claim that a non-famous guys committing these crimes would get accorded such leniency.

First they came for the child rapists and I didn't speak up...

 

Explain to me why the judge gave a heavier sentence other than Jared being a bad guy. If you can't see how that could possibly affect anyone else, you have no foresight.

Edited November 21, 2015 by FireChan

[Alaska Darin]

I would say if the judge is going to act as such that the defendant should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.

 

The issue has Jack **** to do with Jared; it has to do with the fundamental operation of the criminal justice system.

Again, it's called a sentencing recommendation for a reason. If the judge goes completely nuts, there's an appeal process for that as well. The system is far from perfect because there are humans involved with it but the this sentence is hardly a microcosm of the most egregious things that go on.

[4merper4mer]

First they came for the rich and famous child rapists who could leverage their way into light sentences and I didn't speak up...

 

Explain to me why the judge gave a heavier sentence other than Jared being a bad guy. If you can't see how that could possibly affect anyone else, you have no foresight.

 

 

My argument is that the DA avoided a lot of work because he either:

a - Did not want a circus trial

or

b - Had some small level of concern that Jared could buy his way out

The judge recognized this and adjusted

[Rob's House]

Ridiculous.

 

My argument is that the DA avoided a lot of work because he either:

 

a - Did not want a circus trial

 

or

 

b - Had some small level of concern that Jared could buy his way out

 

I see a as more likely than b.

 

Your argument seems to be that our society is crumbling because one judge was able to cut through the BS. You gave no examples of other reality...just pure wild speculation. You say you're not opposed by some discretion from the judge, but he added 3 years to a 12 year proposed sentence. It isn't like he doled out the death penalty or something. How much leeway should he have ? Add 1 day?

 

There are a lot more signs of decay in our society than a judge adding 25% to a proposed punishment of an admitted child rapist and kiddie porn trafficker. Please spare me the condescending view from atop your soap box and use logic if you care to continue this argument. A good idea might be to show other similar things that happened with judges and how they led to worse....in real life this time...or show as you claim that a non-famous guys committing these crimes would get accorded such leniency.

Real life non-famous guy had a case where he could have potentially won at trial but ran a very significant risk of being convicted of a charge with guidelines that ran up to 8 years. The prosecutor understood that she could lose at trial so she offered a plea deal for a charge with guidelines that run ~1.5-3.5 years. He took the deal and forewent his right to trial to avoid the long sentence. Judge gave him 7 years on a first offense. He has no recourse. It happens all the time.

 

Perhaps you should be less opinionated about topics you are painfully ignorant of.

 

And nowhere did anyone suggest that one judge making one decision about Jared from !@#$ing Subway would be the catalyst that brought the system crumbling down. I'm a little disappointed to see you taking a page out of the book of gator with that dishonest/Dumbass ****.

Again, it's called a sentencing recommendation for a reason. If the judge goes completely nuts, there's an appeal process for that as well. The system is far from perfect because there are humans involved with it but the this sentence is hardly a microcosm of the most egregious things that go on.

I disagree. I don't think the appeals process is an adequate check, and if you ever found yourself in the defendant's seat you would quickly have a deep appreciation for the problem.

[Alaska Darin]

I disagree. I don't think the appeals process is an adequate check, and if you ever found yourself in the defendant's seat you would quickly have a deep appreciation for the problem.

So what do you propose? You're all up in arms in this instance about a judge adding what amounts to 20ish% to a sentence. That doesn't seem like a huge overreach, especially considering all the evidence that's publicly available in this particular case.

 

Judges should have the ability to over rule the prosecution's deals to protect the public from both under and over sentencing. I can only imagine the boiler room deals that would be done without it. There should also be an appeals process and it should be swift and without political intervention.

 

No one has to explain to me how screwed up the government is and how important it is to avoid the justice system. I'm a libertarian for a reason.

[Rob's House]

So what do you propose? You're all up in arms in this instance about a judge adding what amounts to 20ish% to a sentence. That doesn't seem like a huge overreach, especially considering all the evidence that's publicly available in this particular case.

 

Judges should have the ability to over rule the prosecution's deals to protect the public from both under and over sentencing. I can only imagine the boiler room deals that would be done without it. There should also be an appeals process and it should be swift and without political intervention.

 

No one has to explain to me how screwed up the government is and how important it is to avoid the justice system. I'm a libertarian for a reason.

I'm not "all up in arms" over this instance. This is something I've had a problem with long before this case ever came to be. I would (for starters) require the judge to submit a written explanation, specifically stating the criteria upon which the deviation was made, to a higher court. I would also allow a defendant the right to withdraw his guilty plea if the judge deviated from the guidelines. Edited November 21, 2015 by Rob's House

[Alaska Darin]

I'm not "all up in arms" over this instance. This is something I've had a problem with long before this case ever came to be. I would (for starters) require the judge to submit a written explanation, specifically stating the criteria upon which the deviation was made, to a higher court. I would also allow a defendant the right to withdraw his guilty plea if the judge deviated from the guidelines.

It is well known that federal judges retain final authority over sentencing and that they are under no obligation to accept the plea bargain that's been negotiated between felons and prosecutors. I'm quite sure that was explained ad nauseum to Mr. Fogleman, who should consider himself lucky that there's even a chance he ever sees the outside of a jail again. Ya plays the chomo game, ya takes yer chances.

 

I don't think your solutions would change much of anything for the positive (judges already submit written explanations about why the reject sentence recommendations) and would end up taking up even more resources in a system that's already terribly overburdened.

[Rob's House]

It is well known that federal judges retain final authority over sentencing and that they are under no obligation to accept the plea bargain that's been negotiated between felons and prosecutors. I'm quite sure that was explained ad nauseum to Mr. Fogleman, who should consider himself lucky that there's even a chance he ever sees the outside of a jail again. Ya plays the chomo game, ya takes yer chances.

 

I don't think your solutions would change much of anything for the positive (judges already submit written explanations about why the reject sentence recommendations) and would end up taking up even more resources in a system that's already terribly overburdened.

The written submission is optional and there is no recourse. The fact that the defendant knows there's a chance he might get !@#$ed isn't the same as knowing he will get !@#$ed, especially when the alternative means a significant portion of his life in prison.

 

The fact that you guys are incapable of seeing this outside the prism of Jared !@#$ing Vogel is depressing.

 

The power given to prosecutors and judges is obscene. Most of the time you get no meaningful appeal. You get one shot and that's your life. And the public doesn't give a flying !@#$ if your life is flushed away.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Rob's House

[Alaska Darin]

The written submission is optional and there is no recourse. The fact that the defendant knows there's a chance he might get !@#$ed isn't the same as knowing he will get !@#$ed, especially when the alternative means a significant portion of his life in prison.

 

The fact that you guys are incapable of seeing this outside the prism of Jared !@#$ing Vogel is depressing.

 

The power given to prosecutors and judges is obscene. Most of the time you get no meaningful appeal. You get one shot and that's your life. And the public doesn't give a flying !@#$ if your life is flushed away.

So we're supposed to get behind fixing something where people who've committed crimes plead guilty because it's totally for their benefit and then a judge doesn't completely honor the deal they aren't actually part of? Nope, sorry. Are their people who end up pleading guilty to crimes they don't commit? Is that really a huge problem or just the kind that end up being movie subjects?

 

The justice system lacks common sense and compassion. That much is clear. Is it fixable? I doubt it. Most people just don't have much of a supply of either. Which is why we judge prosecutors on their conviction rate and publicly hang people like Richard Jewell. Anytime there's a system, there will be people who will abuse it.

[bbb]

It is well known that federal judges retain final authority over sentencing and that they are under no obligation to accept the plea bargain that's been negotiated between felons and prosecutors. I'm quite sure that was explained ad nauseum to Mr. Fogleman, who should consider himself lucky that there's even a chance he ever sees the outside of a jail again. Ya plays the chomo game, ya takes yer chances.

 

I don't think your solutions would change much of anything for the positive (judges already submit written explanations about why the reject sentence recommendations) and would end up taking up even more resources in a system that's already terribly overburdened.

 

It wasn't well known to me..........Last week, in Buffalo there was a hit and run case where a lot of people were pissed about the plea deal................It seemed like the judge was, too, but the deal stood.

[Rob's House]

So we're supposed to get behind fixing something where people who've committed crimes plead guilty because it's totally for their benefit and then a judge doesn't completely honor the deal they aren't actually part of? Nope, sorry. Are their people who end up pleading guilty to crimes they don't commit? Is that really a huge problem or just the kind that end up being movie subjects?

 

The justice system lacks common sense and compassion. That much is clear. Is it fixable? I doubt it. Most people just don't have much of a supply of either. Which is why we judge prosecutors on their conviction rate and publicly hang people like Richard Jewell. Anytime there's a system, there will be people who will abuse it.

So if someone commits a crime then !@#$ em? Let em burn? That's bull ****. I often think the people enforcing the law are just as bad as those breaking it.

 

I understand it's not clearly fixable, but it's not as simple as innocent or guilty. There are a whole lot of people who may be guilty of a crime that don't deserve to have their lives and/or livelihoods destroyed for it. But "tough on crime" sells to an audience that sees "crime" only in the abstract.

 

You know I'm not a bleeding heart. I'm speaking about checking the power of the state to take the freedom of citizens. What good is due process if the process is a sham? And a system that allows, and even embraces, bait and switch tactics by the government to imprison people is not something I'm okay with.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Rob's House