Let's do a roundup of the news and check in on some old issues.
The three Alexander brothers went down in the SDNY- a total loss for the defense and total win for the government. Guilty 😢 on all counts. There was a solid Miami contingent involved in the defense. The old "she wanted it and now is greedy and lying" defense did not work. That kinda went out in the late 70's/early 80's. They are all sadly facing life in prison. And while we are on the subject, without in anyway demeaning what the victims suffered, let's consider what a twenty-year sentence would look like. They would be released in the mid 2040's in their 50's. Do you think that would be sufficient punishment with ten years of supervised release? This is not about diminishing a victim's pain. This is about challenging the philosophy of defaulting to life ending sentences for crimes other than murder. We just don't buy into the lockem up and throw away the key philosophy. We have seen many people mature and change in prison. Life should always have hope. A respectful chat is requested.
Sharia Law: Remember when this was all the rage, and conservative politicians were ranting against liberal judges desires to apply Sharia law and introducing all sorts of legislation to outlaw the application of such law? We would like our readers to update us. Have you recently had a judge make any reference to Sharia law? Have you ever had a judge made a reference to Shaira law?
The Border Wall: If anyone can direct us to the appropriate website or US Treasury link where we can make an accurate calculation of how much Mexico has paid for the wall, we would appreciate it. We are working on a project to show how many political promises the current president has made that have been kept showing the amazing benefits to our country. Sadly, at the moment, the data is a bit sparse. But hope springs eternal in Rumpole, ever the optimist.
The Markets: The markets are mixed at the opening Tuesday. On Monday we saw the market whipsaw from negative to positive territory at the end of the trading day when oil prices fell in response to the president's comments that the war was close to ending. What we don't like is seeing equities yo-yo on cryptic comments which affect oil prices. For the most part a price of a stock that moves on this news is not related to how the company is doing (energy stocks excepted). So what we do in a situation like this is just sit tight and buy some of our favourtie stocks at favourable prices- like anytime Nvidia falls below 180, or Costco below 990. And keep your eye on Amazon. It has recently been beaten down, but it has 30% growth and is currently selling way below recent prices.
20 comments:
I understand your point about sentencing the Alexander brothers: I'm a criminal defense attorney deeply interested in mitigation, the promise of redemption, and over-incarceration. But I see these defendants as uniquely villainous, and therefore deserving of a far longer sentence than 20 years, indeed a sentence for life.
The prosecutors proved there were dozens of victims, including minors, over a period of decades, committed collectively by three highly-privileged men. They did not commit these crimes impulsively. These mutilating offenses were premeditated, involving drugging the victims and/or physically overpowering them - in tandem. Once caught, they set about smearing and lying about their victims, another mutilating act. It is difficult to imagine a more depraved course of conduct, outside the world of politics and war. It's difficult to imagine a more barren ground for redemption: the arrogance, the impunity, the remorselessness - they're still denying their actions and demeaning their victims. They make Harvey Weinstein look good.
RE: We just don't buy into the lockem up and throw away the key philosophy. We have seen many people mature and change in prison. Okay Rumpole-- what if Jeffery Epstein survived and was sentenced? Do you see someone like him change? I am sorry some people deserve to rot in prison.
Re Alexander Bros: They should be lucky they were tried in federal court. 10+ years in a NY state max prison would have been a kiss of death. Which begs another question. When did the federal court system become the preferred venue for these types of crimes. See: Sean Diddy. I can remember a time when the federal court system was reserved for corrupt politicians and middle aged men whose names ended in a vowel.
Yes as to Epstein. A 25 year sentence would have been sufficient punishment. Quite frankly 20 years. It doesn’t heal the victims. Nothing will. But I’d be fine with that sentence. Let’s say he was sentenced in 2000 when Bush was president. If he got out last year then yeah I’d be fine with that. He’d be broke and I think a changed man. And if not, he’d be on supervised release.
If anyone’s gonna get a life sentence for anything, they should for this. Even though tried in New York it mostly happened here, and surely a lot of people knew. Epstein was also So Fla. which is often a dirty place for young women, sadly.
"The old "she wanted it and now is greedy and lying" defense did not work. That kinda went out in the late 70's/early 80's."
Did it really? It seemed to pay some dividends to Diddy. And even Harvey Weinstein got some mileage and partial acquittals from using that old line ad nauseam in court.
"They would be released in the mid 2040's in their 50's. Do you think that would be sufficient punishment with ten years of supervised release?"
The 50's seem to be when some rich rapists are in their predatory prime. Is middle-age supposed to slow them down?
The Alexander brothers are not in any way humble or contrite. They wail that they are victims of injustice and denounce their victims as promiscuous gold-diggers. Would they be reformed and penitent after getting out in their 50's? Or would they just be restless bitter middle-aged predators with plenty of money to purchase more victims the moment they spring out the door? Plenty of predators are happily and hungrily rampaging past middle-age.
"This is about challenging the philosophy of defaulting to life ending sentences for crimes other than murder. We just don't buy into the lockem up and throw away the key philosophy."
You may not buy it. Plenty of other people do. And it seems so do more jurisdictions today. If a crime sounds bad and outrageous enough (murder, multiple rapes, child molestation), the minimum default desired punishment is now life plus cancer.
"We have seen many people mature and change in prison."
And some fellows continue happily offending into their golden years. The “people change” line didn't work for Karla Faye Tucker, it's not going to work for some entitled real estate bros.
"Life should always have hope."
Even though you don't like life sentences, you seem to at least begrudgingly acknowledge their perceived propriety for things like aggravated murder. Well, other people (a lot) think that murder may not be the only offense outrageous enough to outweigh and overrule an offender's hope for future physical freedom in their mortal life. Some offenders have to content themselves with the hope that they pass on to some better existence after they die in prison.
It's hard to feel sorry for those Alexander brothers. Anyone who condones their crimes really doesn't belong with us.
“Win at all cost” is just as good as winning fairly. A win is a win..:.No repercussions!
Just because I or anyone argue that a sentence should be reasonable and proportionate does not mean we are condoning their crimes. I can’t think of one person who has condoned their crimes. There is an article in the NY times today about a Colombia University doctor who raped hundreds of women in the hospital. He was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. Does that mean I or anyone condone his action? Of course not. Personally that sentence is light. 25-30 would have been just. The problem when talking about reasonable and fair sentencing is that opponents immediately devolve the discussion into accusations of condoning the crime. That is until one of those people are charged with a crime- which has occurred in my career many times. Then I get to see the intellectual honesty of the person.
Fair comment. One response. When you describe their crimes as devious and clearly pre planned - isn’t that what the statute contemplates? So all you’re saying is anyone convicted of these crimes deserves much more than 20. I’ve been incarcerated (in my misbegotten youth ). There’s nothing easy about it. Do you think if they got a 20 year sentence they would laugh and say they can’t wait to get out and do it again but if they got 30 thru would be remorseful?
SM!
The Alexander Brothers probably don't have to worry about even a 20 year sentence if their wealthy, MAGA-connected parents have access to the "pay for a presidential pardon" Epstein-class of lobbyists, insiders, and Trump family members.
Re "Anyone who condones their crimes really doesn't belong with us." This is weak sauce and surprised to see this type of unintelligent straw man/fringe-method argument on a blog for lawyers.
Isn't Sharia law just arbitration? If two folks agreed to let a Sharia judge apply Sharia law to a dispute, how is that any different from agreeing to AAA Arbitration.
Hey Rump. Since you used the phrase, please explain the difference between "planned" and "pre-planned"? Sort of like probation, double probation, and double secret probation.
"It doesn’t heal the victims. Nothing will."
I'm sure most victims would prefer not to have been raped or murdered in the first place. However, just because you believe that nothing will "heal" the victims does not therefore mean the punishment of the offender is irrelevant to victims. Although victims wish the crime never happened to them in the first place, seeing the person who harmed them get away with little or no punishment can make things considerably worse.
"There is an article in the NY times today about a Colombia University doctor who raped hundreds of women in the hospital. He was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. Does that mean I or anyone condone his action? Of course not. Personally that sentence is light."
You're talking about Robert Hadden, the gynecologist at Columbia University and NY-Presbyterian who sexually assaulted legions of his patients over the course of decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hadden
Hadden got the 20 year sentence in Federal court. The Federal prosecution was limited to victims who had traveled across state lines to see Hadden for appointments and that limited the counts and possible maximum punishment. The reason Hadden had to be prosecuted in Federal court is because Cyrus Vance had already let Hadden get off with probation for the hundreds of rapes that he committed within New York state lines. Along with Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein, Hadden was another defendant who demonstrated that monsters can get away with anything so long as those monsters hire defense attorneys who are chummy with the district attorney and contribute to his reelection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/opinion/cyrus-vance-campaign-donations.html
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2017/10/16/fundraising-anomaly-allows-vance-das-to-raise-cash-from-criminal-defense-lawyers-115063
To Judge Berman's credit, he hit Hadden with the statutory maximum in Federal court.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-obstetriciangynecologist-robert-hadden-sentenced-20-years-prison-sexually
But I'm sure Hadden's victims and others would have probably wanted Hadden to suffer "life plus cancer" a million times over.
It's the fact of so many of these crimes over such a long period of time, during which they had abundant opportunity to mature, reflect, desist. If there had been two or three victims over a period of a year or two, I would feel differently about the appropriate sentence; I'd be ok with 20 years. It's not "just" that the volume of victims adds up to exponential and far-reaching trauma. It's that the volume of victims over the length of time reflects an evil heart, insusceptible of true remorse. I have represented hundreds or more criminal defendants, including capital defendants. I can't think of one that I'd call evil. These guys are very far outside the norm of criminal behavior: Their unwavering dedication to a continuing course of devastating crime. Maybe the specter of a life sentence - one that mommy and daddy can't pay to go away - might deter other douchebags. Even if not, I think a life sentence is commensurate with the crimes, given the large number of victims and duration of conduct.
Zoom hearing in criminal court are so lame. Lawyers and clients should show up to court. This place is like a grave yard. No action anymore. Weak
I cannot imagine Cy Gaer appearing via Zoom
When are we getting a real Iran war post? Your statement that Iran would be easy to transition from theocracy to democracy was plainly wrong. I would suggest we have already lost this war. The only thing left to be determined is how badly. Decapitation strikes had zero effect and we have no ability to change government or policies. Only choice to be made is whether to leave in failure now or leave in failure later.
Post a Comment