eball Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 @NBCNightlyNews JUST IN: Judge sentences former Subway spokesman Jared Fogle to more than 15 years in prison. In other words, he'll spend significantly more time in prison than the average age of his victims.
Alaska Darin Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 So is it just 15 years or more than 15? I have read both CBF 15 years, 8 months.
Rob's House Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Still not nearly enough, but good for the judge for going beyond what the wimpy ass prosecutor was going for. I haven't followed the case beyond knowing Jared !@#$ed some teenage bookers, but anytime a judge goes beyond what a prosecutor is asking for it should give everyone cause for concern. It sounds like less of a legal ruling and more like a pompous judge showboating in a high-profile case.
eball Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 I haven't followed the case beyond knowing Jared !@#$ed some teenage bookers, but anytime a judge goes beyond what a prosecutor is asking for it should give everyone cause for concern. It sounds like less of a legal ruling and more like a pompous judge showboating in a high-profile case. And why is that? Prosecutors are interested in moving cases along and getting their convictions; they're also constantly wheeling and dealing. Judges actually have an interest in upholding justice and protecting the public from monsters like Jared.
Rob's House Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 And why is that? Prosecutors are interested in moving cases along and getting their convictions; they're also constantly wheeling and dealing. Judges actually have an interest in upholding justice and protecting the public from monsters like Jared. Prosecutors are looking to please their political bosses by being tough on crime. I'd be surprised if the prosecutor wasn't either asking for the high end of the guidelines, or if asking for less did so as a condition of the plea agreement. In either case, I'd like to know what about Jared's case was so unique that it warranted deviating from the standard or agreed penalty range - You know, other than Jared being famous.
LeviF Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Prosecutors are looking to please their political bosses by being tough on crime. I'd be surprised if the prosecutor wasn't either asking for the high end of the guidelines, or if asking for less did so as a condition of the plea agreement. In either case, I'd like to know what about Jared's case was so unique that it warranted deviating from the standard or agreed penalty range - You know, other than Jared being famous. There were concerns that he was directly financing the production of homemade kiddie porn.
inkman Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 http://gawker.com/jared-fogle-brags-in-secretly-recorded-tapes-about-sex-1739113935 This guy's can get as raped a thousand times and I still wouldn't be happy. The joy he expresses having sex with a boy is beyond any words I can utter.
Rob's House Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 There were concerns that he was directly financing the production of homemade kiddie porn. A judge shouldn't base the sentence on concerns about facts that were neither plead to nor proven.
LeviF Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 A judge shouldn't base the sentence on concerns about facts that were neither plead to nor proven. But they can. Should or should not is debatable, but they certainly can. But if that's the sticking point for you then another aggravating circumstance involved that he plead to is the vulnerability of the victims. Can't get much more vulnerable than victims of child sex trafficking.
Rob's House Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) But they can. Should or should not is debatable, but they certainly can. But if that's the sticking point for you then another aggravating circumstance involved that he plead to is the vulnerability of the victims. Can't get much more vulnerable than victims of child sex trafficking. 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. Edited November 20, 2015 by Rob's House
WotAGuy Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) 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. How is that a miscarriage of justice or a threat? Isn't the judge within his rights to act as he did? Why does he HAVE to go along with some deal that a prosecutor cut? That doesn't seem like an abuse of power, but rather an exercise of his discretion. If the deal cut isn't a fair one in the public interest, then he did the right thing. And anyone that cops to a crime like that doesn't deserve to be honored with a deal that others (i.e. a judge) deem unfair. In this case, maybe he took the plea so as to not have everything he did come out in detail during the trial. Those revelations could have been horrific. And I'm not directing these questions to you specifically as a challenge, but rather out of my own ignorance of the specifics of the process in play. Edited November 20, 2015 by WotAGuy
4merper4mer Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 I agree with you. Add in the fact that Jared paid a bunch of money in restitution (unlike the normal defendant in a case like this who probably always gets in the range), and I am thinking his fame/publicity was a factor here. Maybe the judge decided that the money wouldn't heal the damage and that the prosecutor had cut a bad deal with the reprobate. Maybe he thought society might be better off without this cretin. The guy got what? 3 months beyond what the prosecution requested? And people are crying a river for poor Jared the serial pedophile? And we wonder why societies crumble.
nemhoff Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 This guy's can get as raped a thousand times and I still wouldn't be happy. The joy he expresses having sex with a boy is beyond any words I can utter. disgusting, have fun in the clink Jared...enjoy the footlong
Rob's House Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 How is that a miscarriage of justice or a threat? Isn't the judge within his rights to act as he did? Why does he HAVE to go along with some deal that a prosecutor cut? That doesn't seem like an abuse of power, but rather an exercise of his discretion. If the deal cut isn't a fair one in the public interest, then he did the right thing. And anyone that cops to a crime like that doesn't deserve to be honored with a deal that others (i.e. a judge) deem unfair. In this case, maybe he took the plea so as to not have everything he did come out in detail during the trial. Those revelations could have been horrific. And I'm not directing these questions to you specifically as a challenge, but rather out of my own ignorance of the specifics of the process in play. I would say if the judge is going to act as such that the defendant should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Maybe the judge decided that the money wouldn't heal the damage and that the prosecutor had cut a bad deal with the reprobate. Maybe he thought society might be better off without this cretin. The guy got what? 3 months beyond what the prosecution requested? And people are crying a river for poor Jared the serial pedophile? And we wonder why societies crumble. The issue has Jack **** to do with Jared; it has to do with the fundamental operation of the criminal justice system.
4merper4mer Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 I think he got 3 more years than the prosecution requested. I couldn't care less about him or his sentence. I just would hate that the judge might be making a decision based on publicity issues. The best bet is that the DA knew he could get a conviction as did the defense. The DA also knew a trial would be an unwanted circus. The reprobate's defense team used the stated or implied threat of the circus to negotiate the DA's request for light sentencing. The DA cannot commit the judge so the cretin got 3 of the 100000 years he deserved back. The people worried the judge did this for publicity are most likely wrong. He made up a bit for the DA's avoidance of publicity.
WotAGuy Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 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. I would say that's the risk you run when you are a child molester. The judge sets the sentence, not the prosecutor. It seems highly unlikely the deal that was struck didn't come with a proviso that "anything can happen".
4merper4mer Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 The issue has Jack **** to do with Jared; it has to do with the fundamental operation of the criminal justice system. 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.
Alaska Darin Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 It's called a sentencing recommendation for a reason.
Rob's House Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 I would say that's the risk you run when you are a child molester. The judge sets the sentence, not the prosecutor. It seems highly unlikely the deal that was struck didn't come with a proviso that "anything can happen". 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.
Recommended Posts