Judge Hopes Nassar "Gets Taste of Own Medicine" in Prison

[United Dependencies]

The Judge did nothing wrong and honestly, the dude deserves worse than to be Bubba's plaything for 60 years.

She really did. And the fact that Americans still elect judges baffles me.

In some cases it's better than having the local polls appoint them. If you can believe that.

[Greed and Death]

The Judge did nothing wrong and honestly, the dude deserves worse than to be Bubba's plaything for 60 years.

She really did. And the fact that Americans still elect judges baffles me.

If I could change the system I would still have state level trial judges elected but make state level appellate judges. That way we can still have the trial court judges we are familiar with but have professional appointed judges reviewing and where necessary reversing them.

[Costa Fierro]

this is the dumbest possible thing to get mad about

You get mad about rich people being rich.

[Risottia]

The Judge did nothing wrong and honestly, the dude deserves worse than to be Bubba's plaything for 60 years.

What part of "judge shouldn't be taking sides should not use their role for their own propaganda stunts, and should not incite to commit crimes" is too weird to be real, according to you?

[Des-Bal]

This looks a tad like inappropriate bias. If he had't plead guilty I'd be much more inclined to say the sentence should be vacated.

She didn't say someone should rape him she said that without the constitution she would be inclined to sentence him to rape, possibly by multiple people.

I give her a pass on the "death warrant" thing because I took it to mean that at his age he was destined to die in prison.

[Dagashi Shoujo]

Sounds like the Judge caring more about her own self-gratification then about the victims, considering she probably just gave Nassar's attorney a bone in this propaganda stunt.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Bad conduct by the Judge, Larry Nassar is still human filth.

[Seangoli]

thank god

Well she was a real judge, and it appears that the people on the show sign an agreement where they have to follow any conclusion she comes to.

It's called arbitration, and is pretty common in the United States. In the case of Judy Sheindlin, she was an actual Judge (Oversaw 20,000 cases in her pre-television career) who oversees actual arbitration cases whose decisions are legally binding.

[Seangoli]

Nassar is, by all accounts, a monster and I agree with the judge in that I hope he rots in prison. That said, should a United States judge have used such language in a courtroom? Probably not, but I won't complain...

Nassar still had the right to a fair trial, and a Judge using their bench to very publicly speak about their personal opinions on the individual will lead to nothing good, and only provides ammunition indicating that the court itself was biased against him, denying him a fair trial. It is one of those situations where the Judge really should have kept her opinions on the matter to herself, as all doing this does is serve to make it easier to appeal the trial.

[Ondine]

Knowing how US prisons are, I'm pretty sure Nassar will be getting love from a guy named Jesús when he finally gets sent back to the prisons now that the legal proceedings are done. Even prison inmates have standards, however low they may be, because sexual crimes, and crimes against women and children (among others) are very harshly and extrajudicially punished in US prisons, if the prison guards don't manage to keep things under control.

[Crockerland]

Now Nassar, may well have grounds to appeal the sentencing, and if I were on an appellate court I would likely give it to him.

"Yeah you openly admit you raped dozens of people but I personally dislike your judge here go back into society, don't rape anyone else though okay?"
He's got the life sentence he deserves, there's no reason to allow an appeal, regardless of what you think of the sentence-giver the sentence was absolutely fair for a crime of such magnitude.

is it proper for a Judge to imply that other inmates should rape Nassar?

No, nobody should be raped, obviously.

[Dagashi Shoujo]

Now Nassar, may well have grounds to appeal the sentencing, and if I were on an appellate court I would likely give it to him.

"Yeah you openly admit you raped dozens of people but I personally dislike your judge here go back into society, don't rape anyone else though okay?"

That's not what G&E is saying at all.

[Crockerland]

"Yeah you openly admit you raped dozens of people but I personally dislike your judge here go back into society, don't rape anyone else though okay?"

That's not what G&E is saying at all.

I'm not saying that G&E supports that position, but the only point of the appeal would be to enable that position to be a possibility, the only alternative being that the rapist in question stays in prison with a literally or at least functionally identical sentencing, making the appeal pointless and a waste of time.

[Shamhnan Insir]

It's a breach in professional standards. The guy is a horrible, creepy bastard, however to boast "I have just signed your death warrant", where she refers to the point he likely will be dead before his term is over, is a poor move. Say what you will in private about the man however during the proceedings of a trial it raises the wrong flags.

[Gravlen]

“You stabbed. You stabbed. You stabbed. You stabbed. You stabbed until he was dead,” he said. “I agree with the family, I hope you die in prison as well.”

McBain said that if Michigan had the death penalty, “you’d be getting the chair.”

- Jackson County Circuit Judge John McBain to Camia Gamet during sentencing. Appeal later denied:

Gamet had argued on appeal that, among other issues, Jackson County Circuit Judge John McBain, failed to remain impartial by "showing favor to the prosecution throughout the jury trial..."

"We do acknowledge some intemperate remarks (McBain) made during (Gamet's) sentencing," the Court of Appeals conceded, but these comments were made at the sentencing hearing and had no bearing on the jury's finding of guilt.

As in the case above, I don't think this judge overstepped the line, because the system allows a judge a wide leeway to speak their minds during the sentencing phase. I mean, if this were during the trial, that is, the part where they determine whether or not he was guilty, the statements would be problematic and show a concerning level of bias. However, this wasn't during that part. The trial had been concluded, and all the evidence had been heard. At this point the judge is supposed to be able to come to a conclusion. What she says is somewhat uncouth, but not problematic from a legal standpoint.

[Petrasylvania]

Knowing how US prisons are, I'm pretty sure Nassar will be getting love from a guy named Jesús when he finally gets sent back to the prisons now that the legal proceedings are done. Even prison inmates have standards, however low they may be, because sexual crimes, and crimes against women and children (among others) are very harshly and extrajudicially punished in US prisons, if the prison guards don't manage to keep things under control.

Most likely he'll be segregated from the general population just like anyone convicted of molesting minors. He got nailed on kiddy porn but even prison inmates will find out he fingered over 100 girls for years.

[Senkaku]

Nassar is, by all accounts, a monster and I agree with the judge in that I hope he rots in prison. That said, should a United States judge have used such language in a courtroom? Probably not, but I won't complain...

Nassar still had the right to a fair trial, and a Judge using their bench to very publicly speak about their personal opinions on the individual will lead to nothing good, and only provides ammunition indicating that the court itself was biased against him, denying him a fair trial. It is one of those situations where the Judge really should have kept her opinions on the matter to herself, as all doing this does is serve to make it easier to appeal the trial.

This was just sentencing, his guilt was already determined. As other users have said, judges can speak their minds once all that has been determined and a verdict has been reached.

[Greed and Death]

“You stabbed. You stabbed. You stabbed. You stabbed. You stabbed until he was dead,” he said. “I agree with the family, I hope you die in prison as well.”

McBain said that if Michigan had the death penalty, “you’d be getting the chair.”

- Jackson County Circuit Judge John McBain to Camia Gamet during sentencing. Appeal later denied:

Gamet had argued on appeal that, among other issues, Jackson County Circuit Judge John McBain, failed to remain impartial by "showing favor to the prosecution throughout the jury trial..."

"We do acknowledge some intemperate remarks (McBain) made during (Gamet's) sentencing," the Court of Appeals conceded, but these comments were made at the sentencing hearing and had no bearing on the jury's finding of guilt.

As in the case above, I don't think this judge overstepped the line, because the system allows a judge a wide leeway to speak their minds during the sentencing phase. I mean, if this were during the trial, that is, the part where they determine whether or not he was guilty, the statements would be problematic and show a concerning level of bias. However, this wasn't during that part. The trial had been concluded, and all the evidence had been heard. At this point the judge is supposed to be able to come to a conclusion. What she says is somewhat uncouth, but not problematic from a legal standpoint.

It is worth pointing out the Gamet was challenging her conviction not her sentencing. Now why was he note challenging his sentence ? A good question.

Because Michigan has a mandatory minimum of life without parole for 1st degree murder. Challenging her sentence at best would result in her getting life without parole from a different judge. Her only hope for a better outcome was then to challenge the verdict saying the bias shown at sentencing must be evidence that the judge was biased during the rest of the trial. That is a tough road to hoe if the attorney can find no evidence of bias on the Record.

[Shofercia]

“You stabbed. You stabbed. You stabbed. You stabbed. You stabbed until he was dead,” he said. “I agree with the family, I hope you die in prison as well.”

McBain said that if Michigan had the death penalty, “you’d be getting the chair.”

- Jackson County Circuit Judge John McBain to Camia Gamet during sentencing. Appeal later denied:

Gamet had argued on appeal that, among other issues, Jackson County Circuit Judge John McBain, failed to remain impartial by "showing favor to the prosecution throughout the jury trial..."

"We do acknowledge some intemperate remarks (McBain) made during (Gamet's) sentencing," the Court of Appeals conceded, but these comments were made at the sentencing hearing and had no bearing on the jury's finding of guilt.

As in the case above, I don't think this judge overstepped the line, because the system allows a judge a wide leeway to speak their minds during the sentencing phase. I mean, if this were during the trial, that is, the part where they determine whether or not he was guilty, the statements would be problematic and show a concerning level of bias. However, this wasn't during that part. The trial had been concluded, and all the evidence had been heard. At this point the judge is supposed to be able to come to a conclusion. What she says is somewhat uncouth, but not problematic from a legal standpoint.

It is worth pointing out the Gamet was challenging her conviction not her sentencing. Now why was he note challenging his sentence ? A good question.

Because Michigan has a mandatory minimum of life without parole for 1st degree murder. Challenging her sentence at best would result in her getting life without parole from a different judge. Her only hope for a better outcome was then to challenge the verdict saying the bias shown at sentencing must be evidence that the judge was biased during the rest of the trial. That is a tough road to hoe if the attorney can find no evidence of bias on the Record.

Since Michigan has no death penalty, doesn't that mean that the minimum and maximum sentence is the same? In that case, does it really matter how the Judge announces the sentence, (once guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt,) since it's the same no matter what? I think that's the distinction in this case, namely that here the Judge determined the sentence, and as thus, that part can be appealable if evidence of severe bias is found.

[Vassenor]

“You stabbed. You stabbed. You stabbed. You stabbed. You stabbed until he was dead,” he said. “I agree with the family, I hope you die in prison as well.”

McBain said that if Michigan had the death penalty, “you’d be getting the chair.”

- Jackson County Circuit Judge John McBain to Camia Gamet during sentencing. Appeal later denied:

Gamet had argued on appeal that, among other issues, Jackson County Circuit Judge John McBain, failed to remain impartial by "showing favor to the prosecution throughout the jury trial..."

"We do acknowledge some intemperate remarks (McBain) made during (Gamet's) sentencing," the Court of Appeals conceded, but these comments were made at the sentencing hearing and had no bearing on the jury's finding of guilt.

As in the case above, I don't think this judge overstepped the line, because the system allows a judge a wide leeway to speak their minds during the sentencing phase. I mean, if this were during the trial, that is, the part where they determine whether or not he was guilty, the statements would be problematic and show a concerning level of bias. However, this wasn't during that part. The trial had been concluded, and all the evidence had been heard. At this point the judge is supposed to be able to come to a conclusion. What she says is somewhat uncouth, but not problematic from a legal standpoint.

It is worth pointing out the Gamet was challenging her conviction not her sentencing. Now why was he note challenging his sentence ? A good question.

Because Michigan has a mandatory minimum of life without parole for 1st degree murder. Challenging her sentence at best would result in her getting life without parole from a different judge. Her only hope for a better outcome was then to challenge the verdict saying the bias shown at sentencing must be evidence that the judge was biased during the rest of the trial. That is a tough road to hoe if the attorney can find no evidence of bias on the Record.

So how was the judge in this case specifically influencing the jury?

[Greed and Death]

It is worth pointing out the Gamet was challenging her conviction not her sentencing. Now why was he note challenging his sentence ? A good question.

Because Michigan has a mandatory minimum of life without parole for 1st degree murder. Challenging her sentence at best would result in her getting life without parole from a different judge. Her only hope for a better outcome was then to challenge the verdict saying the bias shown at sentencing must be evidence that the judge was biased during the rest of the trial. That is a tough road to hoe if the attorney can find no evidence of bias on the Record.

Since Michigan has no death penalty, doesn't that mean that the minimum and maximum sentence is the same? In that case, does it really matter how the Judge announces the sentence, (once guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt,) since it's the same no matter what? I think that's the distinction in this case, namely that here the Judge determined the sentence, and as thus, that part can be appealable if evidence of severe bias is found.

In the case of murder where their is functionally only one sentence it appears to only matter to the attorneys who rebuke the judge for showing bias.

In the case of child molesting where there is a range of sentences and the judge has the option to have the sentence run concurrently or consecutively with his child porn possession sentence. Yes that matters a whole freaking lot.

[Ermarian]

I don't think it is controversial to say that it is morally wrong to say (or even hint) that someone should be raped. No exceptions.

I've seen several people (whom I thought better of) do a take on this along the lines of "waaah the judge was not nice to the rapist", which is one of the most horrifying ways of missing the point I've yet seen. You don't need to be nice to the person you're sentencing. You don't even need to be neutral, or not editorialize, or not gloat about them spending their life in prison. All you need to do is not imply people should be punished with rape. It's not about whom you say it to.

[Infected Mushroom]

I like this judge.

[The Black Forrest]

The Judge did nothing wrong and honestly, the dude deserves worse than to be Bubba's plaything for 60 years.

She really did. And the fact that Americans still elect judges baffles me.

Hmmm. We could take the English way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... itain.html

I forget the case but an innocent man served 27 years and was paid 40ish pounds for his trouble.....

[Fartsniffage]

She really did. And the fact that Americans still elect judges baffles me.

Hmmm. We could take the English way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... itain.html

I forget the case but an innocent man served 27 years and was paid 40ish pounds for his trouble.....

He served 17 years and got £46. The case is in the article.

And I'm not sure what innocent people serving time has to do with whether judges are elected or appointed?