My law buddies please explain

[DrWahoo]

I don't know if you guys have heard but this Ivy League professor beats his wife to death, tried to hide it and only is going to get up to 7 years in prison, possibly probation. Here is the link to the story http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312891,00.html
What's the deal ? :huh:

[Momo]

Re: My law buddies please explain

the URL you listed doesn't work...i'll try to do a google search.

[DrWahoo]

Re: My law buddies please explain

I accidentally included a period in the url address. It works now.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: My law buddies please explain

Hey, are you still interested in this topic? I didn't see it when it originally posted.

1. Why do little time? By the terms of his plea, he didn't commit murder. He committed manslaughter. Both are a form of prohibiting taking of a human life by another person (homicide), but the"mens rea" (that is, the state of mind) is different for manslaughter. Murder involves a higher level of intent. By comparison, in this case, the DA conceded that (as he put it) it's a "classic heat of passion" killing. That's legal-speak for "manslaughter." Manslaughter carries a lesser sentence than murder.

2. Implied in your question seems to be: why the 4.5-7 year range specifically...and what's with the 10-20 year reference? The 4.5-7 year range is the "recommended range" by the state criminal sentencing guidelines. I don't practice in PA, so I don't know anything specific about the state's sentencing guideline provisions, but I would think they operate, at least a little, like the federal sentencing guidelines (the "USSGs," which have been in the news a lot in the past 48 hours, due to a recent Supreme Court decision regarding whether it can be "reasonable" under US v. Booker to sentence certain drug offenders below the recommended range). Guideline ranges allow for reducing a criminal's sentence to a mathematical value, based on the defendant's prior criminal history, the crime committed, and the attendant circumstances. So, the PA sentencing guidelines calculated a figure that fell with the recommended range of 4.5-7. However, this is only a recommended range. The judge probably has discretion not to follow it, it circumstances warrant. Therefore, the judge (or whoever the sentencing body is, anyway) could impose a sentence greater than the recommended range.

At least, this is what it sounds like to me.

I know there is another attorney who surfs this site and posts. I can't remember his name, though. But I think he's either an ADA or used to be a prosecutor. He'd have WAY more information...and very well might correct me!

[DrWahoo]

Re: My law buddies please explain

Wow Abigail,
There is something about legal-speak that is just so amazing. So succinct and logical. I guess I look at this compared to other sentencing.

I guess my knee jerk reaction was that Michael Vick probably has the potential to spend more time in jail than the professor. But I don't know how accurate that is.

I do know that the Rockefeller laws are definitely harsher than what that guy got. To me that can't be fair.

In my opinion someone who hasn't had any prior anger issues, but snaps probably has been thinking about killing or at least harming someone.

[Meenah]

Re: My law buddies please explain

Will I sound like an awful bitch if I say I think they should both get 20 years? Oh, and let them share a cell.

[Meenah]

Re: My law buddies please explain

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. They both make me really angry.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: My law buddies please explain

No, you don't sound like an awful bitch. You sound pretty normal to me.

[DrWahoo]

Re: My law buddies please explain

I kind of think humans are more important than dogs.

[Meenah]

Re: My law buddies please explain

I kind of think humans are more important than dogs.

That is a debate in itself. Is it any less horrible to be intentionally hurtful to an animal than a human? I don't think so. Humans are actually more able than dogs (or other anmals) to defend themselves. Evil is evil.

[SuzySunshine]

Re: My law buddies please explain

Research and statistics have also shown that people who harm animals are more likely to harm humans in the long run so I think both offenses are bad.

[houseelf]

Re: My law buddies please explain

Research and statistics have also shown that people who harm animals are more likely to harm humans in the long run so I think both offenses are bad.

ITA, most felons started out as misdemeanants long before they committed a felony. Smaller crimes feed confidence, skills, and apathy to obeying the law. I'm a big proponent of punishing first time offenders harshly in hopes of scaring the bejeebies out of people. On occasion, it will work and someone will decide to choose a better road.

Kelly

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: My law buddies please explain

Research and statistics have also shown that people who harm animals are more likely to harm humans in the long run so I think both offenses are bad.

ITA, most felons started out as misdemeanants long before they committed a felony. Smaller crimes feed confidence, skills, and apathy to obeying the law. I'm a big proponent of punishing first time offenders harshly in hopes of scaring the bejeebies out of people. On occasion, it will work and someone will decide to choose a better road.

Kelly

ITA ITA ITA ITA!!!

Yeah, humans are more valuable than dogs, but the intent to cause suffering to either is of the same nature, even if the victims are not technically "equal" creatures. If you're willing to inflict suffering upon a dog, and watch that creature cry out in pain and bleed, your internal trigger of empathy is short-circuited in a way that would not make it hard for you to do the same to a human.

[DrWahoo]

Re: My law buddies please explain

I don't know hunters and little boys who blow up frogs, seem to turn out okay.

[DCJenn]

Re: My law buddies please explain

There's a huge difference between hunters and people who catch cats on fire or dismember people's pets and hang their heads on fence posts or throw kittens from car windows on the highway.

Blowing up frogs is sick but probably not on the same level and burning up the family pet.

Jenn