SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - I think this is an appropriate sentence.

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - I think this is an appropriate sentence. (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158212)

I think this is an appropriate sentence.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/...ing/index.html

Louisiana ex-congressman gets 13 years on corruption conviction

Quote:

Alexandria, Virginia (CNN) -- Former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson was sentenced Friday to 13 years in prison followed by three years of supervised release for his conviction on 11 counts of corruption.
Jefferson was also ordered to forfeit more than $470,000 after his conviction for using his office to solicit bribes.

He will also have to pay $1,100 in special assessments.
The case against the former nine-term Louisiana Democrat included allegations of influence-peddling and the discovery of $90,000 in cash in his freezer.

Judge T.S. Ellis will determine at a hearing next Wednesday whether Jefferson will remain free pending appeal. Until then, he is free.

I do not understand this part. How do courts decide who should stay in jail and who should not during the appeal process? He was convicted and his sentence should start now. If, and only if, the appeal process determines the conviction was in error, should he be released from prison. Appeals can stretch on for years sometimes.

Quote:

"The court's sentence today reaffirms the principle that all people -- no matter what their title or position -- are equal before the law," said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman in a statement.

"In a stunning betrayal of the public's trust, former Congressman Jefferson repeatedly used his public office for private gain. The lengthy prison sentence imposed on Mr. Jefferson today is a stark reminder to all public officials that the consequences of accepting bribes can and will be severe."
Jefferson's family was in the courtroom when District Judge T.S. Ellis handed down the sentence.

He had faced up to 150 years in prison.

"This sentence should be a clear signal that our society will not tolerate bribery," U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride said in a written statement. "It's not just another cost of doing business in government.

"Mr. Jefferson's repeated attempts to sell his office caused significant damage to the public's trust in our elected leaders. This sentence will begin to repair that damage and to restore that trust.

"Mr. Jefferson is well-known for the $90,000 found in his freezer. It is our hope that he will now be well-known for the tough sentence handed down today, showing that no one -- including our elected officials -- are above the law."

Jefferson, of New Orleans, still faces the forfeiture of nearly $500,000 -- money a jury said is linked to criminal activity for which he has been convicted.

On August 5, a jury found Jefferson guilty on four bribery counts, three counts of money laundering, three counts of wire fraud and one count of racketeering. He was acquitted on five other counts, including wire fraud and obstruction of justice.

He had remained free prior to Friday's sentencing.

Jefferson was indicted by a federal grand jury on June 4, 2007, about two years after federal agents said they found the money in his freezer. Authorities said the cash was part of a payment in marked bills from an FBI informant in a transaction captured on video.

The trial was delayed while it was resolved whether an FBI search of Jefferson's congressional office was constitutional.

Defense attorney Robert Trout had asked the judge for leniency, citing Jefferson's personal history of humble beginnings and long-standing public service.

Please excuse me, I need to take some time out for a good cry. :wah:

Ok I am better now

Quote:

Prosecutors, in turn, filed a response saying Jefferson deserved no preferential treatment since he "still chose to cheat, steal and lie."

"Congressman Jefferson has still not accepted responsibility for his own criminal conduct," prosecutors wrote. He "still rationalizes his own unethical, illegal and immoral conduct."

:nope:

Might be amusing to read how he rationalized his behavior.

Sounded like a good criminal case, wrapped up nicely. Too bad it took so long, but that's our court system. But now that he is convicted, time for slammer-time.

While this is good news, and while I hate to be the bearer of bad news, I'm willing to bet his sentence is commuted to probation. I highly doubt this guy will spend even a year in prison. Case in point, the fact that he is walking free at the moment.:nope:

Only makes me think of the politicians who get away with doing stuff like that.

Power and money = Corruption.

Don't vote...it only encourages them :DL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

I won't pretend to know everything about apellate procedure, but it is my understanding that whether or not the defendant remains free during the appeals process is at the discretion of the judge.

Apparently, the defense has linked the argument for leniency in the article, or perhaps some other argument, to the constitutional premise of "innocent until proven guilty" and the judge either bought it or just didn't care enough to argue with it. It's hard to say without having the brief available.

I can explain more if you like, but not a whole lot more. My knowledge of US criminal law is still very rudimentary.

Quote:

This part made me lol. Raman knows that isn't true. He has enough legal background to know better. What he is really saying here is "The court's effective non-sentence and this statement reaffirm the principle that all Principal Deputy Assistant Attorneys General are more interested in kissing ass and reassuring a citizenry that has rightly been questioning their legal system for some time now than doing what the hell they are supposed to be doing; advising the state on how to maintain an effective legal system."

It is impossible for all people to be equal before US criminal law because no one can understand it in its entirety. Even the best criminal law attorneys of our time can't understand all criminal law, to say nothing of the tort law, tax law, civil law, etc etc and the derivatives thereof.
A system of laws which is understandable by no one, and all but inaccessible to non-professionals(unequal), lends itself to selective enforcement(unequal), fraud(unequal), abuse(unequal), and misinterpretation or harmful reinterpretation(unequal). Even that is just one type of iniquity under US law. We haven't even gotten into the nebulous areas of criminal intent or selective judicial precedence.

Raman knows this, and yet he makes statements like the one cited. He's abusing public trust, just as Rep. Jefferson did, he's just doing it in a different way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS) (Post 1203377)

It is possible, but I think it unlikely given the amount of public attention this case has recieved. The political consequences would be disastrous.

I fully expect the selective nature of US law to come into play if he is somehow acquitted. They'll get him on something, one way or the other, and they'll get him fairly quickly.

My guess is that Louisiana taxpayers are already writing furious letters to every elected official with any kind of bearing or influence on this case. In that way, the system kind of works. But it isn't what people see that does the most harm. It is what they do not see. See my previous post for clarification.