5 ms·

I am really disappointed in the pitifully short length of sentence that the prosecution offered. Eight years seems to pale in comparison with the level corrupti

I am really disappointed in the pitifully short length of sentence that the prosecution offered. Eight years seems to pale in comparison with the level corruption and outright abuse of power that they committed. Being sent to juvenile detention can ruin your life. Those aren't nice places to be.

patio11 18y ago
Sentencing guidelines being what they are, 8 years is pretty harsh. If the judges had snapped and shot one of the kids in the heart they would have gotten, statistically speaking, about ten or so. As a normative question, I agree that we should punish the heck out of official misconduct. The possibility for damage is just so darn high. I mean, these men essentially engaged in serial kidnapping under the color of law. They need to be made an example of so the next time anyone gets a bright idea about selling their badge or gavel they go "Oh no way, not gonna do it".
- blackguardx 18y ago
  Do you have a citation for that anecdote about sentencing guidelines? How long do you think these guys would be serving if they were laundering drug money rather than money derived from jailing children?
- divia 18y ago
  An additional reason in favor of making the punishment for this harsher than for murder is that as I understand it it's often the case that the severity of a sentence is related to the chance of getting caught. I bet it's a lot easier to catch a murderer than a corrupt judge, so to deter the judge, we need a longer sentence. I've heard this as an explanation for why arson has such stiff sentences--most arsonists aren't caught.
  - joeyo 18y ago
    This principle doesn't make any sense to me. The severity of the sentence is (or should be) proportional to the severity of the crime. In this case, the harm that a corrupt judge can cause is extremely large, and society does not tolerate this. The reason why arson has such a stiff sentence--and indeed why arson of one's own house is illegal--is because fire has the potential to spread, killing many people and destroying many properties. If you think back to the middle ages, when the common law principles of arson arose (think wood dwellings with thatch roofs and few or no fire brigades), fire spread more rapidly and was more deadly than it is even today. As such, the punishment had to be severe.
abecedarius 18y ago
Let's try to compare the length of the sentence to the excess prison-days he sentenced people to. The story says there were 5,000 detainees, that his sentencing rate was 2.5 times the norm, and the two particular cases described were for 3 months each. If those were typical, that's 3,000 excess detainees times 3 months, or 9,000 total, versus prosecution's offer of 87 months for the judge: two orders of magnitude greater. If the typical sentence was 10 days, then it's 'only' one order of magnitude.

patio11 18y ago

Sentencing guidelines being what they are, 8 years is pretty harsh. If the judges had snapped and shot one of the kids in the heart they would have gotten, statistically speaking, about ten or so. As a normative question, I agree that we should punish the heck out of official misconduct. The possibility for damage is just so darn high. I mean, these men essentially engaged in serial kidnapping under the color of law. They need to be made an example of so the next time anyone gets a bright idea about selling their badge or gavel they go "Oh no way, not gonna do it".

blackguardx 18y ago
Do you have a citation for that anecdote about sentencing guidelines? How long do you think these guys would be serving if they were laundering drug money rather than money derived from jailing children?
divia 18y ago
An additional reason in favor of making the punishment for this harsher than for murder is that as I understand it it's often the case that the severity of a sentence is related to the chance of getting caught. I bet it's a lot easier to catch a murderer than a corrupt judge, so to deter the judge, we need a longer sentence. I've heard this as an explanation for why arson has such stiff sentences--most arsonists aren't caught.
- joeyo 18y ago
  This principle doesn't make any sense to me. The severity of the sentence is (or should be) proportional to the severity of the crime. In this case, the harm that a corrupt judge can cause is extremely large, and society does not tolerate this. The reason why arson has such a stiff sentence--and indeed why arson of one's own house is illegal--is because fire has the potential to spread, killing many people and destroying many properties. If you think back to the middle ages, when the common law principles of arson arose (think wood dwellings with thatch roofs and few or no fire brigades), fire spread more rapidly and was more deadly than it is even today. As such, the punishment had to be severe.

abecedarius 18y ago

Let's try to compare the length of the sentence to the excess prison-days he sentenced people to. The story says there were 5,000 detainees, that his sentencing rate was 2.5 times the norm, and the two particular cases described were for 3 months each. If those were typical, that's 3,000 excess detainees times 3 months, or 9,000 total, versus prosecution's offer of 87 months for the judge: two orders of magnitude greater. If the typical sentence was 10 days, then it's 'only' one order of magnitude.