Serial rapist Darren Sharper sentenced to 9 years for 9 rapes

[laughing dog]

Not only did I do no such thing, I fail to see how anyone could even to jump to such a conclusion.

It's the only conclusion.

Okay, explain how a person ends up serving a prison sentence, without being sentenced? How many ways can this happen?

I have no idea. Just like I have no idea why anyone would think the statement "I am under the impression that it is not necessarily the case that a judge has to accept the sentence in a plea deal" would conclude that means that the only outcome is no sentence at all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's the only conclusion.

Okay, explain how a person ends up serving a prison sentence, without being sentenced? How many ways can this happen?

I have no idea. Just like I have no idea why anyone would think the statement "I am under the impression that it is not necessarily the case that a judge has to accept the sentence in a plea deal" would conclude that means that the only outcome is no sentence at all.

It may vary by court, or state, or district. I resolve that we should all watch some Law and Order (Harvey Birdman - Attorney at Law?) to determine whether it is.

It would seem silly if a Judge had no say in a plea deal. Someone has to stamp it. Or bang a gavel on it, or something.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's the only conclusion.

Okay, explain how a person ends up serving a prison sentence, without being sentenced? How many ways can this happen?

I have no idea. Just like I have no idea why anyone would think the statement "I am under the impression that it is not necessarily the case that a judge has to accept the sentence in a plea deal" would conclude that means that the only outcome is no sentence at all.

It's really simple. If a person is held guilty, either by a guilty plea, or a guilty verdict, a judge must pronounce the sentence. This is especially true if there is a prison sentence. Prisons are rather particular about who gets in,or out. A judge's name will be on the order to admit this person to the custody of the state.

 

[laughing dog]

I have no idea. Just like I have no idea why anyone would think the statement "I am under the impression that it is not necessarily the case that a judge has to accept the sentence in a plea deal" would conclude that means that the only outcome is no sentence at all.

It's really simple. If a person is held guilty, either by a guilty plea, or a guilty verdict, a judge must pronounce the sentence. This is especially true if there is a prison sentence. Prisons are rather particular about who gets in,or out. A judge's name will be on the order to admit this person to the custody of the state.

If the judge rejects the sentence in a plea bargain and imposes a different sentence, then the outcome is a sentence.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's really simple. If a person is held guilty, either by a guilty plea, or a guilty verdict, a judge must pronounce the sentence. This is especially true if there is a prison sentence. Prisons are rather particular about who gets in,or out. A judge's name will be on the order to admit this person to the custody of the state.

If the judge rejects the sentence in a plea bargain and imposes a different sentence, then the outcome is a sentence.

It all works out the same. The prosecutor presents the plea bargain to the judge. It is the judge's prerogative to accept or reject. I'm sure any judge who rejects a plea bargain has some other plan in mind.

 

[Terrell]

If judges are rejecting plea deals, especially if it becomes routine, why would defendants accept said deals? Would prosecutors be willing to go along with this? Most cases, at least at the federal level, probably the states as well, are resolved via plea bargain.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plea_bargain

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judges-after-rulings-on-plea-deals.html

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/devils-bargain-how-plea-agreements-never-contemplated-framers-undermine-justice

 

[ronburgundy]

BTW,

The terms of the plea are very extensive and highly punitive in terms of lifetime on parole and lifetime restrictions on his movements, residence, he may never drink alcohol or look at porn or visit any sex-related business ever again, and must agree to a penile implant the will record his sexual arousal for the rest of his life. Also, the plea requires Sharper to enter an actual "guilty" plea (not merely no contest) to Fed drug charges and 3 specific rape charges in NOLA.

In addition, he must (to the satisfaction of prosecutors) "give truthful information about his crimes and accomplices to investigators, prosecutors, grand juries and trial juries "whenever and wherever requested."" That includes in the upcoming trials of his accomplices. That means the prosecution did not cut him a deal based on not being able to get multiple convictions against him personally, but rather based partly upon how it will make convictions against others easier.

In light of all that, I rescind my implication that most of the specific legal cases against him might have been "weak". It seems clear that he actually agreed to punishments that go well beyond what most convicted rapists get, which he wouldn't have done unless he knew multiple guilty counts were very likely.

 

[thebeave]

BTW,

The terms of the plea are very extensive and highly punitive in terms of lifetime on parole and lifetime restrictions on his movements, residence, he may never drink alcohol or look at porn or visit any sex-related business ever again, and must agree to a penile implant the will record his sexual arousal for the rest of his life. Also, the plea requires Sharper to enter an actual "guilty" plea (not merely no contest) to Fed drug charges and 3 specific rape charges in NOLA.

In addition, he must (to the satisfaction of prosecutors) "give truthful information about his crimes and accomplices to investigators, prosecutors, grand juries and trial juries "whenever and wherever requested."" That includes in the upcoming trials of his accomplices. That means the prosecution did not cut him a deal based on not being able to get multiple convictions against him personally, but rather based partly upon how it will make convictions against others easier.

In light of all that, I rescind my implication that most of the specific legal cases against him might have been "weak". It seems clear that he actually agreed to punishments that go well beyond what most convicted rapists get, which he wouldn't have done unless he knew multiple guilty counts were very likely.

The penile implant sounds bizzare. So what are they gonna do if he gets aroused? Throw him back in jail? Three boners and you're out? What about "morning wood"? Sounds like they essentially expect him to never masturbate for the rest of his life? Ridiculous. Forget about the implant and give him lots of porn so he can get his sexual tension out quietly in the privacy of his own room, rather than risk an assault on someone else. Shit, whoever came up with this sentence doesn't seem to know anything about human nature.

 

[ronburgundy]

BTW,

The terms of the plea are very extensive and highly punitive in terms of lifetime on parole and lifetime restrictions on his movements, residence, he may never drink alcohol or look at porn or visit any sex-related business ever again, and must agree to a penile implant the will record his sexual arousal for the rest of his life. Also, the plea requires Sharper to enter an actual "guilty" plea (not merely no contest) to Fed drug charges and 3 specific rape charges in NOLA.

In addition, he must (to the satisfaction of prosecutors) "give truthful information about his crimes and accomplices to investigators, prosecutors, grand juries and trial juries "whenever and wherever requested."" That includes in the upcoming trials of his accomplices. That means the prosecution did not cut him a deal based on not being able to get multiple convictions against him personally, but rather based partly upon how it will make convictions against others easier.

In light of all that, I rescind my implication that most of the specific legal cases against him might have been "weak". It seems clear that he actually agreed to punishments that go well beyond what most convicted rapists get, which he wouldn't have done unless he knew multiple guilty counts were very likely.

The penile implant sounds bizzare. So what are they gonna do if he gets aroused? Throw him back in jail? Three boners and you're out? What about "morning wood"? Sounds like they essentially expect him to never masturbate for the rest of his life? Ridiculous. Forget about the implant and give him lots of porn so he can get his sexual tension out quietly in the privacy of his own room, rather than risk an assault on someone else. Shit, whoever came up with this sentence doesn't seem to know anything about human nature.

I agree that some of the restrictions seem pointless or maybe even counter productive, but they are rather intrusive and restrictive so they speak to his guilt and his knowledge of the strong evidence against him.
As to the implant, I misunderstood and the description in my source was vague. Upon further reading it sounds more like something they would put on him temporarily and measure his response to sexual stimuli, like depictions of non-consensual sex. He must agree to consent at any future time to be tested as either part of parole or part of investigations for any future accusations, where the data could serve as evidence against him. IOW, his penis won't be monitored on a continual basis.

 

[Bronzeage]

BTW,

The terms of the plea are very extensive and highly punitive in terms of lifetime on parole and lifetime restrictions on his movements, residence, he may never drink alcohol or look at porn or visit any sex-related business ever again, and must agree to a penile implant the will record his sexual arousal for the rest of his life. Also, the plea requires Sharper to enter an actual "guilty" plea (not merely no contest) to Fed drug charges and 3 specific rape charges in NOLA.

In addition, he must (to the satisfaction of prosecutors) "give truthful information about his crimes and accomplices to investigators, prosecutors, grand juries and trial juries "whenever and wherever requested."" That includes in the upcoming trials of his accomplices. That means the prosecution did not cut him a deal based on not being able to get multiple convictions against him personally, but rather based partly upon how it will make convictions against others easier.

In light of all that, I rescind my implication that most of the specific legal cases against him might have been "weak". It seems clear that he actually agreed to punishments that go well beyond what most convicted rapists get, which he wouldn't have done unless he knew multiple guilty counts were very likely.

The penile implant sounds bizzare. So what are they gonna do if he gets aroused? Throw him back in jail? Three boners and you're out? What about "morning wood"? Sounds like they essentially expect him to never masturbate for the rest of his life? Ridiculous. Forget about the implant and give him lots of porn so he can get his sexual tension out quietly in the privacy of his own room, rather than risk an assault on someone else. Shit, whoever came up with this sentence doesn't seem to know anything about human nature.

I haven't read about an "implant". The hardword medical test refers to a measurement of the volume increase of the penis, when exposed to arousing material. In the case of Sharper, maybe they will show him videos of women drooling as they nod off to sleep. This test is designed to test the efficiency of the cardiovascular system and the physical ability to achieve and maintain and erection. It can't be any more reliable than a polygraph lie detector test.

When we consider that nervous anxiety of having one's penis tied to a machine is enough to put most men out of the mood, the whole idea is a ridiculous waste of time and money.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

For prosecutors, the plea deal avoids the risk of going to trial, where juries might be influenced by Sharper's fame and celebrity defense attorneys

Note the parts I bolded for you.

I don't buy that line for a second. The guy isn't that famous. And prosecutors don't make decisions based on non-legal garbage like that. The fact is this: nobody except the attorneys and the judge know why the deal was struck the way it was.

The news article, for purposes of legal information, is next to useless. The only reliable thing it tells you is the simple end result. That's it. Any analysis in it is good for emergency toilet paper and kindling--hopefully one doesn't use it in both of those ways and in that order.

What likely happened was that there was a hodgepodge of evidence; some of it pretty damn convincing, some of it extremely weak, some of it with enough elements to convict-for, some with not enough.

 

[RavenSky]

For prosecutors, the plea deal avoids the risk of going to trial, where juries might be influenced by Sharper's fame and celebrity defense attorneys

Note the parts I bolded for you.

I don't buy that line for a second. The guy isn't that famous. And prosecutors don't make decisions based on non-legal garbage like that. The fact is this: nobody except the attorneys and the judge know why the deal was struck the way it was.

The news article, for purposes of legal information, is next to useless. The only reliable thing it tells you is the simple end result. That's it. Any analysis in it is good for emergency toilet paper and kindling--hopefully one doesn't use it in both of those ways and in that order.

What likely happened was that there was a hodgepodge of evidence; some of it pretty damn convincing, some of it extremely weak, some of it with enough elements to convict-for, some with not enough.

I don't buy that line for a second. You aren't an attorney. And prosecutors don't make decisions based on non-supported garbage like that. The fact is this: nobody except the attorneys and the judge know why the deal was struck the way it was.

Your unsupported opinion, for purposes of legal information, is next to useless. The only reliable thing we know is the simple end result. That's it. Any analysis in it is good for emergency toilet paper and kindling--hopefully one doesn't use it in both of those ways and in that order.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For prosecutors, the plea deal avoids the risk of going to trial, where juries might be influenced by Sharper's fame and celebrity defense attorneys

Note the parts I bolded for you.

I don't buy that line for a second. The guy isn't that famous. And prosecutors don't make decisions based on non-legal garbage like that. The fact is this: nobody except the attorneys and the judge know why the deal was struck the way it was.

Actually, they do. Prosecutors are interested in whether they can win the case, they don't refuse to look at why they might lose just because it's not a good reason for them to lose.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't buy that line for a second. The guy isn't that famous. And prosecutors don't make decisions based on non-legal garbage like that. The fact is this: nobody except the attorneys and the judge know why the deal was struck the way it was.

The news article, for purposes of legal information, is next to useless. The only reliable thing it tells you is the simple end result. That's it. Any analysis in it is good for emergency toilet paper and kindling--hopefully one doesn't use it in both of those ways and in that order.

What likely happened was that there was a hodgepodge of evidence; some of it pretty damn convincing, some of it extremely weak, some of it with enough elements to convict-for, some with not enough.

I don't buy that line for a second. You aren't an attorney. And prosecutors don't make decisions based on non-supported garbage like that. The fact is this: nobody except the attorneys and the judge know why the deal was struck the way it was.

Your unsupported opinion, for purposes of legal information, is next to useless. The only reliable thing we know is the simple end result. That's it. Any analysis in it is good for emergency toilet paper and kindling--hopefully one doesn't use it in both of those ways and in that order.

If you were a prosecutor, would you want to take a rape case to court when there is no physical evidence and none of the victims can remember what happened. It would be a disaster.