• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hang a toddler, 10 years probation. Wat?

There has to be more to this story other than as it was presented . . . doesn't there? 😱
 
wut?

She also pleaded guilty to criminal vehicular operation for hitting a pedestrian, a bicyclist and another driver as she fled from her home in a minivan in November 2016.
Click to expand...
 
Perknose said:
There has to be more to this story other than as it was presented . . . doesn't there? 😱
Click to expand...
There is when I looked further, however, it's sketchy.

The claim from her lawyers was years of abuse by her husband had caused her to become mentally unstable. That is what they say lead to her actions at the time.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news...d-toddler-sentenced-to-probation/89-574401488

In May, Denys Karia testified his mother suffered both physical and mental abuse in Ukraine and here in America. Denys said that his mother told him she had suicidal thoughts and a week before the incident told him she was worried she might hurt someone else, but her husband would not allow her to seek help.

Joseph Sabir, who saved the child from Karia's basement, testified that he could tell she was not acting herself and told him to call the police.

“I believe what transpired that day was not a reflection of her and who she was from everything I’ve gathered from people. With a lot of medical care and treatment and support I don’t think she poses a risk to the public or her children,” Sabir said in May.
Click to expand...
 
dank69 said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/day-care-owner-gets-probation-trying-kill-child-223552842.html

Wait, wat?

Wait, wat?
Click to expand...

I'd be very curious to understand "the perfect storm of factors" which the judge cited as reason to sentence with such seeming leniency. It's easy to second guess from a position of ignorance of those factors but they sure would need to be some big-ass factors. If she had a complete psychotic break and wasn't in control of her actions you would think she'd likely be committed to a mental institution for much longer than "time served." This is where giving judges somewhat broad sentencing guidelines is a two-edged sword, for every instance they could use it to "serve justice" you have an equal possibility for a shorter sentence like the swim team rape guy.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
There is when I looked further, however, it's sketchy.

The claim from her lawyers was years of abuse by her husband had caused her to become mentally unstable. That is what they say lead to her actions at the time.
Click to expand...
Well I'm sure it's unlikely she'll ever be abused again. Wait, wat?
 
glenn1 said:
I'd be very curious to understand "the perfect storm of factors" which the judge cited as reason to sentence with such seeming leniency. It's easy to second guess from a position of ignorance of those factors but they sure would need to be some big-ass factors. If she had a complete psychotic break and wasn't in control of her actions you would think she'd likely be committed to a mental institution for much longer than "time served." This is where giving judges somewhat broad sentencing guidelines is a two-edged sword, for every instance they could use it to "serve justice" you have an equal possibility for a shorter sentence like the swim team rape guy.
Click to expand...

It's possible to think mandatory minimums are a bad idea for a lot of reasons and question the sentencing in this case which appears excessively lenient based on the little info available.
 
K1052 said:
It's possible to think mandatory minimums are a bad idea for a lot of reasons and question the sentencing in this case which appears excessively lenient based on the little info available.
Click to expand...

If you're going to do away with mandatory minimum sentencing then by definition you'll need to accept that judges will sometimes sentence more leniently than you would like. There's a reason we set those sentencing guidelines in advance and that's so we can't make things up on the fly when some defendant is getting sentenced. That's bad in every sense and removing those guardrails would turbocharge our already large problem of disparate sentencing to minorities.
 
glenn1 said:
If you're going to do away with mandatory minimum sentencing then by definition you'll need to accept that judges will sometimes sentence more leniently than you would like. There's a reason we set those sentencing guidelines in advance and that's so we can't make things up on the fly when some defendant is getting sentenced. That's bad in every sense and removing those guardrails would turbocharge our already large problem of disparate sentencing to minorities.
Click to expand...
The difference between you and me is you're interested in punishment and I'm simply interested in public safety.
 
glenn1 said:
If you're going to do away with mandatory minimum sentencing then by definition you'll need to accept that judges will sometimes sentence more leniently than you would like. There's a reason we set those sentencing guidelines in advance and that's so we can't make things up on the fly when some defendant is getting sentenced. That's bad in every sense and removing those guardrails would turbocharge our already large problem of disparate sentencing to minorities.
Click to expand...

Wait you're arguing that mandatory minimums actually prevent racial disparity in sentencing? Everything I've seen indicates that the opposite is true because of how prosecutors charge cases (especially drug cases) under mandatory minimums.
 
K1052 said:
Wait you're arguing that mandatory minimums actually prevent racial disparity in sentencing? Everything I've seen indicates that the opposite is true because of how prosecutors charge cases (especially drug cases) under mandatory minimums.
Click to expand...

So your problem is with prosecutors and yet you blame sentencing guidelines. Isn't that thinking akin to saying people wouldn't be fat if only we mandated they eat using smaller forks instead of addressing the behavioral causes?
 
glenn1 said:
So your problem is with prosecutors and yet you blame sentencing guidelines. Isn't that thinking akin to saying people wouldn't be fat if only we mandated they eat using smaller forks instead of addressing the behavioral causes?
Click to expand...

This is just goal post moving and random gibberish.
 
dank69 said:
The difference between you and me is you're interested in punishment and I'm simply interested in public safety.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but he characterizes allowing judges to consider the entire context of any one crime instead of being bound to rigid, a priori rules as "make things up on the fly when some defendant is getting sentenced."

Judges who take a closer look at the entire circumstances of a case are NOT "making things up on the fly." Glenn's argument here is wildly intellectually dishonest. 🙁
 
Perknose said:
Not only that, but he characterizes allowing judges to consider the entire context of any one crime instead of being bound to rigid, a priori rules as "make things up on the fly when some defendant is getting sentenced."

Judges who take a closer look at the entire circumstances of a case are NOT "making things up on the fly." Glenn's argument here is wildly intellectually dishonest. 🙁
Click to expand...
Well that is certainly out of character for a stand-up guy like glenn.
 
glenn1 said:
Context like "Brock Turner was likely going to the Olympics for swimming, why should a harsh sentence ruin his life"?
Click to expand...
A single anecdote does not a conclusive argument make. Thing is, I know you're smart enough to KNOW that, yet you argue in this fashion anyway. At best, it's lazy. At worst . . .
 
Generally speaking, a person may have an episode that includes psychosis making them not criminally responsible for an action and, at the time of assessment, have had that psychotic episode go into remission. What would be the purpose then of committing this person to further institutional treatment? What's important is mandated ongoing treatment and assessment to prevent relapse and allow intervention e.g. hospitalization to occur before something bad happens in the future.

All that said, I have no idea about whether this ruling is appropriate for her individually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top