Well, there is a reason why folks trot out character witnesses in trials--not always to avoid a guilty verdict, but at least to mitigate the sentence. I agree with you, though, that too often celebrity status is enough to do the trick, and it shouldn't be that way. But genuine remorse (which Huffman seems to have) does seem like an important variable. "But they're actors!" I can here everyone saying. That's true, but she seems to have been willing to stand up and take her punishment, which is more than many have done.

Doctoring your kid's SAT scores is a crime, for sure. But for me it doesn't rise to the level of heinous. On the flip side of the celebrity argument, the notion that you need to throw the book at famous people in order to show that you're tough on crime can be a problem as well. Then there's always good ol' schadenfreude.

I think her sentence was fair. It exists, she cooperated, she was found guilty, she has been publicly humiliated, she will serve some time. It's not clear to me what a long sentence would accomplish.

Perfect example of the inequality in how parents are treated by race/ class.

(Hope this comes out.)

WHITE PRIVILEGE & AND THE PRIVILEGE OF WEALTH

Homeless Mom's Outrageous sentence for trying to help her son get into school

In a micro sense, I can understand. Different jurisdictions, different offenses, in one case you are defrauding the government.

In a macro sense, it makes no sense at all.

Meanwhile, voting when you sincerely thought you were eligible, but were on probation gets you FIVE YEARS IN PRISON.

https://www.truthdig.com/artic...o-prison-for-voting/

There is a bit more to the Tanya McDowell case than what is reported. While awaiting trial she was arrested for selling drugs and offering a prostitute to an undercover policeman. The plea deal was part of that. According to Snopes her attorney was well satisfied with the deal and she faced a much longer sentence.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...mcdowell-sentencing/

Mik's additional detail on this one case notwithstanding, it sounds like you are arguing that the way to rectify judicial inequality is to increase everyone's sentences to the worst case injustice.

How about reducing the unequally treated sentences to those handed out to the privileged few instead?

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
Mik's additional detail on this one case notwithstanding, it sounds like you are arguing that the way to rectify judicial inequality is to increase everyone's sentences to the worst case injustice.

How about reducing the unequally treated sentences to those handed out to the privileged few instead?

I didn't think that was what he was arguing. I thought he was arguing that there were additional factors that hadn't been generally reported, and that those additional factors made her case not strictly comparable.

That is precisely what I was saying. Because she was eventually sentenced on the larceny, this case is trotted out as contrast but it is not the whole story. I don’t know if McDowell’s sentence was fair or not, but it is not as simple as what is commonly presented.

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
Mik's additional detail on this one case notwithstanding, it sounds like you are arguing that the way to rectify judicial inequality is to increase everyone's sentences to the worst case injustice.

How about reducing the unequally treated sentences to those handed out to the privileged few instead?

cause that’s not what happens.

True, the cases aren't apples to apples (I noticed that allusion to a drug charge, after posting, and it does admittedly add an element of confusion to the big picturre), but what about PJ's example?

No, it's not about a parent misbehaving to advantage their child, but judicial inequality by race and class is certainly a real thing. The inequality in paying for lawyers and posting bond, already sadly tilts the scales of justice.

(Still having trouble accepting a parent doesn't have the right to claim a friend's home where she mostly lives as her own - I'd think that was a "perk" of homelessness.)

The court system is run by people, especially judges. No good lawyer I have ever seen will ever predict what a judge will do.

We only get to see what the media in question chooses to present on these things. What is presented in the court system varies widely as do the circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by Mikhailoh:
The court system is run by people, especially judges. No good lawyer I have ever seen will ever predict what a judge will do.

We only get to see what the media in question chooses to present on these things. What is presented in the court system varies widely as do the circumstances.

Same for the law, from state to state. Same for the precedent, from state to state.

However, Mik, I will quibble with you on one point. If the lawyer knows the judge well, the lawyer may know how the judge typically handles similar cases. And, in that case, the lawyer could make a confident prediction.

About juries? Not so much.

Whoa, I guess the fact that I mentioned Mik in my comment was interpreted to mean that I disagreed with him. I don't, and I agree that the additional facts in McDowell's case do not make it a meaningful comparison or test case.

I stand by my original (muddled) point, however--namely that there appears to be a tendency to assume that the correct response to unequal/unjust sentences is to increase the sentences of those who weren't disadvantaged. All sorts of comments (not just here) point out that Huffman's sentence was a "slap on the wrist," then proceed to discuss other situations where a similar transgression received a much longer sentence. Ergo, the right thing to do is to give everyone long sentences.

I don't agree. We need to start thinking of reducing unjust sentences. I'm speaking hypothetically, of course. I understand that the current system doesn't work this way.

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
Whoa, I guess the fact that I mentioned Mik in my comment was interpreted to mean that I disagreed with him. I don't, and I agree that the additional facts in McDowell's case do not make it a meaningful comparison or test case.

I stand by my original (muddled) point, however--namely that there appears to be a tendency to assume that the correct response to unequal/unjust sentences is to increase the sentences of those who weren't disadvantaged. All sorts of comments (not just here) point out that Huffman's sentence was a "slap on the wrist," then proceed to discuss other situations where a similar transgression received a much longer sentence. Ergo, the right thing to do is to give everyone long sentences.

I don't agree. We need to start thinking of reducing unjust sentences. I'm speaking hypothetically, of course. I understand that the current system doesn't work this way.

quote:

it sounds like you are arguing that the way to rectify judicial inequality is to increase everyone's sentences to the worst case injustice.

I am genuinely curious. If not Mik, who do you think was arguing that?