A New York judge sentenced a woman who pleaded guilty to fatally shoving an 87-year-old Broadway singing coach onto a Manhattan sidewalk to six months more in prison than the eight years that had been previously reached in a plea deal.
She was drunk and got angry that the kicked her out of the park, so assaulted an old woman. Bitch deserves more than just 8.5 years. I prefer that her citizenship is revoked as well.
Well that’s gross. I’m not comfortable with giving the government the power to revoke a person’s citizenship; sounds ripe for abuse, but I get the outrage
Revoking citizenship is illegal under the Geneva convention and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Signatory countries aren’t allowed to intentionally make a person stateless. It is actually a big problem that has been abused several times throughout history. Nazi’s revoking Jewish citizenship is a prime example. More recently, we have the Uyghur Muslims in China.
The issue with revoking citizenship as a punishment is that it only pushes the burden of citizenship onto another country. It also removes any kinds of legal protections that a citizen may have had. Imagine if a country only allows citizens a right to an attorney. All that country would need to do to remove your legal council is strip your citizenship. Even if you later manage to get the citizenship back, you’ve still lost your original court case because you were forced to go through it without a lawyer.
I’m sure it was really something far more reasonable, like she was feeling scared or disrespected or thought the coach matched a profile or found that the coach had a suspicious amount of money on their being or…
In such a dense environment, even the very small proportion of the general population that's deeply mentally ill and violent can be very visible and do a lot of damage, and we don't really have any good tools to deal with them except for waiting for them to attack someone.
I live in NJ, been to NYC quite a bit. I saw “event planner from Long Island” and was confused as that doesn’t sound like the kind of NYC crazy person I’ve come to expect (at least the physically violent kind) but once someone mentioned she was intoxicated it clicked for me.
She has history of bullying her classmate. Some comments in nyc subreddit suggesting her father is a mafia - being cesspool contractor has something to do about it? I don’t see the connection anyway but if that’s the case, that could explain a bit.
According to prosecutors, Pazienza attacked Gustern after storming out of a nearby park, where she and her fiance had been eating meals from a food cart.
This is speculation, but sounds like maybe she got in an argument or was angry about something and was storming off somewhere. NYC is crowded and if you’re angry, trying to get somewhere, and not composed (getting into the mindset here, not what I really think) then “this old bitch in my way fuckin’ move arrrggg!” shove
Obviously, there’s nothing right about it and most of the time people behave themselves, even when they’re angry. Sometimes, though, they don’t. This isn’t a justification in any sense - more of a speculation in furtherance of an attempt at comprehension.
Her fiance perspective is that there was an argument and the suspect storms off and murders someone. Like, maybe now is a good time to see you’re engaged to a monster.
Lauren Pazienza spent the night of March 10 gallery-hopping with her fiancé in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood in celebration of 100 days until their wedding, her fiancé told authorities, according to a court document.
Pazienza had “several glasses of wine” during the evening before the pair stopped at a food cart for something to eat, according to the document filed by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
The pair went to Chelsea Park to eat their meal, but before they were done, an employee told them they would have to leave because the park was closing, the document said. Chelsea Park closes at 11 p.m.
“The defendant became angry, started shouting and cursing at the park employee, threw her food onto her fiancé, and stormed out of the park,” according to prosecutors.
Meanwhile, Pazienza “stormed” down the street and spotted Barbara Maier Gustern, prosecutors said.
Gustern, “in what turned out to be her dying words” before she lost consciousness, told a friend that a woman with dark hair “ran across the straight,” directly toward her, called her a b---- and pushed her as hard she “had ever been hit in her life” toward a metal fence, prosecutors said.
Gustern, according to a witness, “fell in an arc, falling directly on her head,” according to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
Pazienza “turned around and walked away, leaving Ms. Gustern prone on the sidewalk, bleeding from the head,” prosecutors said.
Pazienza called her fiancé after the assault, he told authorities. When they reconnected, she picked a physical fight with him, accusing him of ruining her night, prosecutors said. He insisted the two head home, but security video from the area showed that Pazienza stayed in the area long enough to watch the ambulance arrive for Gustern.
She later told her fiancé what she had done, he told authorities. When he asked her why she would do such a thing, she said the woman "might have said something” to her.
Lauren Pazienza spent the night of March 10 gallery-hopping with her fiancé in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood in celebration of 100 days until their wedding
honestly, this is just piece of shit person, living off someone else’s money, running around contributing nothing to society. fuck her
I found a different article that quoted her “former friends” and one said she was basic. Another said she’s the poster child for white privilege and a third said she’s nothing but trouble lol
While this woman is pure scum and I wish her the worst, is the legal system allowed to do that? Like is it constitutional for you to reach a plea deal and then have years added to it? Like isn’t a plea deal like the final say?
Plea deals are between the prosecutor and the defendant. The judge can sentence you to anything. That’s why, frequently, prosecutors will drop the most serious charges in a plea deal. That way the judge is limited to sentencing to only the lesser charges.
All I have to say is good. Fuck this woman (not literally she doesn’t need to get laid). I drink and have been drunk many a times, never in that stupid inebriated state have I EVER thought to murder someone or try and cause them harm. Do dumb shit? Absolutely I’m a drunk fool so you give me a bucket, a empty street and a fuel and lighter I’m likely gonna kick a flaming bucket down the street. But to hurt someone or seek a fight etc? No. I’m still able to keep my morality and decision-making under control over those things.
So no judgement but for me: drunk fool doing dumb shit ≠ decision making under control. To each there own but shit can spiral out of control rapidly. Be safe out there.
If you do dumb shit while drunk, you still chose to get drunk. Your fully-aware mind is perfectly capable of grasping that you getting drunk will make you do dumb shit, so imo you’re fully responsible for your actions while drunk.
I mean I suppose but when I drink now I rarely get to a state I cannot retain reason and think somewhat critical. This was mostly when I was in my 20s. But I would argue being drunk does NOT at all absolve me or anyone else from consequences of actions we made… even impared. That’s why I agree with this woman’s sentences. She absolutely deserved what she got.
I was an alcoholic for a solid 3 years and been shitfaced many a times. Never have I tries to physically hurt people or engage in fights, despite my anger issues.
Judge saw through the crocodile tears, and sentenced her appropriately. I see a lot of pearl clutching in this thread, would you be so empathic towards this sociopath if the victim were your mother or grandmother?
I don’t know anything about this case, but revenge is not a solution. Our penal system is totally fucked, and part of the issue is people have been told that revenge is justice. It isn’t. We will all be paying for this woman to be locked up and she won’t be able to contribute to society. If we tried to rehabilitate, that’d be one thing. We just try to punish though, and people like you act like a harsher punishment is good somehow. What good does it do?
Oh no, who could have ever predicted that actions might have consequences. She killed someone, completely unprovoked to boot. It’s not revenge to lock her ass up, it’s the consequence of her killing someone.
It’s still revenge. I agree there should be some consequences, but should it be for life? I can use your exact argument to just keep increasing the sentence. At what point is it not acceptable? Should every mistake be a life sentence? The US already has the worst incarceration rate by far in the world. Why are people still ok with this shit? Why do they think this argument is acceptable? It doesn’t work as a deterrent, so what’s the point, besides making you feel good about getting revenge?
Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Without personal emotion I do not believe it to be revenge and with a professional judge upholding judicial standards set by society I do not believe the consequence bestowed on this woman displays any signs of being revenge. That’s not so say I agree that is true for every punishment but it most certainly aligns in this case, I’m sure that line will look different for different folks. She purposefully acted in a violent manner that directly killed somebody. No unpredictable tools, mechanisms, devices, or external factors were at play. Her hands and her mind alone violently shoved and killed this woman. Eight years seems plenty appropriate to me. Depending on circumstances, some within her control, should could see a meaningful reduction to that sentence. Theirs plenty of incarceration issues to take issue with that display a failed system, this isn’t one of them in my assessment.
My biggest issue is this was obviously spontaneous. The punishment likely would play no factor in preventing this from happening. If the sentence is death, she still probably would have done it because it wasn’t considered. In that case, what does 8 years do that 4 years or life also doesn’t do? The harshness of the sentence doesn’t matter and it’s just another person to pay taxes to keep in prison who is providing nothing in that time. What good does it do besides making people feel like she got what she deserved (aka, revenge).
Let’s say you accidentally hit someone with your car. Does that deserve a life sentence? You killed someone and I draw the line at killing, so I think we should lock you away forever. Stupid, right? I’m not going to argue for a certain amount of punishment (none of it effectively works to deter crime, especially accidental), but I will argue that we need to fix our system. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and that doesn’t need to be the case. We could have rehabilitation instead of torture too, which would help people when they finally do get out to contribute to society.
He’s not being a white knight towards this specific woman.
He’s raising the topic of what is best for society.
I agree with his point. Law and order doesn’t exist to punish people or to get revenge. It exists for the benefit of society. And putting people in jail, making them unable to contribute to society and becoming a permanent burden on society is bad for society. It doesn’t do any good.
Frankly, I think it’s better for society to just bring back the guillotine if we aren’t going to rehabilitate.
We have the data for this that it won’t. The US doesn’t have rehabilitation programs. We have punishment programs. We don’t really provide tools for people to improve their lives when they’re out. If anything, we do the opposite. If you have a criminal record of any kind, getting a job is significantly harder, which pushes people into illegal work again.
We have the data that it LIKELY won’t, but that just means we need to do better with our prisoners and rehab programs. It’s not an excuse to let someone who killed someone right back onto the streets.
Are other countries with better rehab programs letting manslaughter convicts out in less than four years?
Looks like it’d be this one, so yeah they are more lenient:
Causing the death of another (Vållande till annans död, literally ‘causing another’s death’). It roughly corresponds to negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. The law reads: “A person who causes the death of another person through negligence is guilty of causing the death of another and is sentenced […]” The punishment for Vållande till annans död is:
A fine (day-fines) if the crime is petty,
Any prison term up to 2 years, or
Any prison term between 1 year and 6 years “if the offence is gross”.[2]
That requires intent. I’m pretty certain intent can’t be implied in this case. She pushed her and she fell, but was old and frail and died. She did not kill her on purpose. It’s involuntary.
We’re talking about a different nations laws and it’s defined differently. I’m done if you aren’t going to read the details of the thing you literally posted. Read the things it links to.
Manslaughter (Dråp) (roughly corresponds to voluntary manslaughter).
Voluntary manslaughter state of mind requirment:
Intent to kill:
Voluntary manslaughter requires the same intent as murder. The charge of murder is reduced to manslaughter when the defendant’s culpability for the crime is “negated” or mitigated by adequate provocation.
If you accidentally kill someone without intent, it isn’t voluntary manslaughter. If someone pisses you off and you intend to kill them and you do, then it is. Pushing someone and then ending up dead is not that most likely. The intent was not death most likely. It was injury.
If someone pisses you off and you intend to kill them and you do
That’s murder. Listen man, you obviously never studied criminal law, just read the wiki on manslaughter. The whole point of voluntary manslaughter is you intentionally assault someone but didn’t mean for them to die. If you did something negligent, (make a turn in a car without looking) and kill someone, that’s involuntary manslaughter, aka negligent homicide.
It’s true though. I have a family member who is a white woman that has repeatedly crashed her car into buildings while trying to run people down, fractured skulls with hammers, thrown people into oncoming traffic. She’s just got a bad temper. Nothing ever happens to her. Cops talk people out of pressing charges, she’s never even spent a night in jail.
The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world by a large margin. How do you see that as acceptable? We have a culture of revenge and it doesn’t do any good. Shouldn’t the purpose of laws be to do as much good as possible, not to make people feel nice because they got revenge?
There are people doing more time than her for having weed on their person or passing a bad check to buy groceries or pay rent. Let’s start there, not with people who kill old ladies because they’re mad about being asked to leave an establishment that is closing.
We need to reform the system completely. Saying we need to start with only one crime is being shortsighted. It’s all fucked, and it’s fucked so some people can profit off of it. I agree those people serving more time is worse, but it’s a symptom of a rotten system, not something we can fix one case at a time.
I don’t know both sides to this debate. Do you disagree? If so, what do you think? Tbh it sounds pretty reasonable to focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment, is the difference mainly focused on terminology differences?
So in your mind, we punish a criminal mostly/exclusively for the benefit of other citizens who might then decide not to commit crimes? What do you think about the criminal themselves?
The only reason there is a discussion is because of people who would routinely get taken advantage of by the criminals they advocate for.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The only reason there’s a discussion about the purpose of criminal punishment?
So in your mind, we punish a criminal mostly/exclusively for the benefit of other citizens who might then decide not to commit crimes?
I’d say that’s pretty close. I’m not going to take an “all-or-nothing” approach and say prison can’t rehabilitate, but I would say it’s mostly to punish criminals so fewer people commit crimes.
What do you think about the criminal themselves?
It depends on the crime and the criminal.
The only reason there is a discussion is because of people who would routinely get taken advantage of by the criminals they advocate for.
I’m referring to people who don’t understand that not everyone is good. There are bad people out there with no hope of rehabilitation and will just take advantage of any opportunity to receive a lesser punishment for their bad deeds.
You’ve reduced the argument for less severe punishment in favor of rehabilitation to:
I’m referring to people who don’t understand that not everyone is good. There are bad people out there with no hope of rehabilitation and will just take advantage of any opportunity to receive a lesser punishment for their bad deeds.
This is a horrible argument. No one is saying that there aren’t some people who can’t be helped. However, should all people be damned because a few can’t be redeemed? In a system that prioritizes rehabilitation, you’d review the prisoners progress occasionally to see if they’re problems are being solved. If they aren’t, they’ll serve a full lengthy sentence. If they are then they can stop being a burden to society and instead benifit society. What’s not to like about that? We waste so much money on holding people in cells and not even trying to fix them. Why do you want your taxes spent for that?
However, should all people be damned because a few can’t be redeemed?
The thing is, all people aren’t damned. There are plenty of options for rehabilitation in the US for prisoners who have the capacity for it and haven’t committed crimes so heinous they don’t deserve it. Those options should remain there and we should always be looking for ways to improve and expand upon them.
Still, what deters people from committing crimes isn’t ‘going to rehab.’ It’s going to prison where they lose their freedom and have to live in worse conditions than they would on the outside. If prison becomes an ‘adult daycare,’ then criminals would be less deterred by punishment and more willing to commit crimes as a result.
I think your confusing what in saying. I’m not saying send them to some rehab center. I’m saying change prisons to allow for rehabilitation. We can provide more and better education opportunities and ways to improve. We can provide options for them to seek therepy and medication. We can allow them to work towards becoming a better person. They’d still be in prison without their freedom. It’s still a punishment. It’s just a punishment that you can come out of better, rather than one where you come out worse with little to no prospects of legal work.
The US has more people in prison as a proportion of the population than almost anywhere else, and notoriously harsh prisons by developed world standards. We also have some of the highest crime rates among developed countries, so it would seem that maybe punishment isn’t that great a deterrent.
Multiple examples have been linked in the thread already, and even more come up on a simple google search of the topic.
But you and I both know that you dont care about the sources, why even ask? We both know youve already decided that hurting people works, no amount of science or fact is going to shake you of that.
Real professionals have been working on this for decades, and you hand wave that away as “victims getting taken advantage of by criminals.”
You dont care about the facts. You have some personal grudge about this. Why not be honest?
I’m curious what you are specifically referring to. You’re the one who brought up scientific studies. Link to them. Are you saying you just read what was in this thread and that’s what you’re citing? Okay. Link to the specific studies you’re talking about.
I’m not interested in what other people are referring to. I’m interested in what you, the guy bringing up studies, is referring to.
You say they’re “definitive.” Show me a definitive study. Go on. Go ahead. Don’t make me comb through and assume what you’re talking about. Stick your neck out and own it.
Youre a faceless stranger, not the TA reading my dissertation. You have already been shown a few sources. I know you know how to use a search engine. You clearly dont want to be convinced. Why would I google anything for you?
Youre hyper focusing on a word because you think that no matter what study I find, you can try to pull a “well technichallllllly” on one version of the words definition, because you think no social science can show definitive results. The gotcha attempt is more see through than glass.
Detail why I would put work into something I know you wont read just so you can misinterpret a single word in bad faith to avoid having to confront the reality that punishment isnt a real deterrent?
It would be more productive if you come clean about what happened to you that makes this emotional for you. Family in and out of the system? Or a partner? Who or what hurt you so bad you feel the desire to punish strangers?
Harsher sentences do not effectively work as deterrence from the data we currently have. The US has the highest incarceration rate, by a large margin, so all else being equal we should have the lowest crime rate, right? This isn’t true, so we can pretty reasonably say our method is not working and is placing a larger burden on society than it needs to (though it’s making some people very wealthy).
Obviously all else isn’t equal. However, given a large enough data set (the entire world) it’s clear it isn’t working because we’re literally the worst. Thats why I said all else being equal, because variations should average out across the sample and we should be able to compare performance.
Also, you’re confusing “harsher sentences” with “incarceration rate.” They are not the same.
They aren’t the same, but they’re closely related. If we double all sentences then, over time, the incarceration rate would double, all else being equal. If each prisoner is spending more time in prison, more people will be in prison at any given time.
Rehabilitation and revenge are two out of the four aims of sentencing. There’s also deterrence and prevention: sending a message to everyone else that this is not okay, and simply keeping the convict away from the public so they can’t hurt anyone else.
Yes, they would still be locked up for a period of time. I don’t know what the right amount of time is, but just wanting more always creates more issues. You can always ask for more. It never ends. The sentencing time should be based on data and science, not feelings.
What’s actually being punished? Would she have been sentenced to 8.5 years in prison if she pushed an 87 year old who was slightly less frail and instead of dying sustained major injuries? Would she have been sentenced if she pushed an extraordinarily healthy 87 year old who knew how to gracefully fall and sustained no serious injuries?
It seems that the act of pushing alone isn’t enough to sentence a person to nearly a decade in prison. There was likely no intention to kill, though that was the outcome. What if she sneezed on the 87 year old, and in a fit of panic the 87 year old fell over and died? Again, no intention to kill, though that would still be the outcome.
I think it’s clear this should be punished more intensely than sneezing, pushing an old person would very commonly result in serious injury, so this is definitely assault.
Again, no intention to kill, though that would still be the outcome
No it wouldn’t, you have to prove intention to kill for a murder charge. This is manslaughter, a lesser but still very serious charge. Killing someone on accident is still a crime, shocker, I know.
Muder is murder. Manslaughter is manslaughter. Intention, knowledge, negligence, does not matter for manslaughter, unless the intention was to kill, which upgrades it to muder instead.
For cases where injury was sustained there is legal doctrine know as the Eggshell skull rule
The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.
I think the idea is the actual damages aren’t going to go down just because the person was frail. Someone with prexisting medical problems aren’t going to need less physical therapy compared to someone who is average.
So you’re saying that you don’t understand what manslaughter is. You ask a lot of questions, but I get the feeling that you’re not the type of person that is actually looking for answers
you’re saying that you don’t understand what manslaughter is
No, they’re just saying that instead of manslaughter being a more severe charge than assault, maybe it should be lessened to be equivalent. Similarly, maybe attempted murder should carry a charge equivalent to actual murder.
pushing an old person would very commonly result in serious injury.
This is why she’s being punished. You cannot assault an 87 year old without expecting serious injury or death. Just like you can grab a 20 year old and shake them by the shoulders and they’ll be fine, but if you do the same to an infant they’re probably going to die.
I direct you to comments below, detailing the circumstances. She got drunk, became increasingly belligerent and violent… then took out her rage on this random old woman viciously. She showed no remorse, to the point of sociopathy.
She was out celebrating 100 days until she got married, why does every mundane thing have to be celebrated? Just go out and have a good time with your fiancé. You don’t need an excuse.
Holy fuck, what an unhinged person. Bad person right from reacting to “we close at 11” with aggression, but then just escalates it irrationally from there. Throws her food on her fiance (I’m guessing maybe he had the gall to tell her to chill out, or maybe he was just there and she thought he was a safe target), and then goes out and attacks an elderly woman because she “thought she might say something”. Then later meets up with her fiance again and blames him for “ruining the night” when it was all her own insane reaction to being told a place was closing and they’d have to hurry up.
Is she the avatar of the shitty entitled aggressive consumer who blames everyone else for their problems? Fuck her and everything about her.
Her sentence might only be 8.5 years but with her anger management skills, it’ll probably get increased. Though she’ll be locked up with a bunch of people who aren’t on their 80s, so she might not survive her next tantrum.
Is she the avatar of the shitty entitled aggressive consumer who blames everyone else for their problems?
Well… from the descriptions of her actions, it seems like she has undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues. Which is kind of an even sadder indictment of society.
This is the problem of moral luck. We often want to punish people more because factors outside of the perpetrator’s control turned out badly. Either we should punish everybody harshly when they push an elderly person, whether or not it injures them, or someone like this should get a pretty light sentence. Yet we have an irrational pull to treat the cases differently.
She was charged with manslaughter. I’m not sure of the degree though. Manslaughter basically means you didn’t intend to kill someone but you did someone something reckless that resulted in someone’s death. Premeditated murder is a completely different, and much more serious, charge.
Defense lawyer here, though not in New York so take this all with a grain of salt, I just felt I should put my 2 cents in based on the vibes in this comment thread.
It is weird for a judge to go against a joint recommendation, which seems to have happened here. It takes something extraordinary. The article indicates that the judge felt she didn’t truly feel remorse for her actions, which could do it, but doesn’t always do it. But, to me, just the fact that the judge went against a joint recommendation will always raise an eyebrow. Usually, if the sentence isn’t harsh enough, the prosecutor won’t agree to it, and if it’s too harsh, the defense won’t agree to it. So joint recommendations are almost always followed.
Yes, it’s “only” 6 more months, but that’s really not insignificant.
Now, to all the people screaming about how it’s not enough (and especially to the one person saying she should have her citizenship revoked (???)), I wonder, how many of you are also against the prison industrial complex we have here in America? I challenge you to think beyond your initial emotions. Is this death tragic? Yes, absolutely it is. It was senseless violence for no good reason. So I agree, it deserves a harsh punishment.
But everyone keeps calling it murder. Not every killing is a murder. I also want to challenge people to watch their language. Murder carries with it an intent to kill. A shove does not intend death, regardless of who is being shoved. No, it shouldn’t have happened, yes, it’s tragic, but it was not a murder.
Now, all of you calling for 20+ years, really think about what you’re saying. Do you think this person has no chance of rehabilitation? Those are the people we put away for life. I don’t think that’s the case here. She fucked up. Obviously. She deserves to be punished harshly, and make no mistake, she is. 8.5 years is a LONG time. Think back to where you were 8.5 years ago. Were you the same person? I doubt it. Now, do you think she might better herself in those 8.5 years? I think it’s very likely, though again, the prison industrial complex makes that less guaranteed.
Sentences have many goals. Some of the primary goals are punishment, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the defendant. Does this sentence punish her? Yes, a lot. Does this sentence give her a chance for rehabilitation? I’m not sure on that one, but that’s because it may, if anything, be too long, and cause her to get too used to life in prison, and increase her likelihood of recidivism. But that’s not her fault, that’s the fault of the prison industry. Does this sentence protect the public? I say yes. She lost her temper once and it’s now going to cost her 9 years of her life (if you include the duration of the case). That’s a hell of an incentive not to repeat.
Alright, I think that’s all I really want to say. But please, everyone, in the future, try to think about how our prison system really works, and how much you support it, when you’re discussing individual crimes, not just when you’re talking about the system as a whole. I think most people on this site lean left, and therefore should support reducing the prison populations, but this comment section has me worried with everyone here frothing at the mouth to give MORE prison time, when the sentenced amount should be enough to satisfy our sentencing goals.
It was first degree manslaughter- the article says she was facing “up to 25 years.” She threw a tantrum about being asked to leave a park that was closing, threw her dinner on her fiance, “stormed down the street” then saw a little (100lbs vs her 175) old lady across the street, crossed the street while calling her a bitch, then shoved her onto her head. I don’t think 9 years is too long for society to be protected from her.
The court ruled “not a murder” because it was just a shove, but anyone could have seen than a shove like that would likely kill a small 87 year old woman and it certainly wasn’t an accident. The woman wasn’t just in her way while she was angry walking down the street. She went out of her way to attack the woman.
Then there’s the part where she evaded police for weeks, hiding her phone at a separate location, changing locations multiple times. I don’t think the longer end of her sentencing options would have been unreasonable at all.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I don’t think there’s really a number of years to put on it to make it appropriate. But I’m sure the lawyers discussed all the points you raised in negotiating this sentence. These numbers aren’t pulled out of our asses, there are guidelines (almost certainly, again, not barred in NY) which help ensure similarly situated defendants are sentenced similarly.
What I’d like to hear more about, is whether the judge also ordered some kind of anger management counseling. I think that’s what she needs more than a longer sentence.
If we truly want to balance the goals of protecting the public, adequately punishing the defendant, and also rehabilitating her, I don’t think a few more years either way is what makes the biggest difference. I think it more depends on what she does with that time. I’m not sure what the situation is like within New York prisons as far as counseling goes, but if they have good programs, it’s hard for me to imagine, if she takes it seriously, that 8.5 years of good counseling wouldn’t be helpful to her, and to society at large.
I also think she could make all those gains in counseling, again, if she truly takes it seriously, within a couple of years. But then, I could probably be convinced that 2-3 years isn’t long enough for causing someone’s death. I’ve seen people get that for having the wrong amount of weed on them.
But then we get into the larger discussion about the entire prison industrial complex. We need some kind of change with how our prisons operate. Exactly how that looks isn’t the point here. I’m just trying to point out that there’s a bigger picture in play, and hope that people will consider that in the future.
In the end, nothing we say here has any impact on her life or the issued sentence. But it might have a difference in how people perceive and talk about the system as a whole in the future, so I think it’s important to not lose sight of that.
I don’t give a fuck about rehabilitation. There’s 8 billion people on this planet, we can afford to dispose of the shitty ones. Spend those resources that would go towards rehabilitating her on someone who needs help and hasn’t killed any innocent old women.
We’re reaching a French revolution type point in American history. There are people who are the product of absurd privilege, and there is everyone else.
This is tipping the scales a little bit back out of the favor of privilege. In the grand scheme, it’s effectively misguided and miniscule. But it’s a sign of progress nonetheless.
Our legal system sucks ass. There’s no reason why so much of our population should be imprisoned for relatively minor reason… but we’re also used to money being more important than culpability. Affluenza, rapists getting off because it would be detrimental to their future to be held accountable, or generally rich people being able to pay for their crimes financially instead of punitively.
So when someone from a perceived place of privilege is actually held to the same standards as one of us serfs, it’s usually celebrated. It sucks, but it’s true.
This thread more of an indictment of our shitty legal system than of the defendant.
There's a big ass difference between international murder and an angry lash out killing someone. At 87 you're going to die from stuff that a random angry drunk won't consider.
No dumbass, murder has to be premeditated and/or intentional.
Shoving someone out of your way/down doesn’t imply that you intended for them to actually die. And it’s pretty hard to prove that you did in court.
Manslaughter - the unintentional act of killing someone through irresponsible or negligent actions - is a fucking slam dunk here. You want this sour bitch to walk free because the prosecution couldn’t get a conviction, because laws are written more specifically than the few words you learned in school?
Go away. Adults are having a conversation, sweetie
No dumbass, murder has to be premeditated and/or intentional.
IANAL but in American law, second degree murder can be intentional without being premeditated. For example, a bar fight that ends in someone dying. There is also voluntary and involuntary manslaughter (in the later, the person does not intend to kill the victim). Different states define the different degrees and types differently.
I mean, it’s kind of the risk you take being drunk in public, you have no idea what you are going to do other than be held accountable for it when you are sober afterwards. It’s kind of insane that it is seen as “normal” to take that kind of risk, for alot of people it’s a surprisingly common occurrence.
Bro when I get drunk I wanna cuddle things, not shove elderly people. If “am I gonna murder someone if I go out drinking” is something you have to consider, the problem is you, not the alcohol.
Legally speaking you’d have a hard time prosecuting that as murder. You’d have to prove that she was intending for the old lady to die when she shoved her. I’m guessing she was charged with some combination of second degree assault and manslaughter, maybe more. She was facing up to 25 years and took a plea deal for 8, which I assume included part of the charges being dropped.
Add comment