Sandusky Sentenced

The problem with the sentence is the way courts work. This could be used as a precedent for future cases, no? In the overall picture, a couple of years per count/instance for this abuse of position and influence over children (and disguised under the cloud of a charity) needed to be addressed with a more substantial punishment. At 30 years, while unlikely, he could get out. He'd be 98.
The sentence just doesn't seem fair to the victims, and that's what it should be about, not whether or not he will die in prison. He's likely to die sooner rather than later anyway. I would like to see a better administration of justice in this case, and set the stage to zap any future case of a similar nature.

 

"Paterno Sentenced . . ."

jimromenesko.com/2012/10/09/oops-journalist-tweets-paterno-sentenced/

 

You raise good points. But also remember, if he does make it 30 years to age 98, that also only means that he'd be eligible for parole, not that he would be paroled. Doubtful that any parole board would grant parole on the first try, given the circumstances of the case.

 

No. It won't.

Doesn't work like that.

Sandusky will live the rest of his life in prison. Wanting anything beyond that- from "symbolic" sentences of a thousand million years to wanting him to get raped by another inmate- is not consistent with living in a civilized society.

 

So at what point does he do a sit-down with 60 Minutes?

 

No sentence is ever "fair to the victims". What possibly could be, regardless of the offense? If sentencing makes a victim feel better somehow, the victim has other issues. In general, society is too bloodthirsty and vengeful.

 

Probably true. New arrivals normally go to a central unit for evaluation for a few weeks (unless you happen to be in a really small state with just one or two prison units). From there, a determination is made regarding one's security risk, medical, psychological and educational needs for unit assignment.

Given his age and his low risk of escaping, I would suspect he'll be sent to a minimum or medium security unit with other older inmates. Might be in segregation at first, but if everything goes well he'll eventually move into a larger setting, probably get some sort of job, etc. I mean, you can't keep every sex offender, murderer, etc. in solitary forever. Not enough cells for that. The dudes that wind up there are the ones constantly getting in fights, assaulting staff, etc.

 

Part of Turtle Wexler's point, though, is that most of us are ok with it being 30 years because we know his age makes it likely he'll die in prison. Why should we take a criminal's age into account when we weigh the sentence for his horrible crimes? What if he was 35 years old?

It's hard to attach a number to something as heinous as rape, but three years for each raping of a child seems too little. Some of us have kids. I have a 3-year-old daughter. If she was raped by an adult and a prosecutor said "It looks like the best we can get is three years in prison, because that's what the general guidelines call for" I'd lose my mind. It would take every ounce of restraint to not go "A Time To Kill" on that person.

He ruined the lives of many of those kids. Even if it's symbolic, it wasn't enough.

 

That completely would never happen.

 

I wish it would have been 400. Totally in agreement with Turtle and DD on this.

That said, I doubt the "per-capita" argument was even considered.

 

Well put.

 

I'm afraid they'll end up putting him in the same block with convicted Bingo cheaters.