Seacrest wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
312 is not wrong, for once. And Hastert wasn't sentenced for bank fraud either.
Nor was he sentenced for lying.
And prior bad acts are considered in sentencing everyday at 26th and Cal and many other places. Just ask Julie DiCaro.
If he was sentenced for being a child molester, then you would see his conviction overturned. Which we all know won't happen. His prior bad acts were properly considered in his sentencing because they were directly related to the present day crime.
good dolphin wrote:
Thanks for the education on sentencing hearings. You seem to think I've argued that the information is not allowable in a sentencing hearing.
Tell us for what crime he was convicted.
His molesting is tangentially related to the crime. If it was directly related to the crime he would have been charged in state court with any number of sexual assault charges. He was not for technical reasons. However the law doesn't ask why he was circumventing the reporting laws, only whether he was intentionally circumventing them. If he was circumventing them to pay for his dying mother's casket, it would not have mattered in whether he broke the law.
He was convicted for structuring.
His structuring was
directly related to his trying to hide his sexual abuse. Which makes the abuse a real event to be considered in his sentencing.
The statute of limitations on the molestation ran out years ago. No technicality there.
The mom's casket reason is not even close to what Hastert did. It's a fallacy of composition rolled into a red herring.
Dennis Hastert marshaled the Patriot Act through the House. He was a major factor in it becoming law.
He knowingly broke that law
106 times. He could have gotten five years. He got 15 months. The actions of the US attorneys office in only asking for six months is inexcusable.
1. Statute of limitations most certainly is a technicality: But for the technical point of a statute running, he would have faced charges on the crime.
2. The law does not ask why a person "structures", only if he structured. The reason why is appurtenant, secondary or tangentially related. This is, of course, is the obvious and logical reason for me suggesting innocuous circumstances for the "structure" (the casket) would have been treated differently although the crime is the same.
He knowingly broke the law. I'm perfectly fine with prosecution for that crime. If I thought he received the typical punishment for the crime he committed, you would have no word from me.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
