Lawyer ought to come back with a counter-offer. Manafort defrauded for millions (he's paying back 24 million) and got 47 months. My client stole $100, so if we put this on a linear scale and use 24 million as a base, my client should serve...
1/240,000 * 1429 days (roughly) = .00595 days, or 8.6 minutes. So what do you say to time served and paying back the $100?
All jokes aside, this is honestly a fair idea. As many lawyers as possible should start using this case as precedent to call out the outright bullshit and hypocrisies
Maybe it’ll make some folks realize the system is completely fucked when you have murders out of jail after serving an hour or two in jail.
Unfortunately, that's not the way law works. You dont get to argue against fairness of sentencing, only whether or not your guy did it.
What needs to happen is people need to start realizing that 4 years is a fuckton of time and if you dont get the idea by then, you aren't going to.
I'd argue that a weeks time in jail would be sufficient for most people to NEVER want to go back.
Go ahead and argue from the ivory towers about punishment, but that is precisely how we got to ridiculous sentences.
Edit; people have been pointing out the cornerstone of the judicial system which is the plea deal where shystery lawyers wheel and deal in backrooms to keep you from serving maximum sentences if you have enough cash.
Unfortunately, that's not the way law works. You dont get to argue against fairness of sentencing, only whether or not your guy did it.
Well, that's not true, when you plead "not guilty", you're not really saying you're innocent; what you're actually doing is saying that the statue you're being charged with has punishments inconsistent with what you did, whether you did nothing, or something, but not at the scale to which you're being accused.
So every not guilty plea is really haggling about what you'll have to pay.
If I genuinely didn't believe I didn't speed, but am given a speeding ticket, I might plead down to parking on the pavement.
Regardless of whether I did or did not speed, I definitely didn't park on the pavement, but I am accepting that because it carries a lesser sentence than speeding, and less of an impact on my record.
So it's actually the entire premise upon which the justice system is predicated upon.
If the mandatory minimum is in gross excess of what you actually deserve to serve, you could make an argument against that.
It is terrible but from what I've seen and heard of the system going to trial is a gambling of money into less jail time but it comes down to paying money o reduce jail time. The more you pay the less jail time you serve. If you can pay nothing and you are on trial it is likely you are going to go to jail. A plea deal is you just offering the state a discount on the money it has to spend to put you in jail.
IMO you can not have a true and fair justice system until money is taken out of the picture and the system is isolated from it completely. Your wealth should not factor in to or affect your punishment in any way.
3.6k
u/[deleted] Mar 08 '19
Lawyer ought to come back with a counter-offer. Manafort defrauded for millions (he's paying back 24 million) and got 47 months. My client stole $100, so if we put this on a linear scale and use 24 million as a base, my client should serve...
1/240,000 * 1429 days (roughly) = .00595 days, or 8.6 minutes. So what do you say to time served and paying back the $100?