Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tonto who wrote (93918)	3/4/2006 3:34:00 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Again - useless to compare him to Aldrich. Attorneys who represent drug dealers do that and it doesn't work if you go far afield in your pleas or comparisons. For every case that you find that indicates he should get less, the government can find a case supporting his getting more. That type of stuff, particularly in a different area of criminal activity, IMO, won't influence the judge. It comes down, in my own opinion, to the specific facts of the case (all the conviction counts,) the extent of acceptance of his own actions, the extent of his feeling "sorry" for his own actions or at least taking responsibility for his own actions, the extent to which he is perceived as someone who will attempt to job the system (including the judicial process,) and whether or not he is perceived as someone who can be rehabilitated. Obviously, his history affects the judge's thinking on potential rehabilitation. Often times, attorneys make recommendations to their clients, whether that is to "cooperate" and "roll" on others, or to "tough it out," with the hope that an appeal is one of those occasions that will bring a reversal. It's not a pleasant situation to be in and decisions are often very difficult, particularly for the judge.

To: tonto who wrote (93918)	3/5/2006 10:14:22 AM
From: tool dude	Respond to of 122087

"The guidelines are what actually matter" Tonto: After US v. Booker, decided last year, guidelines are only advisory. Judges must now impose a sentence that is “sufficient but not greater than necessary” by considering seven factors listed in 18 USC 3553(a), including: 1. The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; 2. The purpose of the sentence imposed (i.e., Retribution, Specific Deterrence, General Deterrence, or Rehabilitation); 3. The kinds of sentences available (i.e., alternatives to prison); 4-5. The Sentencing Guidelines and their Policy Statement, which are advisory; 6. The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities; and 7. The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. The only thing MANDATORY anymore is that the sentence be sufficient but not greater than necessary.