quote:

ORIGINAL: MalcolmNathaniel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

So you are completely fine with this guy possibly getting out in 2-4 years (though I believe he will face the minimum of 4-7)?

And that's called "The Straw Man Fallacy."

quote:

Even if the public thought he should receive the death penalty, he can't. The State of New York doesn't allow it. Prior to 2007 when the State of New York had a death penalty, conspiracy wouldn't have been a capital crime.

quote:

Uhm, I was referencing the above actually. And this re-quote is for everyone else as well, because it is obvious that it was missed. And I will say it over and over again everyone since has not even come close to answering my question. Being snarky and facetious, sure. But most discussion degenerate into that eventually, especially when one has to defend against many. But hey, surprise me, at least one person try to give an opinion on the above instead of trying yet again to argue with me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
So you are completely fine with this guy possibly getting out in 2-4 years (though I believe he will face the minimum of 4-7)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
Uhm, no. Checks your facts first.
New York State Statue on Conspiracy is in fact life max. But minimum is based on degree of count. A1 violent conspiracy carries a 20 year minimum. Now I doubt he will get A1, because that is usually the ones who get caught on tape paying the hitman or have their lover make a deal to testify against the. A2 carries a minimum of 5 years. This is more likely because of the nature of his case. Lastly is A3 at one year minimum. Doubt he would get this, as it is mainly for lesser co-conspirators, but hey, its a jury of human beings so anything can happen. He also can get 1-5 for abuse of the database. so if they run concurrent at the least time, he could serve 2-4 with parole. Wow, facts, not straw man

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
So you are completely fine with this guy possibly getting out in 2-4 years (though I believe he will face the minimum of 4-7)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
Uhm, no. Checks your facts first.
New York State Statue on Conspiracy is in fact life max. But minimum is based on degree of count. A1 violent conspiracy carries a 20 year minimum. Now I doubt he will get A1, because that is usually the ones who get caught on tape paying the hitman or have their lover make a deal to testify against the. A2 carries a minimum of 5 years. This is more likely because of the nature of his case. Lastly is A3 at one year minimum. Doubt he would get this, as it is mainly for lesser co-conspirators, but hey, its a jury of human beings so anything can happen. He also can get 1-5 for abuse of the database. so if they run concurrent at the least time, he could serve 2-4 with parole. Wow, facts, not straw man

I'm not qualified to give an opinion because I am not familiar enough with the evidence presented to know where this particular case falls in sentencing options. I'm also not well enough versed to know whether possibility of parole is an eligibility factor.

The jury isn't going to be sentencing this person. In the state of New York, I believe that is at the discretion of the bench within the parameters of the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

quote:

Even if the public thought he should receive the death penalty, he can't. The State of New York doesn't allow it. Prior to 2007 when the State of New York had a death penalty, conspiracy wouldn't have been a capital crime.

While this is accurate, it's important to remember that this was a federal case. The complaint (there's a link to it in FrostedFlake's post) lists the parties as the United States and Valle. Since the federal government tried him, and the federal government does have the death penalty, he would be eligible if he had committed a death-eligible offense (first-degree murder). If he had gone through with his plan, he could have been given the death penalty.

quote:

Uhm, I was referencing the above actually. And this re-quote is for everyone else as well, because it is obvious that it was missed. And I will say it over and over again everyone since has not even come close to answering my question. Being snarky and facetious, sure. But most discussion degenerate into that eventually, especially when one has to defend against many. But hey, surprise me, at least one person try to give an opinion on the above instead of trying yet again to argue with me?

I thought I did answer you above. Why shouldn't he get the death penalty? Because he didn't commit a crime that was so serious as to be deserving of the death penalty.

As far as what sort of sentence he might get, I wouldn't begin fathoming a guess. There are a lot of factors that go into something like that, and a lot of them are unknowable at this time. A pre-sentence investigation will be done, and that may turn up more information. Maybe he was suffering from severe untreated depression at the time, and he's now being treated for it. Maybe they find out that he has been interested in cannibalism since he was a teenager. That's why he wasn't sentenced immediately after the trial.

And anybody who can tell you that they know what a judge will do in any given case...well, don't go buying any bridges from them.

quote:

Doubt he would get this, as it is mainly for lesser co-conspirators, but hey, its a jury of human beings so anything can happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

Doubt he would get this, as it is mainly for lesser co-conspirators, but hey, its a jury of human beings so anything can happen.

Perhaps this is the phrasing that implied you thought the "jury of human beings" would be doing the sentencing.

Simply put, I'm fine with this guy getting any term that is acceptable under the law, as long as it fits his conviction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

Doubt he would get this, as it is mainly for lesser co-conspirators, but hey, its a jury of human beings so anything can happen.

Perhaps this is the phrasing that implied you thought the "jury of human beings" would be doing the sentencing.

Simply put, I'm fine with this guy getting any term that is acceptable under the law, as long as it fits his conviction.

So basically what you are saying is, in that entire post of sentencing information, all you got out of that was the blurb on jury being human beings? Do you, personally, think he is guilty? I have given my views on the subject and taken countess jibes and pokes for the trouble. What is yours on the matter, no legal-speak, no politically correct terms. Brass tacks what do you feel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompeii

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222
There simply wouldn't have been a conspiracy if nobody else knew about what he was thinking about doing.

This is interesting. I don't doubt what you said, but it begs the question:
What if he kept his illicit thoughts to himself, yet, he 'furthered'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

Doubt he would get this, as it is mainly for lesser co-conspirators, but hey, its a jury of human beings so anything can happen.

Perhaps this is the phrasing that implied you thought the "jury of human beings" would be doing the sentencing.

Simply put, I'm fine with this guy getting any term that is acceptable under the law, as long as it fits his conviction.

So basically what you are saying is, in that entire post of sentencing information, all you got out of that was the blurb on jury being human beings? Do you, personally, think he is guilty? I have given my views on the subject and taken countess jibes and pokes for the trouble. What is yours on the matter, no legal-speak, no politically correct terms. Brass tacks what do you feel?

My feeling is that I do believe he is guilty of conspiracy to commit kidnapping. Of course, I have very little to go on. I didn't see everything and didn't know everything.

I'm going to save you a little trouble here. In thinking about some of the things that *I* have done, discussed with others, etc, I have no problem saying that I have had My interactions on line to firm up plans for scenes and such. I have *never* said that I was completely innocent as far as the legal system is concerned. Even though I have engaged in certain activities with consenting adults, somebody with a hard on for Me in the legal system could have a field day with Me.

I'd have plead out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

Ok, how about this, nice simple english? I gave my opinion as to why he should not have been charged for conspiracy, right? What I am asking for is opinions on why no one feels he deserves the death penalty *sigh*. Does that make my question clearer for everyone?

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

The jury won't be sentencing him. To the best of my knowledge, no jurisdiction in the US uses a jury for sentencing, except on the issue of death (and then, the jury can only decide death or not death, and if the jury decides not death, the actual sentence is up to the judge, staying within statutory minimums).

The sentence will be calculated on the basis of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Here's a link: http://www.crimdefend.com/files/federal-guidelines.pdf. The way these work is that he's given a certain level, based on the offenses he committed, as well as a number of factors, both aggravating and mitigating. Then a criminal history score is assigned, based on his criminal history (since he was a police officer, this number will likely be fairly low). That gives the judge a range of months to sentence, although he can go lower or higher if he feels it's necessary (either would result in an appeal, though).

As an example, let's say his criminal history score is 1, and his offense level grades out at 37. He would likely be sentenced to between 210 and 262 months in prison. That's 17 years, 6 months to just shy of 22 years. Again, this is just an example...I have no idea where his offense level will be, and while I'm assuming his criminal history score will be 1, it could well be higher.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
Thanks for the honest answer. This is what I was getting at. I am arguing that he falls in that murky area of was what he did too far. To be convicted of conspiracy, sure. But if you take a hard look at anyone's life, I bet we can find some decent arguments for conspiracy in some of us here. Its because conspiracy is easy to prove. Hell, there is a post on this very site about kidnapping that would qualify for conspiracy to commit, and everyone posting in it facing charges. Will it happen, not likely. Could it happen, yes. Especially when more and more people are comfortable with these conspiracy verdicts. I can see why he didn't plead out, because he honestly felt he was innocent, or at least he could prove it. I would have too, because in my mind, if people don't see you standing there with a gun in your hand, how can they think you are guilty of a crime

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
Thanks for the honest answer. This is what I was getting at. I am arguing that he falls in that murky area of was what he did too far. To be convicted of conspiracy, sure. But if you take a hard look at anyone's life, I bet we can find some decent arguments for conspiracy in some of us here. Its because conspiracy is easy to prove. Hell, there is a post on this very site about kidnapping that would qualify for conspiracy to commit, and everyone posting in it facing charges. Will it happen, not likely. Could it happen, yes. Especially when more and more people are comfortable with these conspiracy verdicts. I can see why he didn't plead out, because he honestly felt he was innocent, or at least he could prove it. I would have too, because in my mind, if people don't see you standing there with a gun in your hand, how can they think you are guilty of a crime

You're welcome for the honesty. I come with a frame of mind that giving an honest opinion is the better way to go.

I'd take a guess that it wasn't so much that this person believed he was innocent. This guy is a cop. I think it was more of a case of him rolling the dice hoping he wouldn't get convicted. If a deal was even offered, this wasn't a case where he was going to skip jail time entirely.

I did a quick scan of the document that FF provided. If I recall correctly, the time frame of evidence was January 2012 to October 2012. That's not just dipping the toe in. That's got to be multiple chats and background research that were over the time frame of ten months. If all of that was allowed in evidence, that's what got him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist

Everyone pretty much said it all. I just don't understand how it isn't clear that this is that same as asking:

Q: At what point does wanting to kill someone become criminal?

A: The moment you speak to anyone about it, you are libel.
A: The moment you start planning to do it, you are conspiring.


If some mofo conspires to kill me, they better give him life or I will end up having to kill them myself.

See, I just threatened to kill someone. A hypothetical someone, in a hypothetical situation. Do you think that makes me libel? Nope. But plotting to kill and eat someone specific is another story entirely. Announce in a chat room or blog that you plan to start raping babies at a certain elementary school or kill the president and see how long it takes the authorities to show up.

I think the lines are clearly drawn and easy to follow.