https://www.foxnews.com/us/mother-of-terrorist-to-plead-guilty So this lady, who aided and abetted a terror act that killed and wounded 26 people, is to get 18 months. The LW wanted Manafort to get 9 years. Can someone explain that logic?
I can explain that logic. Our legal system is a giant mess. There is no justice for all and your link proves it. She ought to be in jail for life.
It seems that she ratted herself out and the DA didn't really have any evidence that supported his claims.
The map she destroyed was not important to the prosecution of murder against the two perps who were both shot dead the day of their crime.
Manafort is white for starters. Also, if she did her crimes to please the mighty Alah then she is innocent.
You drive the car in a bank heist & someone is killed inside the bank & you are facing murder charges. Look at the college kids that cleaned up the “Marathon bomber” room after seeing him on TV. They got far more time than this women. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rferl.org/amp/29463336.html
The kids who cleaned the marathon bombers room were not involved in the plot & they also made a plea deal.
If you get notice of a murder plot and not only NOT report it, but destroy the evidence of said plot, conspiracy is an easy charge. Unfortunately as you pointed out, said destruction meant lack of physical evidence without the confession. So this is probably the best they could get with a plea. However, even with the plea agreement the Judge notably is not bound by the guidelines. In this case I hope the judge makes an example and goes over.
Most jurisdictions allow the defendant to withdraw a plea agreement if the judge doesn't accept the sentencing recommendations.
18 months seems excessive for shredding a piece of paper. She will probably get good time credit and do about 15 months. That seems fair.
What would your logic be for either to be different? They seem like two entirely different cases involving vastly different offences (and numbers of offences) to the point that they’re not really comparable at all.
Based on their respective cases, neither seem to be especially. I don't think imminent threat would be the basis for either sentence (or prospective sentence). I still don't understand why two entirely different cases would have any kind of relevance at all in relation the the sentencing for each other.
