Perhaps unsurprisingly, lots of folks are still discussing Larry Nassar’s state sentencing (basics here), with a number of commentators taking issues with the judge’s comments while imposing his sentence and others praising how the entire sentencing was handled. Here is just a sampling of some of what has caught my eye on this front:
By Judge Steve Leben, “Michigan judge provides clinic on showing compassion to crime victims at sentencing“
By Sophie Gilbert, “The Transformative Justice of Judge Aquilina”
By Carissa Hessick, “Judicial Impartiality at Sentencing”
By Rachel Marshall, “The moment the judge in the Larry Nassar case crossed a line”
My own thoughts on this matter keep returning to the essential fact that Nassar’s state sentencing was much more symbolism than substance from the very start given that he had already received a functional LWOP sentence in federal court AND the fundamentals of his state sentence were largely established by his plea bargain. In this context, I suppose it is not too surprising that so many folks are so caught up in the particulars of the symbolism of how the judge conducted this unique sentencing hearing and spoke sharply to the defendant. But I still find myself ultimately much more interested by and concerned about the work of sentencing judges when it really makes a substantive difference.
Prior related posts:
- Does and should anyone care about just how and where child molester/gymnastics coach Larry Nassar rots in prison?
- Child molester/gymnastics coach Larry Nassar gets maxed-out, 60-year federal prison sentence for child porn offenses
- Child molester/gymnastics coach Larry Nassar gets (only?!?) 40 to 175 years as state prison sentence for mass molestation
- Highlighting comments, commentary and consequences from state sentencing of mass molester Larry Nassar