2 responses

  1. A rapist never is a fundamentally good man who made a mistake. A rapist is an evil man, or terribly sick. Or both.

    I watched the judge’s sentencing announcement (a propos an earlier post, this judge let the…defendant…remain seated throughout, requiring him to stand only for the final statement). It was interesting to me that, after listing the various sentences that…defendant…would be required to serve consecutively, the judge noted that they aggregated to a sentence of “1,000 years to life,” and “you can only die in prison once,” so the judge declined to enumerate any more of the charges’ sentences to be served consecutively. The…defendant…just wasn’t worth the trouble.

    Frankly, he’s not worth all those taxpayer dimes, either; a 50 cent bullet would be more cost effective. The Socratesian solution would be cheaper, yet, and a fellow prisoner’s shoe string would be almost a sunk cost. But that’s a different proposition.

    On the other hand, Michelle Knight is one strong lady.

    A minor mechanical question: in the course of reading out the numerous sentences, the judge kept saying that the just read sentence applies to [counts 85 through 93], “inclusive, each and every one.” What kind of litigative madness requires that kind of phrasing? “[counts 85 through 93], inclusive” seems clear enough to this poor, dumb Texan. Indeed, my English teacher mother would have considered “inclusive” redundant, given the presence of “through.”

    Eric Hines

  2. Eric,

    I don’t know the answer to your question. My guess (and it is purely a guess) is that the judge was going out of the way to insure that there was no ambiguity in the oral pronouncement of the sentence.

    By the way, in a high profile case like this one, most judges are just as nervous as everyone else in the courtroom. Years ago, I would ask my staff if my voice quivered. As I got older, I no longer cared whether anyone could tell that I was nervous.

    All the best.


%d bloggers like this: