In the Philadelphia area, we have a rather scandalous sentence for a high profile case that looks like it may get a little more scandalous.

Mark Bowden, the author of Black Hawk Down and other books, just wrote the following article about the Tracy McIntosh case in Philly condemning the prosecutor who handled it and apparently agreed to a very light sentence for a rape case in a backroom deal and is now pretending it never happened, leaving everyone else to swing for it:

The Point | The about-face in big-deal case | Inquirer | 09/16/2007

Tracy McIntosh was a prominent University of Pennsylvania professor and a nationally reknown brain surgeon. However, he has a notorious reputation for giving young women 'roofies' and raping them when they are doped out, so say the prosecutors and others concerning his conviction for doing just that to a student, a betrayal made worse given he knew her family. Whilst his unproven reputation for prior roofie rapes isn't allowed as a sentencing consideration, he did plead 'no contest' pursuant to an 'open plea' (meaning pleading guilty and throwing himself on the mercy of the court with no plea bargain deal) to a rape charge concerning the present matter. The sentencing judge sentenced McIntosh to just short of a year on house arrest, citing his lack of a prior record and that his expertise on brain surgery is too essential to lose through incarceration.

The extraordinarily light sentence draw a large public outcry, and the state appealed the sentence on the grounds of undue leniency. The appellate court reversed the sentence and remanded it for resentencing consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines and ordered that another judge handle the sentencing (this last aspect was later reversed by the state Supreme Court that otherwise upheld the decision). The appellate decision was quite harsh on the sentencing judge.

This was presented to the public as a case where a 'liberal judge' cut absurd slack to a convicted rapist.

However, it appears not to been so simple or that the judge was soft on rape.

There was a deal.

It appears the prosecuting attorney cut a backroom 'off the record' deal with McIntosh's attorneys where McIntosh would give an open plea of 'no contest' to the rape charge and the judge would sentence him to a year of house arrest. That way, the prosecutor could get the conviction and result but not appear to look like it formally agreed with the sentence. Apparently, from the judge's comments and other actions now, it appears such a backroom deal was made. For more information, read the Bowden article. The prosecution then cried foul and appealed the sentence, getting a remand for resentencing. This would leave McIntosh open to a full whack sentence with him already have pled no contest to the charge.

With all the cries of 'liberal judges' treating serious crimes unseriously, I'm actually glad that a high profile case such as this got exposed. It's actually quite common for such 'backdoor deals' to happen for the sake of sliding them by. They just don't happen too much with high profile cases that would draw immediate fire. I think McIntosh deserves a prison sentence for what he did; however, if a deal was really made, then it should be honoured as required by the Constitution. However, in cases like this when it blows up, the blame too often goes to the wrong people and too often the most to blame is the prosecutor himself or herself who makes the backdoor deal and pretends it never happened, leaving the judge and defence counsels to take the heat whilst they pretend they have the aggrieved status. I wish the prosecutor would just show some character and admit the deal. It was to obvious that it happened when you read about it and learn about the case.

__________________

So, you're proving that lawyers, prosecutors, professors and judges are human, make bad decisions and do bad shit too ?

Was there something more specific about this case you'd like us to address ?

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

There is plenty to discuss about the topic, but what someone chooses to comment about it is the same for any thread. But initially it shows much more than what you said--it was a good example that people often don't have the actual facts when being trigger happy with automatically assuming that a judge is 'soft on crime' when a light sentence surfaces, a popular anti-judiciary chest thumping theme. There is often more to the story than one knows and assuming the judge must be the one at fault and is 'soft on crime' often isn't the case.

__________________

Yes, well and what the media TELLS us about a case and even sometimes the records OF a case can fall a bit short of explaining the entire case in it's full context.

Noted.

Lets hear what others might say.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

When I use the word "liberal judge" - I do not mean liberal as in political slant, I mean a judge who is liberal in his decision processes, I said before that what I should have said is "progressive judges" who favor "progressive healing" of criminals more than punishment.

__________________

The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity; where everything is made simple, and in that simplification the truth is lost.

Guess that depends on our definition of "progressive healing" :-)

For some, I think very appropriate "progressive healing" would be done with a rope a bullet or electric chair.

-BE HEALED !!-

BZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt !

It amazes me what some people beleive can be "healed" or "recovered".

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

It is, and it is what disturbs me about these cases.
It is apparent to any clear thinking individual that a persons wealth and/or social status is quite beneficial when convicted of a crime.

I will contend that O'Sullivan knows more than I do about the justice system, and probably more than anyone else here as well.
He may be correct, that these kinds of shameful cases reflect more of a system-wide problem than a problem with judges specifically.
However there are judges that give out sentences, and include in their writings that they are choosing little to no sentencing because there lacks "treatment" facilities in the prison system.

I absolutely believe that a persons sentence should be in direct correlation with the damage that they have cause the individual(s) victims AND future damages. That "treatment" for a criminal should not enter a judges mind whatsoever.
They are there to interpret and execute laws, they are not there to provide care for a criminal.
At the same time it is the prosecutors duty to gather evidence and present it to the court...in my mind they should have no say into the "judges role" of executing law.

__________________

The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity; where everything is made simple, and in that simplification the truth is lost.

Yes this is true. I beleive that it shows itself to be true throughout all of human history, this favoritism towards an "elite" class that happens.

I would theorize that this system wide problem has to do with the fact that people are PART of the "system". Humans and their organized societies and "systems" for maintaining civility have always dealt with these problems and will continue doing so.

What can be done to solve ?

I don't know. It seems to be a very consistent occurence of civilizations as they "progress". Seems to happen in stages.

Busybodies.

Busy bodies with the judge TITLE.

100 % agreed.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.