Comments on: Hotel Sex Assault Suspect Gets 95 Year Sentence

By: Jack Tors

Jack Tors — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:50:59 +0000

True Dat! Why can’t they keep that stuff on the other side of the bridge.

By: FedUp

FedUp — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:52:41 +0000

What do you know about judge DiMatteo?

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:51:35 +0000

None of the charges carry the dealth penalty.

By: Liam

Liam — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 05:15:06 +0000

What no one seemed to pick up on was this guy’s previous convictions for 4 or 5 other violent crimes. Why was he out of jail? This guy should have been serving a 25 year sentence the last time he was arrested and never should have been free to commit this most recent crime. What a scum bag. He should get the death sentence for this last one. Why the hell should we pay taxes for this guy to sit in jail watching cable TV for the next 50 years. And yes, they do get cable TV in jail and internet access.

By: John Andre

John Andre — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 04:59:18 +0000

Mighty stiff sentence…the guy must be a real threat to society…they don’t even seem to sentence terrorists like that! I suspect the judge will try to reduce this…wonder if the 95 years is consecutive or concurrent? Any chance of parole?…life without parole would seem to be appropriate here.

By: Arlingtonian

Arlingtonian — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 03:11:34 +0000

Some judges believe in rehabilitation and redemption, especially for criminals who claim that people abused or neglected them during childhood. These judges give short sentences to boht violent and non-violent criminals. Wait and see what the judge does in this trial before concluding that the country “does not tolerate violence”.

By: 24north

24north — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 02:48:39 +0000

Got what he deserved. Don’t like the word “whopping” associated with the article. Is the writer trying to convey that 95 years is too much?

By: Just Me

Just Me — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 02:28:24 +0000

Thank you to the jury. I am glad I live in a county that does not tolerate violence.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:47:43 +0000

The minimum sentence the jury could have given was 55 years total since they have to run consecutively, not concurrently. In itself that would be a life sentence for a 51 year old. The increase from there was a combination of the offences being worse than the “minimum” (particularly as it’s the same minimum for the abduction with pecuniary intent and abduction with intent to defile) and the expectation that he would go straight back to crime if released.

By: Arlingtonian

Arlingtonian — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:04:20 +0000

“If the judge accepts the sentence”….. Big “if”.

If the judge is an Arlington liberal, the judge will order a lighter sentence, suspend part of the remainder, place the guy on probation from most of the term, and recommend rehabilitation and restoration of the felon’s voting rights when he leaves the hoosegow in about five years.

This guy has a history of convictions for serious criminal activities. He should have been in jail at the time that he committed the most recent of his known crimes.

Based on the above, why should anyone expect that the judge will impose a life sentence for just one more conviction on the guy’s record? The judge will likely decide that, because the guy is not a serial killer or mass murderer, he will benefit from rehabilitation and will become a model citizen.