Ciavarella, known for his harsh and autocratic courtroom demeanour, filled the beds of the private lockups with children as young as 10, many of them first-time offenders convicted of petty theft and other minor crimes.
His lawyers had asked for a "reasonable" sentence in court papers, saying, in effect, that he had already been punished enough.
That's the best part of the article.
jecasc
6:26 pm on Aug 11, 2011 (gmt 0)
Scum. I remember a judge in one of my countries states that was also know for "law and order" and got media attention for this. At some later time videos turned up where he consumed cocaine and bragged about having always given black people a little extra time on their sentences.
lawman
8:16 pm on Aug 11, 2011 (gmt 0)
Ciavarella has insisted that the money he received was not a bribe. He said it was a finder’s fee legally paid to him for introducing the owner of the detention center business to a builder who was later awarded the contract to build the juvenile centers. Ciavarella says there was never a quid pro quo of providing juvenile offenders in exchange for money. [csmonitor.com...] Rule #1 for anyone appearing before a judge for sentencing:
A quick way to receive a harsh sentence is to tell the judge you're not guilty after a jury found otherwise.
Judges generally like to see contrition.
thecoalman
5:29 pm on Aug 13, 2011 (gmt 0)
This story is local to me, little bit of background. Him and another judge closed the county juvenile detention center citing it as unfit. Coincidentally a private facility was just built up the road........ Incarceration rates were double or triple the state average. The owners of the facility and the developer of the project funneled millions to the judges. He actually admitted to the million dollars but claimed it was "finders fee" the developer gave him which strangely would have actually been legal if he had reported it to IRS.
Rule #1 for anyone appearing before a judge for sentencing:
That's rule #2. Rule #1 is when you have plea agreement keep your mouth shut. Both judges had a plea agreement for 7 years but he was running his mouth in the local media that he wasn't sending kids to jail for cash. The Judge rejected the plea agreement citing his inability to take responsibility. Basically it cost him his life..... he's 61 and will most likely die in jail.
lawman
8:26 pm on Aug 13, 2011 (gmt 0)
Umm, what's the difference between my rule 1 and your rule 1?
Swanny007
9:02 pm on Aug 13, 2011 (gmt 0)
I'd say he got a long enough sentence. Only because he will likely die in jail and that sucks. But he screwed a lot of children out of a more "fair" childhood by the sounds of it. I don't feel bad for him.
thecoalman
11:48 am on Aug 14, 2011 (gmt 0)
Umm, what's the difference between my rule 1 and your rule 1?
Because he did it twice. First in the media when he had a plea agreement which was about 2 years ago and a second time still claiming innocence just the other day when he gave a statement before the judge right before he was going to be sentenced . He could of got away with 7 years 2 years ago if he kept his mouth shut. Whether the second time made a difference would be speculative, but certainly possible because the sentences he received are consecutive. I believe there is a 20 year sentence, 3 year sentence and 5 year sentence.
lawman
7:18 pm on Aug 14, 2011 (gmt 0)
A distinction without a difference thecoalman. Either way he didn't listen to his lawyer and keep his yapper shut.
