Feb 10, 2016

The difference of one month


Without getting involved in a discussion of the legal issues of what can and cannot be done regarding changing such plea bargains, as I really do not know much about that, I was surprised to hear that this morning a judge changed the terms of the deal with Olmert, in which he was supposed to go to jail for 18 months, unilaterally.

From what I understand, the judge decided that this is a serious situation and the agreement giving Olmert 18 months jail time is not serious enough to teach anybody a lesson. The judge decided that the deal must be changed, and since the two sides were not successful in coming to an agreement the judge changed it unilaterally.

So, what is the new sentence?

19 months of jail time instead of 18 months.

Really? This is the significant punishment that made it worthwhile to change a plea bargain unilaterally? one additional month will give deterrence and impress on others the seriousness of the crime in a way that 18 months would not have?

I don't know the legal issues involved, but this seems a bit silly. If added deterrence was needed, it seems upping the punishment to 3 years or 5 years would have shown how serious the situation is, in a way that 19 months and 18 months don't. And if it did not warrant such a change, I think adding one month does nothing and should not have been done



------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------

4 comments:

  1. Is it because of the second Adar? :-)
    Leap Year punishment! That'll teach 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  2. R. Sedley -- that leads to all kinds of interesting shaylos. What if Olmert were sentenced in Adar in a non-leap year but ended his sentence in a leap year? Does he get out Adar Rishon or Sheni? OR vice-versa. ;)

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...