#Read #Judge #Sentencing #Diddy
The trial of Sean “Didi” Koms ended on Friday (October 3) in the New York Court, after Judge Aaron Supramanan sentenced the singer to the federal prison and a fine of $ 500,000.
In his speech before the delivery of Didi’s penalty, Supramian said that he was weighing the contributions of the Mongols in music and black society, in addition to issues related to drugs and mental health, against his abuse of power and controlling his relationships.
The judge said that 50 months in prison “is sufficient but not too big” for Didi’s crimes, and that he was short enough to have life after that “with his family.
Read the full ruling letter for Subramanian in the court below.
) Benefiting from the reasons worthy of observation, including the provision of education for deprived children in New York City.
There is no doubt that you are devoted to your family, including your mother, your children, your sister and your nephew. Of course, the court considers all the side consequences of your imprisonment and conviction, including all the things that Mr. Donaldson mentioned, including the effect of any sentence on your family, including your mother and your children. The court also notes that you have faced addiction problems, and the court is happy to hear that because of your imprisonment, you are on the way to overcoming these demons. The court also realizes that these drugs may have exacerbated your wrong behavior and violence over the years.
However, the court must consider all your history here. With regard to vibrant series, hotel nights and relationships with Mrs. Ventura and Jane, the court rejects the defense attempt to describe what happened here as just intimate experiences, or just gender, drugs, and rock & roll music. The history of good deeds cannot lead to the disposal of the record in this case, which showed that you have misused the strength and control that you went through the lives of women who declare his love dearly. I have abused them physically, emotionally and psychologically. This abuse has been used to reach your way, especially when it comes to air and hotel nights. The defense argument that all this was not related to crime behavior in this case. Evidence of abuse regarding mixing and hotel nights is huge. I was sitting here for the testimony of Mrs. Ventura and Jin. We read about it in text messages and email. We have seen it in pictures of Gashes, bruises, and broken doors, and we saw your video hitting from Mrs. Ventura. This was subjugation, and Mrs. Ventura and Jane pushed the ideas of ending their lives. This is the truth of what happened.
However, we move to a sufficient, but not too big to achieve the goals of issuing the provisions stipulated in the sub -item (a) (2). First, the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime, to enhance the respect of the law, and to provide a penalty only for the crime. These were serious crimes that were harmful to two women. Physical harm, emotional harm, and again, psychological harm, whose effects continue to this day.
Mrs. Ventura and Jin threw drugs, forcing Mrs. Ventura to addiction to opiates, which she is struggling with today. Behavior occurred for more than a decade, however often during that time period. Why did a long time? Since you have the strength and resources needed to continue this, and because you are not arrested. I paid the price and organization of these works. It was not John. I was more than that. Even if your work satisfies your sexual desires, instead of money. But coercion was the same, if not worse.
The court then considers sufficient deterrence of criminal behavior. Each of the specified and public deterrence here requires a large sentence. As for the specified deterrence, while I said here in court, I read it in your message, that you are sorry, you will not do it again, one thing that amazes me in particular. After filing the civil lawsuit to Mrs. Ventura, in detailing many of the things that she witnessed here in court, after the government carried out inspection orders on your homes, after the brutal video was announced in 2016, and only one month after your apology in Instagram where you said many things that I said here today, you had another night in the hotel where you achieved a gene. As the government describes it, I kicked five doors in a gene, lifted it from the ground from its neck in strangling, and bored a gene in her head, kicked the body of a gene, pulled a gene from her hair, and slapped Jin so much that she fell. Jin reliably witnessed these things. According to her, I said the following: ‘Take this mud. You will not destroy my night. It is better to go out there. You will not destroy my night. Go out there. He absorbs his penis. He has sex with him. I’m not interested. Just you will not destroy my night is ridiculous. Jin asked, sarcastically, is this coercion? It is clear that deterrence is a major consideration. The court did not guarantee that if these crimes were issued again.
The court looked at everything I heard here in the courtroom and the materials presented about the programs in which Mr. Combs will participate and he considered the analysis of Dr. Kruger and Dr. Kaplan. But the one that was surpassed by the entire trial record in this case, which was the court here for eight weeks. The court watched the martyrdom, saw the messages and saw the evidence. The need for general deterrence also requires a large sentence. Unfortunately, these acts of sexual violence are common. A large sentence must be presented to send a message to the aggressors and victims alike that exploitation and violence against women say real accountability. Victims who have the courage to report the aggressors should see the excruciating shock of this attack by testimony in the court that their efforts can lead to meaningful accountability. This enhances respect for the law, and promotes punishment, all the values that we are supposed to serve today. Regarding the public protection interest from other crimes of the defendant, for the same reason, it is necessary that there be a meaningful sentence to protect the public from other crimes.
Regarding the provision of the defendant with the required educational or vocational training, medical care, or other reform treatment in the most effective way, the court notes once again that there are reports from doctors, and the court has been examined in determining what the appropriate sentence is. But again, there are other factors that leak in the opposite direction. The court also considered the factors mentioned in Section 3553 (A) (3) to (7), including in particular the scope of guidelines and the need to avoid unjustified rulings.
The weight of these factors, the court reaches some conclusions. First, the sentence proposed by the government will be 135 months, too much to comply with the purposes mentioned in Section 3553 (A) (2). The Persimony statute requires when the defendant ruling is issued, and the court is not allowed to impose more than necessary to achieve the purposes of the ruling. The court agrees that there is a serious, justified penalty that reflects the strict factors that it took. The profound impact on Mrs. Ventura and Jane, the time period, over a decade, during which these prostitution occurred, the fact that these crimes occurred with intimate partners, evidence of physical violence and coercion. But the sentence of more than 11 years, over the maximum legal limit of sentences for these crimes, was not reasonable.
The court notes that in the comprehensive data provided by the parties, while there are some cases that the rulings enjoy in the government, most of these cases included the defendants with more comprehensive degrees of criminal history, as it included things such as killing, the extensive prostitution institution with many victims and the like. Even the monitoring department, which particularly took care of the evaluation of the strict factors here, including the indication that the impact of this issue on Mrs. Ventura and Jane recommends that there is a sentence less than half of what the government proposes. The government’s recommendation also does not take any account of Mr. Compass’s diluted circumstances, such as his lack of recent criminal history, his family’s relations and relationships with society, drug abuse, and the history of mental health, which the court looked at.
On the other hand, the suggestion of the defense of the 14 -month sentence, which is actually presented, will not be enough to comply with the purposes stipulated in the statute, the other part of Persimony requirements. Just as the government’s proposal does not explain the mitigating factors set by the court and the Ministry of Observation, the defense proposal does not explain sufficient factors: the severity of behavior in discussion, violence, drugs, coercion, and destruction that caused Mr. Combs. The defense proposal is not sufficient to meet the goals of issuing rulings, including reflecting the seriousness of the crime, enhancing respect for the law, providing a fair punishment, and providing adequate deterrence from among others. Here, the data shows a wide variation of the sentences below the external cases within the government’s proposal. As the government notes, each issue must be evaluated on its facts and conditions, facts and circumstances in this case unique.
The weight of all relevant factors and consideration of the evidence that the court heard in the trial, the information provided by the parties and the monitoring administration, the court decides that the sentence is sufficient but not too much to comply with the purposes stipulated in 18, USC, Section 3553 (A) (2) is a fan of 50 months of the calf. This is a dangerous sentence that reflects the seriousness of your crimes and behavior. This is difficult to prison away from your family, friends, children and society. But you will have life after that and provide you with a way towards rehabilitation. The court notes that this sentence corresponds to the sentence recommended by the monitoring department, which also evaluated the facts here in a comprehensive manner.
I will now mention the sentence that I intend to impose, but the lawyers will have a last opportunity to make legal objections before the sentence is finally imposed. The defendant will be sentenced to 50 months in prison.
#Read #Judge #Sentencing #Diddy
