“Why a plea deal here.”
I couldn’t bring myself to read the article; too depraved. But, a plea deal was probably offered because the prosecutor didn’t think he could get a stronger penalty. (I’m speculating.) It might also be that the prosecutor feels he could lose some or all of the evidence on a technicality and the jury might go for a lower sentence.
A lot goes on behind the scenes and even if the newspapers knew about it, their reporting is generally so bad they’d never get it across.
I would give him the “deal” just to bring closure to his victims, not have death penalty appeals drag on endlessly, and not force them through the ordeal of facing him in a Courtroom. It’s a fair cop.
“Why a plea deal here.”
I’m just speculating, but a plea deal here may be the “right thing” for the victims. If this case went to trial, one or more of the victims likely would have had to testify (while there is likely enough physical evidence to convict on some charges, victim testimony would be necessary to show the extent of what he did, etc.) Putting the victims through the misery of having to re-live what happened, testify about it, and be subject to cross-examination may not be worth it, even if they could get a death sentence for this guy.
Frankly, I’m a bit surprised this guy even took a plea. I half expected the sick f*ck (pardon my language, thinking about this guy brings out the worst in me) to take this to trial, simply to force the victims to testify.
I think this is one case where the impact on the victims is right tobe considered.
It would be years before they'd end up testifying. Why make them give up more of their lives for this scum?
Lock him up and let them try to move on.
I suspect the deal was made in order to keep the three victims and the “daughter” from going through the trial and testimony nightmare.
Without a trial (which the plea bargain negates) those three young women or the little girl won't have to relive the horror of those years.
There will be no trial.