« "Who Gets Time for Federal Drug Offenses? Data Trends and Opportunities for Reform" | Main | "Alternative Courts and Drug Treatment: Finding a Rehabilitative Solution for Addicts in a Retributive System" »
November 12, 2015
Federal prosecutors seeking plea-deal max sentence of 12.5 years for Jared Fogle
As reported in this local article, headlined "Prosecutor to ask court to sentence Jared Fogle to 12.5 years," the feds have filed their sentencing recommendations in the child sex prosecution of former Subway pitchman Jared Fogle. Here are some of the details via the press report:
A court filing by prosecutors in advance of Jared Fogle's sentencing next Thursday tells the judge she must send a message to others involved in child exploitation. Fogle, the former Subway pitchman, has agreed to plead guilty to two counts: possession of child pornography and traveling across state lines to engage in sex with a minor.
The prosecutor is asking U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt to sentence Fogle to 12-1/2 years in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised probation. That was the maximum sentence the U.S. Attorney had agreed to seek in a plea bargain struck with Fogle in August. Fogle faced a maximum sentence on the two federal felony charges of 50 years. The judge has discretion to sentence Fogle to more or less than what the prosecution has requested.
"Persons with a sexual attraction to young children may be difficult to deter, but these sentences matter," the document said. "These offenders frequently communicate with each other online and they are concerned about the law enforcement efforts. "In many ways, the results of these cases help to deter and teach by example. There is no avoiding the point that, whatever the result, in this matter, it will be closely watched by current and potential offenders who have not yet been identified."
The document said that Fogle "repeatedly expressed sexual fantasies concerning children to multiple persons," but despite exhaustive investigation, "no victims under the age of 18 years could be specifically identified from those victims already charged in this case." Prosecutors have identified 14 victims. Prosecutors said in the filing that they were trying to prevent more trauma to the victims in a high-profile case that has already caused "substantial anguish."
"A public trial would only have made this process of healing even more protracted and difficult, without changing the outcome," the filing said. Among the new information in the court filing:
• Fogle paid for sex from adults "on hundreds of occasions."
• Some of the commercial child pornography he had, which prosecutors believe was produced in Eastern Europe, included actual or simulated sexual intercourse by children as young as 6.
• Russell Taylor, former head of Fogle's foundation, who has also agreed to plead guilty to child porn charges, gave minors drugs, alcohol and money to induce them into sex acts. Two of the minors were 14 years old.
Taylor will be sentenced Dec. 10. In his case, prosecutors agreed not to seek a sentence of more than 35 years in prison. Taylor agreed not to ask for less than 15 years in prison.
The new court filing said that Fogle rationalized his viewing of child porn made by Taylor. Because Taylor was going to secretly produce the material anyway, "he might as well benefit from the production by seeing the results, which interested him."
Prosecutors noted that Fogle had a "good childhood" and that his wife, who has filed for divorce, "had no idea he was doing any of these things."
Prior related posts:
- Subway pitchman and his "Jared Foundation" subject to serious child porn investigation
- What sort of child porn federal plea deal might be in works for Subway pitchman Jared Fogle?
- Even with plea deal, Subway pitchman Jared likely facing at least a decade in federal prison for sex offenses
- Has Jared Fogle gotten a sweetheart plea deal and/or celebrity treatment for sex crimes?
- Federal child porn downloaders complaining to judges about Jared Fogle's (too sweet?) plea deal
November 12, 2015 at 04:39 PM | Permalink
Comments
That is a sweetheart of a plea deal. I wonder why?
Posted by: Daniel | Nov 12, 2015 7:19:37 PM
I hadn't followed this case...I see now...money. Of course. There were $2 million reasons to cut a sweetheart deal.
Posted by: Daniel | Nov 12, 2015 7:28:22 PM
Where is the defense here?
1) Man hating, money loving, Vile feminist judge, man hating, money loving, vile feminist prosecutor. Do a full e-discovery on all their personal and work computers. Refer any child porn to the FBI for further investigation.
2) "...the judge she must send a message to others involved in child exploitation." Prosecution to scare a person the defendant has never met, and who has not yet committed a crime, nor even formulated the plan to commit a crime, and over whom the defendant has no control? This is a violation of Fifth Amendment right to a fair hearing. There should have been a motion for a mistrial, and for the vile feminist to recuse herself. She is nuts.
3) If 14 was the youngest age of the sex partners, they were adults in real life, minors only in the Twilight Zone World of the lawyer. The sexual histories of these wenches should be subject to discovery. Any 14 year old female who would have sex with someone his age and does not vomit, is a prostitute.
4) The reputation of the defendant is ruined, already. So a public trial could not damage him anymore. It could show some misunderstanding to his advantage.
5) Curiosity about child porn is a thought. Thoughts cannot be crimes. A crime requires an actus reus. Or is that an outdated concept?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Nov 12, 2015 8:49:48 PM
Is good childhood an aggravating or mitigating fact?
From my experience as a prosecutor, if a defendant came from a good background and had no history of criminal conduct, defense attorneys would argue for leniency based on that background and it being the offenders first offense. On the other hand, if the defendant came from a bad background, defense attorneys would argue that the bad background was the cause of the defendant going astray and that we should just give the defendant a chance. I am not sure how, logically, both a good childhood and a bad childhood can be mitigating.
Posted by: tmm | Nov 13, 2015 10:14:17 AM
tmm,
I could see no prior history being relevant (depending on the current charge - likely more for misdemeanors than felonies) but don't see the childhood portion of that (in either direction) as having any bearing. By the time someone has hit felonious behavior I really don't see much mitigation being possible.
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Nov 13, 2015 11:56:29 AM
Good and bad past actions can be mitigating depending on the situation or mindset.
Let me use ordinary life here. A friend is rude. Turns out she had a lousy day and it was hard for her to have the energy etc. to be polite. A person can very well give her a bit of a pass and not be too mad or "punish" them too much. OTOH, a person is a great person. She has a slip-up and is a jerk. A friend will say "okay, I'll give her a pass this once, since she hasn't had a habit of doing things. Everyone is human, after all."
So, not seeing the bad logic. If a person, e.g., was molested as a child, it very well might be used by the defense as mitigation. Bad childhood. If a person does something like exposes himself in public once while drunk but has a clean record, they might say, again, first time offense. At some point, it doesn't work well. Clean past when you murder someone is not very mitigating. Bad childhood might help a bit too but a murder is still a murder. Might help avoid the death penalty, but not a long prison sentence.
And, the confusion arose from a prosecutor. With respect, talking out both sides of one mouth, so to speak, is done by both sides. One example would be when a bad actor is used as a witness for the prosecution. The prosecution will try to put to person in the best light. Same person prosecuted? Bad light.
Posted by: Joe | Nov 13, 2015 1:30:36 PM
Is there no frickin justice in this country? $$$$ buys Jarod a much lighter sentence than those who have done lesser crimes.
What a shame, or should I say sham!
Posted by: kat | Nov 13, 2015 5:47:23 PM
For a detailed analysis, see Crimes against Children: Sexual Violence and Legal Culture in New York City, 1880-1960. I haven't finished read it, but so far it is a fascinating look at childhood from a legal perspective.
Posted by: George | Nov 14, 2015 2:17:01 PM
Kat,
You seem little a disturbed person or just an idiot or sadist. Is 10 or 12 years not enough for Jared? What kind of society would think that is not sufficient? China, Iran? It's good to see there is some rationality in the system here, though this kind of sentence is too long and far more than he would get in most modern industrialized countries. What is your problem? The guy is going to safer plenty.
Posted by: Mark38 | Nov 14, 2015 4:44:52 PM
Mark,
First, you don't need to be so rude. I'm neither disturbed nor an idiot, and I certainly don't believe that sadistic long sentences serve any purpose. There is no "rehabilitation" in prison, it is ware-housing, nothing more, nothing less.
Secondly, I was commenting on the fact that it seems Jarod's $$$$ will get him a light sentence considering the fact that lesser crimes such as accidental downloading of CP, teenage sexting and the like, can get you 5-10 in a federal prison. If there's a price to pay for the crime, it shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all price and your fame and $$$$ shouldn't be able to buy you a better deal than the average guy. Isn't the justice system supposed to be fair and equal for everyone?
Do I think the guy deserves 12 years in prison, a lifetime of supervision and the registry? No. There's better alternatives, and they should be available to everyone. So, back off, I'm not the enemy.
Posted by: kat | Nov 15, 2015 10:10:03 AM
A variety of reasons can be behind the sentence here & I'm not sure we should just focus on his money. Also, his fame is a burden too -- someone else might have some level of anonymity that he would not & his "fall" is greater too.
Posted by: Joe | Nov 15, 2015 12:01:56 PM
Kat. I understand you are neither disturbed nor an idiot. But are you a feminist, which is worse than either of those two conditions?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Nov 15, 2015 12:28:53 PM
SC-
Not a feminist either, just someone who thinks alot of people are getting a raw deal with our justice system.
Posted by: kat | Nov 15, 2015 3:42:17 PM
Kat. Thank you for replying. No lawyer here wants to take on my intact high school education.
I have argued, the system is so stupid, and that all immunities should end by constitutional amendment, including those of all benches, prosecutors, legislatures, and executives. They should be made to pay for damages due to their carelessness. So I support falsely imprisoned people getting compensation for lawyer carelessness. All government officials should be mandated to carry liability insurance or resign if refused insurance due to prior high risk behavior.
That being said, will you agree with me that the people suffering the most hideous and extreme damage are not the falsely accused, nor the excessively accused, but the ten of millions of crime victims each year, left unprotected by the lawyer profession in utter failure?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Nov 15, 2015 6:50:06 PM
I think a lot of you are miss-reading Kat. She is an activist FOR RSO's. She apparently knows full well what these unconstitutional laws are doing not only to RSO's and their families, but to America as well!!
Go back and re-read what she said. She disagrees with the lite sentence Fogle is going to get for his crime(s). Others who have done far less have received punishment FAR MORE than Fogle.
Posted by: Book38 | Nov 15, 2015 8:15:59 PM
Thanks to all who defended my comment which Mark38 misunderstood.
And to SC, I agree there are alot of bad lawyers, just like there are alot of bad doctors. Maybe there should be malpractice suits for bad defenses, just like for bad medical treatment.
Posted by: kat | Nov 16, 2015 12:38:22 PM
