News

Defense lawyer here, though not in New York so take this all with a grain of salt, I just felt I should put my 2 cents in based on the vibes in this comment thread.

It is weird for a judge to go against a joint recommendation, which seems to have happened here. It takes something extraordinary. The article indicates that the judge felt she didn't truly feel remorse for her actions, which could do it, but doesn't always do it. But, to me, just the fact that the judge went against a joint recommendation will always raise an eyebrow. Usually, if the sentence isn't harsh enough, the prosecutor won't agree to it, and if it's too harsh, the defense won't agree to it. So joint recommendations are almost always followed.

Yes, it's "only" 6 more months, but that's really not insignificant.

Now, to all the people screaming about how it's not enough (and especially to the one person saying she should have her citizenship revoked (????)), I wonder, how many of you are also against the prison industrial complex we have here in America? I challenge you to think beyond your initial emotions. Is this death tragic? Yes, absolutely it is. It was senseless violence for no good reason. So I agree, it deserves a harsh punishment.

But everyone keeps calling it murder. Not every killing is a murder. I also want to challenge people to watch their language. Murder carries with it an intent to kill. A shove does not intend death, regardless of who is being shoved. No, it shouldn't have happened, yes, it's tragic, but it was not a murder.

Now, all of you calling for 20+ years, really think about what you're saying. Do you think this person has no chance of rehabilitation? Those are the people we put away for life. I don't think that's the case here. She fucked up. Obviously. She deserves to be punished harshly, and make no mistake, she is. 8.5 years is a LONG time. Think back to where you were 8.5 years ago. Were you the same person? I doubt it. Now, do you think she might better herself in those 8.5 years? I think it's very likely, though again, the prison industrial complex makes that less guaranteed.

Sentences have many goals. Some of the primary goals are punishment, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the defendant. Does this sentence punish her? Yes, a lot. Does this sentence give her a chance for rehabilitation? I'm not sure on that one, but that's because it may, if anything, be too long, and cause her to get too used to life in prison, and increase her likelihood of recidivism. But that's not her fault, that's the fault of the prison industry. Does this sentence protect the public? I say yes. She lost her temper once and it's now going to cost her 9 years of her life (if you include the duration of the case). That's a hell of an incentive not to repeat.

Alright, I think that's all I really want to say. But please, everyone, in the future, try to think about how our prison system really works, and how much you support it, when you're discussing individual crimes, not just when you're talking about the system as a whole. I think most people on this site lean left, and therefore should support reducing the prison populations, but this comment section has me worried with everyone here frothing at the mouth to give MORE prison time, when the sentenced amount should be enough to satisfy our sentencing goals.

👮‍♂️

The abhorrent details from another article:

Lauren Pazienza spent the night of March 10 gallery-hopping with her fiancé in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood in celebration of 100 days until their wedding, her fiancé told authorities, according to a court document.

Pazienza had "several glasses of wine" during the evening before the pair stopped at a food cart for something to eat, according to the document filed by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

The pair went to Chelsea Park to eat their meal, but before they were done, an employee told them they would have to leave because the park was closing, the document said. Chelsea Park closes at 11 p.m.

"The defendant became angry, started shouting and cursing at the park employee, threw her food onto her fiancé, and stormed out of the park," according to prosecutors.

Meanwhile, Pazienza "stormed" down the street and spotted Barbara Maier Gustern, prosecutors said.

Gustern, "in what turned out to be her dying words" before she lost consciousness, told a friend that a woman with dark hair “ran across the straight,” directly toward her, called her a b---- and pushed her as hard she "had ever been hit in her life" toward a metal fence, prosecutors said.

Gustern, according to a witness, "fell in an arc, falling directly on her head," according to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

Pazienza "turned around and walked away, leaving Ms. Gustern prone on the sidewalk, bleeding from the head," prosecutors said.

Pazienza called her fiancé after the assault, he told authorities. When they reconnected, she picked a physical fight with him, accusing him of ruining her night, prosecutors said. He insisted the two head home, but security video from the area showed that Pazienza stayed in the area long enough to watch the ambulance arrive for Gustern.

She later told her fiancé what she had done, he told authorities. When he asked her why she would do such a thing, she said the woman "might have said something” to her.

According to prosecutors, Pazienza attacked Gustern after storming out of a nearby park, where she and her fiance had been eating meals from a food cart.

This is speculation, but sounds like maybe she got in an argument or was angry about something and was storming off somewhere. NYC is crowded and if you're angry, trying to get somewhere, and not composed (getting into the mindset here, not what I really think) then "this old bitch in my way fuckin' move arrrggg!" shove

Obviously, there's nothing right about it and most of the time people behave themselves, even when they're angry. Sometimes, though, they don't. This isn't a justification in any sense - more of a speculation in furtherance of an attempt at comprehension.

I don't know anything about this case, but revenge is not a solution. Our penal system is totally fucked, and part of the issue is people have been told that revenge is justice. It isn't. We will all be paying for this woman to be locked up and she won't be able to contribute to society. If we tried to rehabilitate, that'd be one thing. We just try to punish though, and people like you act like a harsher punishment is good somehow. What good does it do?

"If you were unable to think rationally about the case, you would have a different opinion" isn't the slam dunk argument you seem to think it is.

For cases where injury was sustained there is legal doctrine know as the Eggshell skull rule

The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.

Again, no intention to kill, though that would still be the outcome

No it wouldn't, you have to prove intention to kill for a murder charge. This is manslaughter, a lesser but still very serious charge. Killing someone on accident is still a crime, shocker, I know.

pushing an old person would very commonly result in serious injury.

This is why she's being punished. You cannot assault an 87 year old without expecting serious injury or death. Just like you can grab a 20 year old and shake them by the shoulders and they'll be fine, but if you do the same to an infant they're probably going to die.

I direct you to comments below, detailing the circumstances. She got drunk, became increasingly belligerent and violent... then took out her rage on this random old woman viciously. She showed no remorse, to the point of sociopathy.

https://feddit.uk/comment/3105205

Edit: In hindsight, I'm unclear if you're suggesting she should see a longer or shorter sentence.

This is the problem of moral luck. We often want to punish people more because factors outside of the perpetrator's control turned out badly. Either we should punish everybody harshly when they push an elderly person, whether or not it injures them, or someone like this should get a pretty light sentence. Yet we have an irrational pull to treat the cases differently.

So you're saying that you don't understand what manslaughter is. You ask a lot of questions, but I get the feeling that you're not the type of person that is actually looking for answers

That's uh, pretty specific with the flaming bucket...

Legally speaking you'd have a hard time prosecuting that as murder. You'd have to prove that she was intending for the old lady to die when she shoved her. I'm guessing she was charged with some combination of second degree assault and manslaughter, maybe more. She was facing up to 25 years and took a plea deal for 8, which I assume included part of the charges being dropped.

Nearly 10 years is a long ass time to be in jail for a random angry act.

Plea deals are between the prosecutor and the defendant. The judge can sentence you to anything. That's why, frequently, prosecutors will drop the most serious charges in a plea deal. That way the judge is limited to sentencing to only the lesser charges.