Shaul Spitzer convinced Judge William Kelly Tuesday to give him
youthful offender status and release him after serving 3 1/2 years in
prison for seriously burning a New Square dissident while trying to
torch the man's house in 2011.
Kelly told the packed courtroom —
including more than 40 New Square supporters and victim Aron Rottenberg —
that he started the day thinking he would deny Spitzer early release
from a seven-year prison term.
But Kelly said he thought over what
Spitzer had told him in court Tuesday morning and changed his
mind during the lunch break in the resentencing proceedings.
Kelly
said he came away convinced that prison life had matured Spitzer and
his attack on the Rottenberg family spurred from immaturity, being
naive and a bid to impress the New Square Hasidic Jewish leadership and
grand rabbi David Twersky. Spitzer was working and living in Twersky's
home as a butler at the time. [..]
Rottenberg asked Kelly on Tuesday to keep Spitzer in jail,
saying he can't use his right arm effectively after skin grafts and
other operations to treat his burns. He said his family, which was
inside the home at the time, still suffers from the pain of the attack.
Spitzer told Kelly that "I know what I did was inexcusable. I know that 3 1/2 years ago I was immature."[...[
3.5 years isn't much of a deterrent for future copycats.
ReplyDeleteAn adult tries to murder an entire family and walks away after 3 and a half years b/c he tells the judge he's sorry. What a joke.
ReplyDeleteReading the accounts of the incident it doesn't appear he intended to murder the family.
ReplyDeleteAre bloc votes above the law? Do different laws apply to different folks?
ReplyDeleteInteresting that his only regret was that he did something that was bad for the community. Interesting that this was sufficient for the judge and that it wasn't necessary for him to say he regrets having harmed Rottenberg.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there are other examples where a defendant only has to regret the harm to the community, as if they were the victims, as opposed to the person who was severely injured.
He was going to firebomb the house. The family was sleeping within. How is that not an intention to murder the family?
ReplyDeleteI'm struck also by his excuse of having been immature. I know immature kids. They're loud, sometimes inappropriate, act out a bit. They don't go firebomb houses with families sleeping inside. That's not immature, that's callous and bloodthirsty.
ReplyDeleteThis way he makes clear that the cause of his community is above EVERYTHING else. Including the life of another person. Sadly he seems to have many friends.
ReplyDeleteHe was expected to be relaesed. It is nirmal in America to commit such crime and then walk away free after 3-4 years
ReplyDeletePerhaps the 2 million that they had to pay to drop the claim against the Rebbe will be some deterrent.
ReplyDeleteSuch people should be kept locked up as long as possible. They are a danger to others. At the very least, the judge should have kept him under house arrest, not let him go scot-free.
ReplyDeleteLocked up for how long? If 4 years isn't enough, is 7 years enough? If not is 27 years enough? Whose to say 27 years is enough. Should he just be executed instead of a life sentence?
ReplyDeleteHe was mature enough to figure out doing it at 4:00 AM. Try just throwing away the key. Since when does singing and partying away diminish attempted murder and maiming for life? Al pi chasidus and al pi sod. Oy, lately with all these soidos, uebsoidom al techad et kvodi, ubitsonam ikru shor.
ReplyDeleteIt was a hadloke lichvod Lag Baomer, auto-de-fe style. Just eat a lil ferfel shirayim and all will be forgiven. Is your name doved'l?
ReplyDeleteI said, "for as long as possible," which in this case means the full sentence.
ReplyDeleteAs for your sarcastic questions, my response is: Until you are sure he does not pose a danger. I have no idea how that is to be ascertained, and I don't care. What I do know is that he is an violent person who attempted to murder a number of people and there's no reason to think he would not do violence again if he perceived a reason to. Keeping people safe is more important in my eyes than letting attempted murderers roam free.
You seem to be sure it's safe to let him out. What is your certitude based on?
His full sentence is 3.5 years and he's being let out as he fulfilled his sentence. So he meets your requirements. His previous full sentence was 7 years but an appeals court ruled that sentence was not issued in accordance with the law and thus overturned it. The original trial court then issued a new full sentence of 3.5 years in accordance with the law as ruled upon by the appeals court. So he indeed fulfilled his full sentence.
ReplyDeleteThe previous question was how much should the judge have imposed as a sentence. Why only 3.5 years or even only 7 years or indeed why only 27 years? "As long as possible" would be an effective sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. You can never be "sure he does not pose a danger" in the future. In reality you can never be sure about that with anyone who was ever in jail for whatever crime or sentence. Should the book be thrown at all convicts and they be thrown in prison with the key thrown away?
His original full sentence, hairsplitter. It was reduced b/c of his special pleading.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I don't give a damn if he sits the rest of his life. He's an attempted murderer, and there's no reason to think he's changed. Same goes for the other murderers and violent criminals your bleeding heart is so worried about. So long as they remain a threat, they should remain incarcerated. It is a fact that many violent offenders re-offend after release.
As for the prison population, it can and should be reduced by finding alternative penalties for non-violent offenders. The prisons are full of three-strike-and-you're-out drug offenders, and other non-dangerous people. They should not be imprisoned, and certainly not for long sentences. I'm discussing violent offenders only. You still haven't explained why it's okay to release dangerous criminals into society.
You obviously don't support Jewish Law/Halacha, as you advocate a sentence that Jewish Law does not recognize or support for this act and instead prefer a sentence dreamt up by some State Legislators 75 years ago whose goal was to get reelected.
ReplyDeletea) Jewish law is not relevant here. b) In Jewish law, the king and courts had wide latitude in controlling violent, dangerous people. They certainly would not have allowed them to roam free, as you advocate.
ReplyDeleteI've responded to your points, but you still have not answered my simple question: Why do you consider it okay to release violent criminals into society?
Jewish law recognizes that people have a right to be protected from people who pose a danger to society. If keeping them under lock and key is the only way to protect society, then the halacha would condone/mandate it.
ReplyDeleteThe only possible point of debate is whether or not this character still poses a danger to society.
I will say, that the first part of the teshuva process is apologizing to the person you victimized. Being that he has not yet apologized to his victim, I assume that he has yet to do teshuva for his actions, and therefore still poses a danger to society.
How do you know he hasn't apologized and done teshuva? You don't know. Teshuva is between him and the victim. It does not involve the public like you.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't answered mine. Do you think all violent felons should receive a life imprisonment sentence?
ReplyDeleteThis is not a discussion, it's me answering your questions repeatedly and you repeatedly ignoring mine. Which is why I won't bother to respond any further.
ReplyDeleteActually the question I just asked you was a repeat question from me to you, because you haven't responded to the questions.
ReplyDeleteIt involves the entire public, because they are the ones at risk when a menace is released.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2015/10/22/aron-rottenberg-shaul-spitzer-resentencing/74379476/
"Rottenberg said, Twersky has treated Spitzer like a hero and urged his followers to pray for Spitzer and ignore Rottenberg.
"No one from the community or the family has apologized," Rottenberg said. "They had 3 1/2 years to apologize. Instead, he's become a hero for them and a role model for their teenagers.They're asking me to ask the judge to give him youthful offender. I won't."