Information AboutMorton Berger |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT MORTON BERGER | |
| living people | |
| people from arizona | |
| american prisoners and detainees | |
| american criminals | |
|
THE CRIME In 2002 Berger was arrested for the possession of a large collection of child pornography that he had collected over the previous six years. He was convicted by a jury of twenty specimen counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, each charge relating to one image. THE SENTENCE The unusual 200-year sentence consisted of ten years for each photograph (the minimum allowed by the state law). The state of Arizona argued that each image was a separate crime, so the sentences had to run consecutively, and to be served without possibility of parole or Pardon . http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2006/CR050101PR.pdf The maximum sentence proposed to the court by the prosecutor was of 340 years. THE APPEALS Berger's lawyers appealed against the sentence, citing the Eighth Amendment To The United States Constitution , which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". They argued that although each ten-year sentence was ''not'' too long in itself, the cumulative total of 200 years was grossly disproportionate to Berger's conduct overall, given that if he had Murder ed or Rape d a child, he would not have received such a long sentence. Losing in the Arizona Court of Appeals, they appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which ruled on 10 May , 2006. Some judges of the Arizona Supreme Court were sympathetic to Berger's argument. Vice Chief Justice Rebecca Berch described the mandatory minimum, mandatory consecutive sentencing rule, and exclusion of parole or pardon as a "triple whammy,"''State of Arizona v. Morton Robert Berger,'' para. 70 observing that "it far exceeds the sentence imposed for similar crimes in any jurisdiction and exceeds the penalties regularly imposed in Arizona for crimes that result in serious bodily injury or even death to victims."Para. 77 However despite its reservations, the court considered itself bound by Precedent s to uphold the sentence, saying that consecutive sentences which add up to very long sentences are not unconstitutional, provided that each of the individual sentences which comprise it are not themselves unconstitutional. The decision was virtually unanimous, with Berch concurring in part and dissenting in part. On 26 February 2007 the Supreme Court Of The United States declined to hear a further appeal. REFERENCES EXTERNAL LINKS |
|
|