DOJ-OGR-00010466.jpg
772 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (sentencing memorandum/defense motion)
File Size:
772 KB
Summary
This is page 20 of a defense sentencing memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, for Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues against the Probation Office's recommendation for a harsh sentence based on 'general deterrence,' claiming that sexual predators are rarely deterred and that deterring the wealthy is too broad a justification. The defense explicitly states that Jeffrey Epstein was the 'main offender' and requests a 'significantly below-guidelines sentence' for Maxwell.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Ms. Maxwell |
Subject of the sentencing memorandum; defense argues for a below-guidelines sentence and lower culpability than Epstein.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Main Offender |
Mentioned by defense as the primary perpetrator to minimize Maxwell's culpability.
|
| Probation | Authority |
Refers to the Probation Office/Officer who authored the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) recommending a harsh sentence.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Probation |
Entity recommending sentencing guidelines.
|
|
| United States District Court |
Implied by case number and citations (E.D.N.Y., 2d Cir.).
|
|
| Department of Justice |
DOJ-OGR stamp in footer.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
Document states 'the record reflects that Epstein was the main offender' implying Maxwell was secondary.
Key Quotes (4)
"the record reflects that Epstein was the main offender."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010466.jpg
Quote #1
"untouchable individuals who feel their privilege and affluence entitle them to victimize others without fear or consequence."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010466.jpg
Quote #2
"A significantly below-guidelines sentence in this case would also promote respect for the law"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010466.jpg
Quote #3
"Probation essentially makes the sweeping assertion that a harsh sentence for Ms. Maxwell is necessary to deter rich people from exploiting poor people."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010466.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,274 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 20 of 77
Nor can general deterrence be used to justify a harsh sentence for Ms. Maxwell. Probation
identifies two groups of potential offenders who will purportedly be deterred from committing
future crimes as a result of Ms. Maxwell’s sentence: (1) sexual predators who exploit and degrade
minor victims and (2) “untouchable individuals who feel their privilege and affluence entitle them
to victimize others without fear or consequence.” PSR at 67. With regard to the first group, courts
have expressed legitimate doubt as to whether people who have a sexual predilection for minors
can be deterred at all. See, e.g., United States v. D.M., 942 F. Supp. 2d 327, 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
(“[T]he compulsive behavior and disorders motivating many offenders is less susceptible to
general deterrence.”). With regard to the second group, the purported justification sweeps far too
broadly. Rather than identify a particular class of similarly situated defendants who will be
deterred from committing specific crimes, Probation essentially makes the sweeping assertion that
a harsh sentence for Ms. Maxwell is necessary to deter rich people from exploiting poor people.
See PSR at 67. That is not the purpose of general deterrence and should not be given any weight
in determining the appropriate sentence.
identifies two groups of potential offenders who will purportedly be deterred from committing
future crimes as a result of Ms. Maxwell’s sentence: (1) sexual predators who exploit and degrade
minor victims and (2) “untouchable individuals who feel their privilege and affluence entitle them
to victimize others without fear or consequence.” PSR at 67. With regard to the first group, courts
have expressed legitimate doubt as to whether people who have a sexual predilection for minors
can be deterred at all. See, e.g., United States v. D.M., 942 F. Supp. 2d 327, 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
(“[T]he compulsive behavior and disorders motivating many offenders is less susceptible to
general deterrence.”). With regard to the second group, the purported justification sweeps far too
broadly. Rather than identify a particular class of similarly situated defendants who will be
deterred from committing specific crimes, Probation essentially makes the sweeping assertion that
a harsh sentence for Ms. Maxwell is necessary to deter rich people from exploiting poor people.
See PSR at 67. That is not the purpose of general deterrence and should not be given any weight
in determining the appropriate sentence.
A Below Guidelines Sentence Would Provide Just Punishment, Promote Respect for the
Law, and Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities
Law, and Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities
While the offense conduct is indisputably serious, the record reflects that Epstein was the
main offender. Given the foregoing discussion, a shorter term of incarceration for Ms. Maxwell
best serves the long-term goals of punishment. A significantly below-guidelines sentence in this
case would also promote respect for the law by demonstrating that the justice system considers
each person who comes before the Court as an individual. A sentence tailored to Ghislaine
Maxwell’s particular circumstances—would appropriately distinguish between this defendant and
more culpable individuals similarly charged. See United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 187 (2d
Cir. 2010) (“[C]ourts must guard against unwarranted similarities among sentences for defendants
main offender. Given the foregoing discussion, a shorter term of incarceration for Ms. Maxwell
best serves the long-term goals of punishment. A significantly below-guidelines sentence in this
case would also promote respect for the law by demonstrating that the justice system considers
each person who comes before the Court as an individual. A sentence tailored to Ghislaine
Maxwell’s particular circumstances—would appropriately distinguish between this defendant and
more culpable individuals similarly charged. See United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 187 (2d
Cir. 2010) (“[C]ourts must guard against unwarranted similarities among sentences for defendants
19
DOJ-OGR-00010466
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document