Dr Lawrence G. Nassar worked as a doctor for the United States Olympic gymnastics team. Under the pretext of treatment, he molested young girls, “penetrating minors with ungloved hands for his own sexual pleasure”.
Almost 160 brave women and girls gave testimony; they came forward to confront Dr. Nassar. The powerful statements made by some of the victims include Kyle Stephens. “I testified to let the world know that you are a repulsive liar and those ‘treatments’ were pathetically veiled sexual abuse. Perhaps you have figured it out by now, but little girls don’t stay little forever. They grow into strong women that return to destroy your world,” she said.
Another victim, Jamie Dantzscher, mentioned, “How dare you ask any of us for forgiveness”, while another, Aly Raisman, said, “You have not taken gymnastics away from me. I love this sport, and that love is stronger than the evil that resides in you, in those who enabled you to hurt many people.”
The testimony of each victim was powerful. I strongly advice every woman to revisit each lady’s statement. They stood there strong and brave, inspiring many of us.
Dr. Nassar was sentenced to 40 to 175 years in prison. Judge Rosemarie Aqulina mentioned, “I just signed your death warrant. You do not deserve to walk outside of a prison ever again.”
Many celebrated the sentence. However, one of the observation was - Whether or not prolonged custodial sentences prevent or deter crime. Are long sentences realistic if they cannot be served? We are aware that offenders are punished appropriately by the state for their wrong doings. The proportionality of the punishment should match the harm caused. Now will the custodial sentence of 175 years be a good deterrent? It is tough to evaluate as various crime studies show deterrent theory has failed and managed to accomplish in few cases. There is no evidence to prove the nexus between severe punishment and crime rates.
In this case, an evil doctor took advantage of power and position vested upon him, betrayed the trust of his young patients. The sentence seems fair and square, serves Dr Nassar right. It is a classic example of power and power abuse. The custodial sentence of 175 years of imprisonment is ‘symbolic’ similar to Bernard L. Madoff’s case. On 29th of June, 2009 Madoff was 71 at the time of sentencing. He was sentenced to a maximum term of 150 years of imprisonment for a ‘ponzi’ scheme. Nevertheless, such symbolic sentences do manage to evoke fear amongst the people in power. Dr. Nassar is already serving a 60 year sentence for child pornography in federal prison. The sentence did manage to balance between maintaining public confidence and a rationale punishment for his heinous crime. The fear of imprisonment should prevail, to prevent the society from monstrous harm inflicted by people in powerful position.
Rehabilitation is a soft option. Although during the hearing Dr. Nassar apologised, Judge Aquilina dismissed his disingenuous statement taking into consideration the letter he wrote wherein he presented himself as a victim and “manipulated into pleading guilty”.
Judge Aquilina presented the six-page letter sent by Dr. Nassar stating he was a “good doctor” and “it was a medical not sexual” treatment. He claimed the victims were part of “media frenzy” and were pressured to admit. He further added, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”- his patients had turned on him. Judge Aquilina pointed out in her court room that she didn’t believe Dr. Nassar, “owned up to what he pleaded to”. She added, “I wouldn’t send my dogs to you, Sir”. Clearly, he had no intention of coming clean. Judge Aquilina firmly mentioned, “You are a danger, you remain a danger”.
The series of wrongdoings and sickening statements presented in the letter by Dr. Nassar, it is evident; rehabilitation will not yield any positive outcome. In this given scenario, lengthy custodial sentence is a rationale option. The sentence is symbolic, a slow poison for Dr. Nassar. It gives ample time to Dr. Nassar to recall and understand the harm he caused. There is no room for tolerance in sex abuse cases. It is unfortunate this case took its due course to come to light. Especially at a time where women are coming forward and openly discussing and debating on sexual misconduct by powerful men. The lead Prosecutor Angela Povilatis rightly pointed out, ”at this particular moment in history, this sentence and hearing will be viewed as a turning point in how our community, our state, our nation, our culture looks at sexual abuse”. Certainly, a good precedent, the survivors encourages many of us to “Speak Up” and not suffer in silence.
