NY woman who fatally shoved singing coach, age 87, is sentenced to more time in prison than expected
NY woman who fatally shoved singing coach, age 87, is sentenced to more time in prison than expected
More time has been tacked onto an eight-year prison sentence for a New York woman who fatally shoved an 87-year-old Broadway singing coach.
A New York judge sentenced a woman who pleaded guilty to fatally shoving an 87-year-old Broadway singing coach onto a Manhattan sidewalk to six months more in prison than the eight years that had been previously reached in a plea deal.
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't really know what 6 months more or less is gonna do in this case, but ok I guess?
Honestly I think it just made the judge feel better to make it longer
Seems kinda petty
Who knows maybe by adding 6 months it puts her in a different category for parole or something. It only takes $1 to move you from one tax bracket to another one. Maybe something like that is involved. I honestly don't know.
I think you might have a misunderstanding about how tax brackets work (at least if you're taking about american federal income taxes). Progressive tax rates mean that only the income that is over the threshold for the new tax bracket gets taxes with the higher %. So if you are $1 over the limlt for a new tax bracket, only that dollar gets taxed with the higher percentage. You can read about this anywhere, this is just the first source I found.
So, I don't see how this example still applies here. But after some reading, apparently the prosecution got some new information after the plea deal, so the asked for 9 years, and the judge compromised on 8.5. That's at least what this article implies.
Pazienza's plea agreement called for an eight-year sentence but prosecutors asked for nine years based on new information contained in a presentence report, a spokesperson for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said.
That's not how tax brackets work. If you were one dollar over the next tax bracket, only that dollar would be taxed at that amount.
You're right I was just trying to illustrate something and I thought that was a good enough example but you're absolutely correct