Sean "Diddy" Combs' trial came to an end on Friday (Oct. 3) in New York federal court after Judge Arun Subramanian sentenced the mogul to 50 months in federal prison and a $500,000 fine.
In his speech before the handing down of Diddy's sentence, Subramanian said he had weighed the mogul's contributions to music and the Black community, plus issues with drugs and mental health, against his abuse of power and control in his relationships.
The judge said 50 months in prison was "sufficient but no greater than necessary" for Diddy's crimes and that it was short enough that he would "have a life afterward" with his family.
Read Subramanian's full sentencing speech in court below.
"Mr. Combs, I've considered the fact that you are a self-made artist and businessman who has innovated, inspired and lifted up communities, including communities of color worldwide. The Court agrees with the defense and Ms. Westmoreland that your work history, impact on the Black community, and entrepreneurship are celebrated and iconic. That's especially impressive given the early violent death of your father and the trauma that that must have left. You have donated your time and millions of dollars to benefit worthy causes, including providing schooling for underprivileged children in New York City. And we saw that in the video. And that is commendable. Your development of the Free Game course for inmates while at the MDC is impressive, and the Court hopes that you will continue to work with those who are incarcerated and expand on that curriculum.
There is no doubt that you are devoted to your family, including your mother, your children, your sister, your nephew. And the Court of course considers all the collateral consequences of your incarceration and your conviction, including all of the things that Mr. Donaldson mentioned, including the impact of any sentence on your family, including your mother and your children. The Court also notes that you have had problems with addiction, and the Court is glad to hear that due to your incarceration, you are on the path to beating those demons. The Court also understands that these drugs may have exacerbated your erratic and violent behavior over the years.
However, the Court has to consider all of your history here. And with respect to the freak-offs and hotel nights and your relationships with Ms. Ventura and Jane, the Court rejects the defense's attempt to characterize what happened here as merely intimate, consensual experiences, or just a sex, drugs, and rock and roll story. A history of good works can't wash away the record in this case, which showed that you abused the power and control that you had over the lives of women you professed to love dearly. You abused them physically, emotionally, and psychologically. And you used that abuse to get your way, especially when it came to freak-offs and hotel nights. The defense's argument that all of this was unrelated to the offense conduct in this case doesn't hold up. The evidence of the abuse in connection with freak-offs and hotel nights is massive. I was sitting right here for the testimony from Ms. Ventura and from Jane. We read about it in text messages and e-mails. We saw it in the images of gashes, bruises, broken doors, and we saw the video of your savage beating of Ms. Ventura. This was subjugation, and it drove Ms. Ventura and Jane to thoughts of ending their lives. That is the reality of what happened.
With that, we move to a sentence that is sufficient but no greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing set forth in subsection (a)(2). First, the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense. These were serious offenses that irreparably harmed two women. Physical harm, emotional harm, and again, psychological harm, the effects of which continue to this day.
You plied Ms. Ventura and Jane to drugs, forcing Ms. Ventura to opioid addiction, which she struggles with even today. The conduct occurred for over a decade and with tremendous frequently over that time period. Why did it happen so long? Because you had the power and the resources to keep it going, and because you weren't caught. And you paid for and organized these acts. You were no John. You were more than that. Even if your currency was satisfying your sexual desires, instead of money. But the coercion was the same, if not worse.
The Court next considers the requirement to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. Both specific and general deterrence here require a significant sentence. As for specific deterrence, while you have said here in court, and I've read it in your letter, that you're sorry, you won't do this again, one thing strikes me in particular. After Ms. Ventura's civil lawsuit had been filed, detailing many of the things she testified about here in court, after the government had executed search warrants on your residences, after the brutal video of the 2016 beating had been made public, and just one month after you issued your Instagram apology where you said many of the things you said here today, you had another hotel night where you brutally assaulted Jane. As the government describes it, you kicked down five doors in Jane's home, lifted her off the floor by her neck in a chokehold, punched Jane in her head, kicked Jane's body, dragged Jane by her hair, and slapped Jane so hard that she fell down. Jane creditably testified to those things. According to her, you said the following: 'Take this fucking pill. You're not going to ruin my fucking night. You better go out there. You're not going to ruin my fucking night. Get out there. Suck his dick. Fuck him. I don't care. Just you're not going to ruin my fucking night.' You asked Jane, mockingly, is this coercion? Clearly deterrence is a key consideration. And the Court is not assured that if released these crimes will not be committed again.
The Court has considered everything that it has heard here in the courtroom and the materials submitted about programs that Mr. Combs would engage in and has considered the analysis of Dr. Krueger and Dr. Kaplan. But those are outweighed by the entirety of the trial record in this case, which the Court was here for, for eight weeks. And the Court saw the testimony and saw the messages and saw the evidence. The need for general deterrence also warrants a significant sentence. These acts of sexual violence are unfortunately commonplace. A substantial sentence must be given to send a message to abusers and victims alike that exploitation and violence against women is met with real accountability. Victims who have the courage to report their abusers and relive the excruciating trauma of that abuse by testifying in court should see that their efforts can result in meaningful accountability. That promotes respect for the law, furthers just punishment, all the values that we're supposed to serve today. In terms of the interest to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, for the same reason, a meaningful sentence is necessary to protect the public from further crimes.
In terms of providing the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner, the Court, again notes that there are the reports from the doctors, and the Court has considered those in determining what the appropriate sentence would be. But again, there are other factors that militate in the opposite direction. The Court has also considered the factors in Section 3553(a)(3) through (7), including in particular the guidelines range and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.
Weighing these factors, the Court reaches a few conclusions. First, the sentence that the government proposes, 135 months, would be more than necessary to comply with the purposes in Section 3553(a)(2). The statute requires parsimony when sentencing defendants, and the Court is not allowed to impose a sentence that is more than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing. The Court agrees that a serious sentence is warranted that reflects the aggravating factors that I have addressed. The profound impact on Ms. Ventura and Jane, the time span, over a decade, during which these acts of prostitution occurred, the fact that these offenses occurred with intimate partners, the evidence of physical violence, and the coercion. But a sentence of over 11 years, over the statutory maximum of the sentences on these offenses ran concurrently is not reasonable.
The Court observes that in the exhaustive data provided by the parties, while there are some cases with sentences in the range urged by the government, most of these cases involved defendants with more extensive criminal history scores, and they also involved things like murder, minor victims, an expansive prostitution enterprise with numerous victims and the like. Even the probation department, which took special care to evaluate the aggravating factors here, including noting that the impact that this case has had on Ms. Ventura and Jane are paramount concerns, recommends a sentence less than half of what the government proposes. The government's recommendation also takes no account of Mr. Combs' mitigating circumstances, such as his lack of recent criminal history, his family ties and ties to the community, his substance abuse, and mental health history, which the Court has considered.
On the other hand, the defense's proposal of a 14-month sentence, effectively a sentence of time served, would not be sufficient to comply with the purposes set forth in the statute, which is the other part of the parsimony requirement. Just as the government's proposal does not account for the mitigating factors identified by the Court and the probation department, the defense's proposal does not adequately account for the aggravating factors: The severity of the conduct at issue, the violence, the drugs, the coercion, and the devastation that it caused to Mr. Combs' victims. The defense's proposal is insufficient to satisfy the goals of sentencing, including to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment, and to afford adequate deterrence among others. Here, the data shows a wide variance of sentences below the outlier cases in the range of the government's proposal. And as the government observes, every case has to be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances, and the facts and circumstances of this case are unique.
Weighing all the relevant factors and considering the evidence that the Court heard at trial, and the information provided by the parties and the probation department, the Court determines that the sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes set forth in 18, U.S.C., Section 3553(a)(2) is a sentence of 50 months of incarceration. This is a serious sentence that reflects the gravity of your crimes and conduct. This is hard time in prison away from your family, friends, children, and your community. But you will have a life afterward and it provides you with a path toward rehabilitation. The Court notes that this sentence matches the sentence recommended by the probation department, which also comprehensively evaluated the facts here.
I will now state the sentence I intend to impose, but the attorneys will have a final opportunity to make legal objections before the sentence is finally imposed. The defendant will be sentenced to a term of 50 months of incarceration."