In today's episode of "The Rich Get Off."

[Tev]

So, remember that story about the rich kid that got wasted and killed a few people with his car but didn't go to prison because his well-paid family lawyer convinced the judge that he had "afluenza" and was just too rich to go to jail?

Well, it seems recent court filings have uncovered a 2009 case that is even sicker than that (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/30/robert-richards-rape_n_5060386.html?cps=gravity):
A Delaware man convicted of raping his three-year-old daughter only faced probation after a state Superior Court judge ruled he "will not fare well" in prison.

In her decision, Judge Jan Jurden suggested Robert H. Richards IV would benefit more from treatment. Richards, who was charged with fourth-degree rape in 2009, is an unemployed heir living off his trust fund. The light sentence has only became public as the result of a subsequent lawsuit filed by his ex-wife, which charges that he penetrated his daughter with his fingers while masturbating, and subsequently assaulted his son as well.

Richards is the great grandson of du Pont family patriarch Irenee du Pont, a chemical baron.

According to the lawsuit filed by Richards' ex-wife, he admitted to assaulting his infant son in addition to his daughter between 2005 and 2007. Richards was initially indicted on two counts of second-degree child rape, felonies that translate to a 10-year mandatory jail sentence per count. He was released on $60,000 bail while awaiting his charges.

Richards hired one of the state's top law firms and was offered a plea deal of one count of fourth-degree rape charges -- which carries no mandatory minimum prison sentencing. He accepted, and admitted to the assault.

[Red Mage Black]

I love this little gem from the article: “how a person with great wealth may be treated by the system.”

Like that even matters in this case. "He will not fare well," well no duh. Not even those in jail for assault or murder are fans of child rapists, but that's why they usually put the poor sick guys in some type of protective crap to keep them out of general population. Sure, I agree with "he should have counseling", like all criminals really, but that does mean he should still serve his time.

Of course, this brings up the iffy subject of, "Victims creating more victims," but was that the case or did he just start a cycle or perpetuate one? Either way, our justice system is really farked in dealing with these kinds of things.

[Osterbaum]

The whole system, including but not limited to the "justice" part of it, is rigged. Rigged, rigged, rigged! The richer or more "important" you are, the more likely you are to benefit from the system instead of being punished by it (one way or another).

Shiiiit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsqZ33ZMnC8), I feel like a megaphone on a soapbox spouting the obvious in a preachy way. But hell if all that doesn't need repeating like all the time since a lot of people seem to be living in denial, or worse yet, somehow manage to justify all of it.

In a just world, this guy would've have been punished.

In a truly just world, this shit wouldn't have been allowed to happen in the first place.

[Magus]

The argument for this is really bizarre. It's like an open acknowledgment that the rich get off coming at the worst possible time, by letting a rich guy get off. It would make more sense to say, "The rich often get off, but not this time!" and throw the book at him.

I'm not even sure he needs counseling, or rather why he deserves counseling at a private mental facility instead of whatever counseling every other sex offender gets at a regular prison (probably very little, unfortunately).

[shiney]

He's a DuPont heir; they can't go around letting rich people get beat to death in general pop like the filthy poors.

[Krylo]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone else think this thread title would be fantastic for a celebrity sex tape compilation video?

[tacticslion]

The argument for this is really bizarre. It's like an open acknowledgment that the rich get off coming at the worst possible time, by letting a rich guy get off. It would make more sense to say, "The rich often get off, but not this time!" and throw the book at him.

This was exactly my initial reaction, too.

It's really, really weird. Like, surreal-weird.

While I accept that it's true, it's kind of hard to do so.

EDIT:
Slightly off topic, but does anyone else think this thread title would be fantastic for a celebrity sex tape compilation video?

This was... actually what I thought it was going to be about, or something, when I first saw the title; but then I thought it might be referencing the old rich kid case, so I checked it out. Nope! An entirely new abuse of justice! :(

[Tev]

Oh but wait, there's more: Straight from the Tech Industry to you (http://valleywag.gawker.com/tech-ceo-dodges-felony-charge-despite-horrifying-abuse-1566515135).
RadiumOne CEO Gurbaksh "G" Chahal pled guilty to two misdemeanors for domestic violence and battery last week. The ad-tech executive faced 45 felony charges based on security footage from his San Francisco penthouse apartment, which allegedly showed him hitting and kicking his girlfriend 117 times in half an hour.

Instead of jail time Chahal, who once shared a stage with Oprah, cut a deal for three years probation, 52 weeks in a domestic violence training program, and 25 hours of community service.

[Aerozord]

I dont think this has much to do with wealth. Years ago I learned of a woman that did, what I can only describe as torture, a child for years jailed for less then a year. Our society isn't as strict as it should be about topics of assault and abuse in general

[Tev]

Not according to the rest of the article:

These promising career developments occurred well after Chahal's arrest in August. At the time, the prosecution thought the video handed them an "airtight" conviction, but the San Francisco Chronicle implies that the serial entrepreneur, who sold his previous company to Yahoo for $300 million, bought his way out:

But after Chahal posted $1 million bail and hired attorney James Lassart, the case against him unraveled.

First up, the girlfriend refused to cooperate with the investigation or testify, having hired famed criminal attorney and CNN commentator Mark Geragos to represent her. (Do we hear "big-bucks settlement for not talking"? Geragos didn't return our call, and Lassart's camp is staying tight-lipped.)

But perhaps the biggest blow came when Judge Brendan Conroy ruled that surveillance video from Chahal's bedroom - which reportedly captured the 1 1/2-hour attack - had been seized unlawfully by police. The cops claim they took the video without waiting for a warrant because they feared it might get erased, but the judge didn't buy it.

SFCitizen faults the police and the judge for getting such damning evidence thrown out. Regardless of how Chahal squirmed out of 45 felony convictions, his get out of jail free card looks more like a carte blanche.

[Aerozord]

He posted bail and got an attorney, thats hardly unusual. From what you quoted the police screwed up with procedure and that got him a lighter sentence. Saying he paid the victim to keep quiet is pure conjecture and sadly its quite common for the victim to not testify. For example I am guessing she wasn't even the one that reported the abuse.

This kind of crap happens alot, it only seems like the rich get away with it more because
A) They hire lawyers skilled enough to notice loopholes to exploit while your average person might miss them

B) Being affluent makes it more likely you'll hear of it. You must realize that in a country of nearly 300 million, this probably wasn't the only time someone got a light sentence for abuse in the last year.

[Osterbaum]

There seems to be a pretty clear trend of rich people getting off easier for crimes they've comitted. Even if that wasn't the case it's still true that upholding the law as it currently exists is clearly more for the benefit of the rich than the poor.

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

Add to that the fact that so called "poor people crimes" usually carry tougher sentences than "rich people crimes" (like tax evasion, embezlling etc.).

That said, not sentencing enough people to prison is most def not the problem in the US. It's called a prison-industrial-complex for a real reason.

[Aerozord]

Add to that the fact that so called "poor people crimes" usually carry tougher sentences than "rich people crimes" (like tax evasion, embezlling etc.)

That is a completely different argument. One I said I agree with
I dont think this has much to do with wealth. Years ago I learned of a woman that did, what I can only describe as torture, a child for years jailed for less then a year. Our society isn't as strict as it should be about topics of assault and abuse in general
I said it was too light of a sentence for such a crime.

However at the risk of a knee-jerk reaction, I agree with the judge. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be tossed in jail, he definitely does. But the police illegally seized evidence. That is wrong, and should not be allowed in court. I dont care who you are, or what you did, you have rights and they must be applied to everyone.

[Osterbaum]

It's just that the police and judges often fail to enforce these rights when the 'criminals' aren't "people of note".

[Aerozord]

Then that would mean the problem is not applying those rights to the poor, not that they are being applied to the rich.

[Osterbaum]

Them being or not applied to either class is more of a symptom than a problem itself, I feel.

[Solid Snake]

In highly related news, reading this article makes me lose all hope for humanity. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/05/justice/texas-rape-sentence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

[Tev]

That is both terrible and disgusting. That a judge would not only violate a victim's privacy like that, but sentence a convicted rapist to "probation" in a rape crisis center is really horrific.

[RawBot]

(Least importantly, what does it have to do with rich getting off ?)

It's always really really tricky to discuss judgements when we are barely aware of 5% of the situation. (Not to mention knowing barely anything about laws)


Couple thoughts, still:

- This kind of issue should be private to protect the victim, and also the suspect especially in cases where he appears to be innocent

- But press is sometimes useful to denounce bad practises

- As I understand, being added to the sex offenders list can have severe impact on one's life for decades, so it's not a trivial thing to do

- [Judge] Howard said she made her decision for several reasons, including: The girl had texted Young asking him to spend time with her; the girl had agreed to have sex with him but just didn’t want to at school; medical records show the girl had three sexual partners and had given birth to a baby; and Young was barely 18 at the time.
[...]
[Young] also testified that he is [now] engaged and his fiancée is pregnant.
The [victim]’s mother said it seems like the judge “didn’t want to ruin” Young’s life.

- “There are rape cases that deserve life. There are rape cases that deserve 20 years,” [Judge] Howard said. “Every now and then you have one of those that deserve probation. This is one of those and I stand by it.

“My job is not to make people happy. My job is to follow the Constitution and do the right thing.

- A new judge will oversee the case moving forward, including a motion filed by prosecutors to add more restrictive requirements to Young's probation.

- [Judge] Howard said she never intended for Young to work with rape victims. [...] She had thought he could mop floors, mow the lawn or cook.

It had not been decided Thursday where Young would do community service. [i.e. it's not going to occur in the rape crisis center]


Furthermore, I'm concerned about this:
[District Attorney Watkins said:] “I am [...] alarmed the judge failed to impose standard sex offender conditions of probation
Standard, automated penalties are an awful thing altogether, even though a rape case is not the best situation to demonstrate it.

(source (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20140501-judge-says-sexually-assaulted-14-year-old-wasn-t-the-victim-she-claimed-to-be.ece))


Overall, while it must have been a pretty displeasing situation for the girl, and while I can't comment on the judge's decision beyond trying to equilibrate the emotional tone of that press article, I wonder what there is in this unfortunate event that is so dreadful as to make one lose hope in the whole of humanity ? O_o

I shouldn't have to say this, but I do consider rape to be a really really serious offence, probably akin to kidnapping and sequestration in gravity.

[phil_]

I wonder what there is in this unfortunate event that is so dreadful as to make one lose hope in the whole of humanity ?Probably that a judge, a person whose profession is to understand crime and the law, one: thinks rape is "stranger jumps out of the bushes and does his thing," not "forcing someone to have sex when they don't want to have sex," and two: that same judge is so out of touch that she thinks a rape crisis center would tolerate having a rapist on the premises. Not to mention that "she was asking for it" was part of the judge's reasoning in her sentence, but that's wrapped up in my first problem, I think. Still needed pointing out.

[RawBot]

It was not forcing apparently, more like coercing on doing something now rather than later. Possibly a bad case of over insistence from the guy that pushed the girl into submission and renouncement.
It's bad but not the same as using full-on strength, and there is sense for a judge to note it alongside any fact regarding both parties that would impact the judgement. For instance, asking to the culprit's previous girlfriends and girl acquaintances about his behaviour and attitude.

The "she was asking for it" part is your interpretation based on an article and preconceptions on the touchy subject that is rape. Indeed "she was asking for it" is an unacceptable thing to say about a victim of rape, but let's not be so eager to tick that box.

But I think your hope in humanity was probably already lost prior to this case, so I guess there is bias in seeing the worse and reaffirming your current view on our good ol' species.

[phil_]

The "she was asking for it" part is your interpretation based on an article and preconceptions on the touchy subject that is rape.And the judge who issued the light sentence said Thursday that she did so in part because the girl wasn’t a virgin and “wasn’t the victim she claimed to be.”You are correct that it was my interpretation based on the article. I feel fairly confident that it is a reasonable interpretation of "Not a virgin so not a big deal."But I think your hope in humanity was probably already lost prior to this case, so I guess there is bias in seeing the worse and reaffirming your current view on our good ol' species.I was just pointing out what was remarkable about the article, as you asked what was so dreadful about it. I wanted to help you understand.

As far as "having no hope in humanity" means anything, I can't say it's currently an accurate description of myself. Otherwise, why would I have entered into dialogue with you?

[Krylo]

Raw:

Allen further claimed that the victim had agreed to have sex with Young, just not on campus, and "upon making this bad judgment, he admitted that he proceeded over her objections to stop, and he admitted that to the police."

110% Actual Rape, deserving of 100% of the actual jail time for actual rape.

[RawBot]

Have you seen what a police interrogation is like though.

Considering they can coerce minors into admitting crimes they did not do, I'd say we have to assume only someone who saw the actual interrogation tape would be able to say "110% Actual Rape, deserving of 100% of the actual jail time for actual rape".

(Unfortunately I forgot the name of a case that proves the coercing thing, but hopefully you know about similar events)

As for ignoring the verbal refusals, it is bad but can be worse depending on the tone used by the girl and even worse if strength is being used. It's part of the judgement process to acknowledge all aggravating or alleviating conditions, even in case of rape. We don't have access to anything, so this article should not be enough for us to condemn the educated decision of a judge. Questioning yes, but condemning with so few elements is an emotional response. Justice must be rational otherwise we're all in deep shit :p

I was just pointing out what was remarkable about the article, as you asked what was so dreadful about it. I wanted to help you understand.
And I wished to help you understand that the entire poor humanity doesn't deserve the cold shoulder just for this, and hoped to make you consider that you can apply this kind of reasoning to other situations until your views on your own kind improves :p
But I guess this is a far larger topic that won't fit into our current discussion ^^

[Osterbaum]

There's plenty of other stuff, including a whole lot of rape, to make one give up on humanity.

[Solid Snake]

As a lawyer, I'm uniquely sensitive to losing all hope for humanity whenever I see an attorney or a judge, presumably with a law degree, fail to understand the basic elements of a criminal offense and fail to apply the law properly.

The judge upsets me just as much as the rapist does, and that's saying a lot.

Also,

As for ignoring the verbal refusals, it is bad but can be worse depending on the tone used by the girl and even worse if strength is being used. It's part of the judgement process to acknowledge all aggravating or alleviating conditions, even in case of rape. We don't have access to anything, so this article should not be enough for us to condemn the educated decision of a judge.

...Yyyyyeaaaaa NO.
If your sexual partner expresses verbal refusal and you continue to have sex with that partner, you have just committed rape.
Period.
End of story.
Every time someone opens their mouths about 'mitigating conditions' I want to slam my head against a hard wooden desk until I bleed out and lose consciousness.

'Mitigating circumstances' legally works in a context when, like, a few years are shaved off a strict sentence because you're a first time offender or you've cooperated with authorities.
Mitigating circumstances should never, ever lead a clear-cut rape case to be downgraded to probation and a slap on the goddamn wrist.
There are specific cut and dry boundaries of how mitigating circumstances play out in sentencing in criminal cases, and this is going well the fuck outside the realm of judicial discretion and into the realm of unhinged lunacy.

EDIT: As an aside, the often-quoted 'mitigating circumstance' of "general reputation" introduced as evidence so disproportionately favors "nice-guy" white male offenders it's kind of disgusting.

EDIT 2: In rape cases specifically and sexual assault cases more generally, the police process so often favors the 'alleged' rapist and disfavors the victim that for the police to have actually gotten a confession from this guy that it wasn't consensual is miraculous in and of itself, and almost certainly a sign that if anything the actual rape was even worse than what he confessed to, honestly.

EDIT 3: Like, in Texas, where this rape occurred, it'd be classified as "Sexual Assault" under their Sexual Assault Statute.

I'm assuming, if we're going to give the rapist the maximum benefit of the doubt here, just hypothetically speaking, that this incident doesn't cross the threshold into "Aggravated Sexual Assault", namely: He acted alone, there was no "date rape" drug, no deadly weapons were used and there was no threat of violence during commission of the act.

Even still, we're looking at a sentencing of between 2 to 20 years in prison as a Second Degree Felony.
Note the 2 to 20 years part there? That's the extent of leeway granted to judges to exercise 'judicial discretion' for mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

So, even under our abhorrently flawed, rapist-favoring, male-favoring judicial system, the absolute minimum this guy should spend in prison is 2 years. And that's assuming every mitigating factor imaginable in his favor, which should technically be impossible, because the victim was 14 years old when this happened.

Realistically speaking, minimum sentencing should've been around 4 years assuming he was completely co-operative with police, genuinely contrite to the victim, it was a first-time offense, and all those other mitigating factors were present. (Several of those mitigating factors were probably not present, so if I had to wager a guess at what actual sentencing 'should've' looked like in this case, without all the facts in front of me, I'd guess 6-8 years, but note that it'd be a far harsher sentence in all likelihood if the perpetrator was an ethnic minority, because we here in America like to keep them in prison.)

Sidenote: When I say "minimum sentencing should've been..." I am not expressing that this is the amount of time I believe rapists should spend in jail for committing the crime, I am merely talking as a lawyer and using "should" in this context to express the expected legal penalty under our incredibly flawed legal system.

[Kim]

I'm really glad Snake posted in this thread it makes me happy.

[RawBot]

Well if you are an actual lawyer with experience and stuff, this is an interesting read.

Regarding the rather contemptuous, but short part:
...Yyyyyeaaaaa NO.
If your sexual partner expresses verbal refusal and you continue to have sex with that partner, you have just committed rape. Period. End of story.
Every time someone opens their mouths about 'mitigating conditions' I want to slam my head against a hard wooden desk until I bleed out and lose consciousness.
If he is declared guilty of rape then it is obviously rape. There is nobody to convince here, you're just making a loud strawman argument. Once you calmed down you even talked about mitigating conditions affecting the severity of a sentence and ultimately said exactly what I said or meant, with the added benefit of first hand knowledge of the law. (e.g. 2 years would be minimum instead of what the guy did get)

As an aside, the often-quoted 'mitigating circumstance' of "general reputation" introduced as evidence so disproportionately favors "nice-guy" white male offenders it's kind of disgusting.
Denouncing a general and real cultural bias is one thing, but putting a specific situation into that box is much harder. The Judge is a woman with two daughters and I bet she judged a ton of rapers in her 23 years carrier in Criminal Law. We are forced to give her the benefit of the doubt and dig more before peeing on her face. Checking her track record would be a start, if we can't see the full case facts.

So, even under our abhorrently flawed, rapist-favoring, male-favoring judicial system, the absolute minimum this guy should spend in prison is 2 years. And that's assuming every mitigating factor imaginable in his favor, which should technically be impossible, because the victim was 14 years old when this happened.
Yet he got less and we have to assume it is still lawful. A Texan Judge probably has a right to break out of the standard punishment boundary if he motivates his decision. The full motivation would be interesting to read as part of the questioning of this judgement - but why didn't you mention that ? Does it not work like that in Texas ?


One of the reasons behind my weariness to condemn judgements of any kind is the awareness of how terrible mob reaction can get. It really is something that doesn't make humanity shine no matter how much I love and admire this species. (disclaimer: I've seen a lot of the worst and the best, this is an educated love not naivety)

Rape is a special beast though, because indeed it still lacks recognition, especially in certain countries. In Japan for instance, although things improve slowly, police most often disregard women coming to them after a rape. Media pressure and public opinion are a must here, and they counterbalance my concerns on condemning judgements up to a point. (up to a point because mob reaction or behaviours that stem from "assumption", "judgemental" and similar states of mind are especially bad in Japan)

[phil_]

I'm really glad Snake posted in this thread it makes me happy.I was too until I got to Rawbot calling a description of what constitutes rape a strawman argument. Well, no, I'm still glad, just less so. I think we're all done here, though. Somebody saw some precious liberal eggshells they could stomp on, and they've entertained themselves stomping those shells enough at this point.

[RawBot]

I meant strawman because I actually agreed and he turned it in a way that made me say I don't.

I don't know why you're puking. Nobody's denying the severity of rape especially not me. As I said, seen a lot of the best and worst. I guess you'll have to believe me that you are just misunderstanding and being depressed for a wrong reason.

[BitVyper]

Yet he got less and we have to assume it is still lawful.

Why

A lot of your argument seems to rely on a fundamental assumption that court verdicts are inherently self-justifying.

[Osterbaum]

...while half the point of this very thread is how the law in fact favors others, usually those more privileged (one way or another) over those less so.

[Solid Snake]

If he is declared guilty of rape then it is obviously rape.

...Yes, it is.
The rapist committed the crime, he absolutely should have been found guilty. The issue is that he should have received a far greater sentence. Insofar as the rapist was merely put on probation and given a slap on the wrist instead, that's a pretty damning sign of how rape culture has permeated through society. The judge felt the rapist was somehow 'sympathetic' enough to merit less than what the incredibly flawed, already pro-rapist legal system deemed a **minimum** sentencing for the crime he committed.

This isn't exactly rocket science, here. We're not debating the guilty verdict, we're debating the sentencing, and what the extraordinary sentencing says about our culture and our society as a whole, and how patriarchy's letting so-called "nice rapists" (predominantly eloquent white men in authoritative positions or with a certain socio-economic clout) get away with raping someone.

The Judge is a woman with two daughters and I bet she judged a ton of rapers in her 23 years carrier in Criminal Law. We are forced to give her the benefit of the doubt and dig more before peeing on her face.

Uhh...
...No. No. No no Nnnooooo.

Look. By virtue of my profession I interact with a lot of lawyers. That is not a statement of faux superiority or some bullshit because honestly, most lawyers are scumbags and if I could do everything all over again I probably wouldn't choose to become one, it's just a reality of my day-to-day life.
Most lawyers I know are heavily critical of this judge and her decision.

By virtue of becoming a judge...in Texas of all places, need I remind you...she doesn't exactly become infallible. Incredibly powerful people are still more than capable of circumventing legal precedent and making objectively awful decisions. Nearly every Republican politician you see on TV has an incredibly impressive education on paper, but it sure as fuck doesn't stop them from screwing over 99% of their constituents in the United States. Power corrupts and all.

...For that matter, part of what makes rape culture so insidious is how subtle it can be, how we can often unintentionally promote or endorse its views simply by being a part of western society today. It's utterly pervasive. I'm sure this judge loves her daughters. I'm also convinced that she's capable of brazen misogyny, even if it's utterly subconscious, even if she's unaware of how she's harming women because she lives and acts in a society that actively promotes men and demands that she give rapists special attention. I mean, hell, this judge bent the requirements of the law for a rapist who confessed to raping a woman just because she [the judge] ~*liked him*~ more than the victim. Nevermind the often racial undertones of that kind of logic (it is the kind of logic that vastly disproportionately helps whites and hurts blacks and Hispanics), it's just something that categorically should never ever EVER happen.

Rape is an objective offense. If you engage in a sexual act with another person without their consent, you're a rapist. Period. And, within the guidelines of our already flawed and imperfect legal system, but a legal system that is at least unavoidably in writing and that judges are damn well required to heed, if you're guilty of rape you should receive a minimum sentence, and mitigating circumstances merely are supposed to bring you down to that minimum threshold. When the rules are bent like this, it's judicial discretion taken beyond the pale.

It's technically "permissible" in the sense that judges do have that authority, but it's incredibly rare. You'd virtually never see this as a result in a murder case or even with other violent crimes, like robbery. That it happens so frequently in response to rape cases is, again, absolutely a direct consequence of rape culture, where we'll bend over backwards to "justify" rapes with excuses upon excuses so rapists can get off easy, if they're even convicted in the first place, and most times they're not.

Yet he got less and we have to assume it is still lawful. A Texan Judge probably has a right to break out of the standard punishment boundary if he motivates his decision. The full motivation would be interesting to read as part of the questioning of this judgement - but why didn't you mention that ?

Sure, it absolutely works like that.
Here's what I do know, based on what I've read the judge say:

She told the newspaper that the victim "wasn't the victim she claimed to be" and said the defendant, 20-year-old Sir Young, "is not your typical sex offender."

*cough* *cough*
BBBBUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSHHHHIIIIITTT

It doesn't matter that the victim has a 'promiscuous personality' while the rapist is a 'stand up guy' and the judge sure as fuck shouldn't be using the victim's medical records as a mitigating factor here. (Watch the video in the previously linked CNN article. Apparently to prove the victim had STDs or previous sexual interactions despite being underage which is absolutely irrelevant to the specific facts of this specific incident of non-consensual sex.)

THIS IS 'SLUT SHAMING' SEXUALLY ACTIVE RAPE VICTIMS AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING
(Also I should not have to type this)

Allen further claimed that the victim had agreed to have sex with Young, just not on campus, and "upon making this bad judgment, he admitted that he proceeded over her objections to stop, and he admitted that to the police."
"We don't think that he qualifies as your typical sex offender. This is not somebody who has preyed on some young kids or unsuspecting people."

................................ffffffffffffffffff fffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccccccccccccccckk kkkkkkkkkkkkk this

You see, after you read a certain amount of this pigshit masquerading as "logic", you no longer need to read any more before you conclude this judge -- and other judges, and our society in general, who perpetuate this steaming pile of crap, isn't worth respecting just by virtue of the position of power they find themselves in.

"The rape victim wasn't really a victim" HOW THE FUCK IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE, JUDGE

And the victim's response to it all was: "It would have been better for me not to say anything."
Gee I wonder why that might be a terrible message to send to rape victims everywhere.


EDIT: "This is not somebody who has preyed on some young kids" says the defense attorney attempting to justify the judge's sentencing, apparently forgetting that the victim in question who was raped was 14 years old

EDIT 2: Just for clarity's sake, about 95% of my anger right now is directed at this judge and society at large, and any residual anger towards RawBot specifically is really only because Raw specifically seemed to ignore previously linked-to and publicly accessible evidence of the judge's [awful] reasoning behind the ruling, instead choosing to advocate that "We can't pass judgment because we can't really know what the judge was thinking and the judge is experienced and knows better than us" when, in fact, reading the linked article or doing a cursory Google search for other articles would provide you with plenty of information to make the informed judgment and prevent any of this from happening.

[RawBot]

Just for clarity's sake, about 95% of my anger right now is directed at this judge and society at large
This explains the strawman arguments since you're barely talking to me. To make sure I'm not misunderstood again: Strawman means, intentionally or not, making it sound like someone said what they didn't and then countering their twisted point with something nobody in their right mind would want to dispute.

That also explains the really offensive tone of your reply. Sadly I am having a way harder time reading whatever you are saying because of it - I still haven't read everything yet. This reaction from me is actually pretty fun because that basically never ever happens normally. Probably, I'm not used to being (to me) unjustly pointed out like I am a pure asshole when I have spent my life trying to help those around me. (And although nobody cares: as a long term goal I aim to do it large scale, but that requires a lot of money or a lot of network, both of which won't be easy to collect considering where I started from)

Fortunately I don't need an apology: I understand most people in this thread don't care one bit about me and whatever I say, what makes them feel bad is the rape case and the fact that someone is seemingly trying to relativize it. Out of consideration for them I intend not to pursue any further using the topic of rape. Nor will I try to make me understood properly by replying to points made against me, because that would make us continue talking rape for at least another page. ...in a non-noble, unworthy-of-us bickering.

Still, I'd like you guys to consider the topic of mob reaction in the privacy of your mind. A few of its ingredients are actually present in this very discussion we are sharing, which is fascinating.

Anyway although I apparently wasn't understood, I tried to use the case to tackle other topics. What interested me in this discussion were three things:

- The rather common dislike for humanity. I wish I could express powerfully enough and with just a few words how humanity is lovable despite its flaws. But it takes years to understand it deeply enough to get to love it, especially since many preconceptions have to be shattered before reaching that point. And then it is even harder to get to love assholes ;) [That doesn't mean you will not be harsh or kick butts when appropriate, non-violence is a different topic, and actual weakness yet another]

- Mob reaction, crowd judgement, mass shunning and alienating, etc. I already said why, I think.

- The weight of press and public opinion on society, in a global perspective, for both the better and the worse.


I think we can all ponder this separately of the rape case.
And it's probably not suitable considering the importance of these topics that they are presented by someone who poses as the antagonist, so I suppose we'd better not continue - not right here, right now, at least.

[Solid Snake]

Way to copy and paste a fragment of a single sentence of my argument in which I was trying to be conciliatory, completely misrepresent the rest of my points, fail to address my subsequently enunciated grievance with you, refuse an "apology" that was never offered, and endorse rape culture by refusing to accept any issue with your previous statements!

I'd say there's a "strawman" related irony here. But before I even touch that with a ten-foot prod, I'm genuinely curious as to why, with all your commentary about "mob mentality," you've refused to acknowledge that you yourself made assumptions about the judge's competency and her legitimacy in deciding this case when evidence directly refuting your hypothesis was available in the very article I first linked.

...oh no, wait, that'd require you to actually read what someone else wrote, and you've already proven that you'll only cherry-pick half a sentence and then go off on your own self-righteous tangent as a wronged victim of "mob mentality" and "crowd judgment"

[Red Mage Black]

Rape Culture:

I read this everywhere and seeing it used in the context Snake used it made me think. Does the case have anything to do with this culture you're pointing out? It sounds to me like it has more to do with classism/elitism bullshit than with any perceived culture. A rich man and his lawyer using this girl's promiscuity against her is obvious bullshit and the sentence was, too. Yet, I think a more comparable case of privilege is that kid who decided on a drunk joyride, killed people and got off lightly because of a bullshit term they made up called affluenza.

In all legal definitions, it was in fact rape, statutory in fact, but contributing it to anything but the usual elitism is folly. There are more numerous cases of this with less affluent people who actually get a fair sentence. Saying that people just accept it is also dumb. I agree the judge was way off the mark with her judgment though. This is less people accept it and more large amounts of money changing hands to ensure better treatment. It doesn't happen with just rape cases either, as I pointed out with the drunk joyriding punk. Anyone who commits a crime should have to bear the weight of them, regardless of the nature of it or however much money they have.

I'd like to think this case is also an example of the wealthy preying upon the poor. There is no excuse that makes their actions anymore justifiable than the rest of us.

[Kim]

I'm getting the impression a lot of the italics you're using there are meant to be read as finger quotes.

Probs don't finger quotes rape culture since it is an actual thing and a much larger conversation than is appropriate for this thread given that it would in fact be off-topic.

[Solid Snake]

A rich man and his lawyer using this girl's promiscuity against her is obvious bullshit and the sentence was, too.

If you're referring to the Texas case I linked to, and no the original case referenced in this thread, there's no evidence I've found regarding the rapist's wealth to make that kind of determination.

Class is often a factor in cases like these, but rape culture is pervasive enough that it will work to the benefit of even poorer men. It 'helps' if you're rich and it 'helps' if you're white, because privilege is privilege in just about any context, but we're practically trained as a society to question the 'virtues' of the victim, as if that's remotely relevant, in just about every rape case.

There are more numerous cases of this with less affluent people who actually get a fair sentence.

1) Define the term "fair." I'd argue even many of the prescribed sentences probably aren't "fair."

2) Even if the majority of sentences are fair, that still doesn't change the fact that there's a gross discrepancy between the number of rapes that actually occur and the number of rapists who are convicted for their crimes. The vast majority of rapists never are caught and never receive a guilty verdict; that's an even more pervasive issue with rape culture than sentencing, because the majority of rape victims are deterred from even reporting crimes.

I mean if you were the victim in this rape case, wouldn't you respond the same way she did? That it "wasn't worth" reporting the rape, because doing so exposed your 'sexual immorality' and led to a measly 45-day slap on the wrist for the one who assaulted you?

This is less people accept it and more large amounts of money changing hands to ensure better treatment.

In the absence of evidence that money did actually change hands, we're left with the far more disturbing likelihood that assumptions stemming from a systemic rape culture led this judge to make this decision without any financial incentive to do so at all.

[Tev]

I think RMB was just confused because a case about privilege showed up in a thread about the privileges of wealth and just assumed this case involved money as well. It's an honest mistake.

[Solid Snake]

I'll concede that when I linked to the Texas case I was absolutely thinking along the lines of "here's a similar case that also makes sick to my stomach, just wanted to share the despair with everyone" and I wasn't thinking "here's a different case that's going to hijack this thread and we're no longer going to talk about class."

...But sometimes that's an inevitable byproduct of a free-flowing conversation.

[Red Mage Black]

Yeah, I did kinda make that assumption, but it's generally in my view anyway that if someone gets off or gets a meager sentencing like that, that some type of dealing was involved in the background.

But I do suppose the question is for any rape case is, "What do the victim's medical records have anything to do with it?" On top of that, "Even if she did share a bed with multiple people, considering the events weren't reported as rape, what does it have to do with the one that did end up like this?" Honestly, any statements about promiscuity should be firmly stricken from court record because they have nothing to do with the case. (For the reason I already stated above.)

I really can't argue much further into this without going off topic and it'd be much easier to exchange my viewpoints in the Chat than it is on the board. (Since it involves missing arguments if it takes a while to type... that and allows me to review what came up when I walk away from the keyboard for a few minutes after a while of typing.)

[RawBot]

Way to copy and paste a fragment of a single sentence
Quoting this was a good sum up that show you weren't, all things considered, being aggressive towards me. Noticing this served as an intro to the rest of the post, essentially backing out from the problematic topic which was used as a means and not an end; the end being the 3 points mentioned in my last post.

refuse an "apology" that was never offered
There's no shit like that in my words, I was telling you it's okay and we are through whatever you said that was displeasing with no rancor. i.e. so there's nothing to apologize for.

and endorse rape culture by refusing to accept any issue with your previous statements!
I do not endorse rape culture and have very strong reasons not to.

I'm genuinely curious as to why, with all your commentary about "mob mentality," you've refused to acknowledge that you yourself made assumptions about the judge's competency and her legitimacy in deciding this case when evidence directly refuting your hypothesis was available in the very article I first linked.
Keep in mind that I departed from this specific rape case to keep my earlier promise, so this is general: Short press articles are not proof of anything; you know how they are often biased, incomplete and partial no matter the topic. We can't use a short press article as evidence, this is like blindly believing the guy who heard that some guy talked to someone who've seen a bear. On the other hand, the people who work on a case (that includes the Judge, but not only obviously) have as close to first hand information as anyone can get. They also spent a long time studying everything that was found. Therefore, while they may still be wrong and biased, their opinion weights more than ours, especially more than this majority that (unlike you as a lawyer) doesn't know anything about Justice. While it is important not to be gullible and take for truth whatever an expert is saying on his own topic, it would be disingenuous not to weight it appropriately - especially in the case of Justice where decisions theoretically have an objective basis (law). This of course must not mean that decisions should go unchecked. (As I said, questioning authority is crucial)

You are saying that this particular case is condemned heavily among lawyers: If correct then *this* should be given weight indeed, and especially so if they have access to unknown information on the case. But short press articles are not enough. By now you probably dug the case quite a lot, so you have more weight to express a judgement on the Judge's decision.

Again, my stance is and has always been to refuse uneducated condemning no matter the horrors committed, while taking into account the impact of press and public opinion in changing society through challenging established order. (e.g. it has been awesome at helping homosexuals so far)

Worth noting that Justice works differently where I live, Judges are seen as more respectable people than say politicians, and the system is different. Doesn't prevent them to be wrong and questioned, cf. paragraphs above.


...oh no, wait, that'd require you to actually read what someone else wrote
I did read your post. I skipped parts of it temporarily though, and since I decided on page 3 to zap discussing the rape case itself out of consideration for others that I offended, I went on to write a post diverging the topic instead of waiting until I could read yours entirely.
Upon reading it was not that bad, I expected it to be filled with inflammatory speech from which I would have had to sort actual arguments. I knew I wouldn't back down from replying on an equally aggressive tone, which I find never ever helps even a little, except on situations where pride and social status are in line. Not the case here.


and then go off on your own self-righteous tangent as a wronged victim of "mob mentality" and "crowd judgment"
Nu-uh. I don't feel victimized at all, it's not that. Additionally, I said there are elements of these, not that it was actually occurring. I found it genuinely interesting.



The misunderstanding possibly comes from the fact that we aren't talking about the same things. You wanted to talk about the rape case, I was using it to go elsewhere. And then the fact that I skipped the most sensible parts of your last post added to the confusion. It does goes to show again that when we want to be heard we mustn't start with inflammatory speech.

To quickly reply to what I skipped: I see no disagreement on everything that is general. On the specifics I notice a couple shortcuts and generalisations about the Judge that I couldn't adhere to without first digging (guilty until proven otherwise), but know of no reliable means to since normal media is not enough. Also not the topic I was interested in talking about when I first replied ;)

[Solid Snake]

All right, all right. You're clearly not trolling to the extent I thought you were trolling earlier so maybe I just misread elements of your argument.

That being said I will say one last thing: I understand there are these "other elements" like:


- The rather common dislike for humanity. I wish I could express powerfully enough and with just a few words how humanity is lovable despite its flaws...

- Mob reaction, crowd judgement, mass shunning and alienating, etc. I already said why, I think.

- The weight of press and public opinion on society, in a global perspective, for both the better and the worse.

That you might want to talk about but in the context of someone expressing that an objectively awful (lack of) sentencing of a rapist is objectively awful, trying to make those kinds of arguments plays very much into a rape culture kind of vibe, for lack of a better way to put it.

It feels like in attempting to shift the conversation away from the actual injustice that's taken place and onto ancillary and unrelated arguments, as if you're doing a fundamental disservice to what's actually happened. When you attempt to argue that "humanity is lovable" in the wake of hyperbole expressed in the aftermath of a shitty judicial outcome, it sounds tone-deaf, as if you're deliberately minimizing or just plain ignorant of what's happened to the victim and how what's happened is reflective of larger societal trends of how victims have perpetually been abused by our judicial system.

When you attempt to express that we should "trust the judge's informed opinion," when a lawyer is telling you that most other lawyers find the light sentencing abnormal and abhorrent, you sound like you're deliberately buying into the very rape culture you claim to despise, and you sound like you're making excuses to justify something awful happening to both the rape victim herself and to scores of other rape victims who will voluntarily withhold information from authorities under the assumption that this is how their own cases will turn out.

The last people who need to be shamed, alongside the victim herself, are those in the media who are brave enough to recognize what's happening and report it, or those in society at large who are fed up with this bullshit and who dare bombastically declare that humanity doesn't deserve to be loved if this is the way we'd treat rape victims. The judge deserves to be condemned based on publicly available information that makes it clear that her decision was based in large part upon the victim's promiscuity and a reputation for sexual activity and other 'bad behavior.'

It's crucial for this particular victim and for other rape victims throughout our world to know that voices will stand up for them and vehemently defend their right to seek justice after their freedom to control their own bodies is violated, to be protected from individuals who'd maliciously deprive them of that freedom, to be as sexually active as they desire without risking being shamed for said activity in a theoretical sexual assault case, to be human. And it's a sad fact about modern society generally that, when those voices speak up and are loud, they're often the ones who are criticized for refusing to accept the status quo.

The rapists aren't condemned, their enablers aren't condemned, institutional privilege isn't condemned, media representations of non-consensual sexual acts as 'occasionally permissible' aren't condemned, but the vocal feminists who dare raise their voices are condemned.
And when you even indirectly or inadvertently perpetuate that kind of atmosphere by illogically arguing semantics in the aftermath of something like this, you're really not accomplishing anything more than just making this a hostile atmosphere for rape victims specifically and women more generally.

TLDR: Maybe just try not to make the "humanity's still lovable!" or the "we should defer to the opinions of our superiors" or the "mob mentality, the press and the public are just out for blood" arguments in cases like these?

[Krylo]

RawBot:

Speaking in the propensity of my official title as voice of the NPF administration I'd just like to back Snake up on this:

TLDR: Maybe just try not to make the "humanity's still lovable!" or the "we should defer to the opinions of our superiors" or the "mob mentality, the press and the public are just out for blood" arguments in cases like these?

We prefer NPF to feel a safe place for all members, including members who might have personal reasons to be sensitive about sexual assault.

The problem being that, as Snake said, the way you segued into this argument made you seem sympathetic to, well, rape, which can, understandably, upset victims, friends of victims, or just any woman aware of her terrible odds in that regard.

Please attempt to be more aware of this kind of thing in the future.

Thank you.

[RawBot]

The way you segued into this argument made you seem sympathetic to, well, rape
Sorry, I have to disagree after I re-read my first post on page 2. I find it in line with what I had in mind, slightly more oriented towards saying that "humanity isn't that bad, look at how press can bias reality, and if there is a real issue with that first judgement, the new Judge should deal with it". I even take precautions to tell explicitly what I think about rape.

At that point, no more than a short press article was known on the topic. The only mistake I see is that I mistook probation for judgement, thinking the case would be introduced to the new Judge through an appeal process.

Additionally, political correctness has its uses but there is a fine line where it becomes obstructive to discussing touchy subjects. That said, not everything can be discussed in front of everyone and that is perfectly natural.

For some reason I thought NPF was populated by an hardened bunch able to talk about anything, a little on the hardcore side actually. xD
Perhaps that explains why I "only" took one verbal precaution instead of several.



@Snake: Uh uh, it's fun how this always happens. All conversations that turn bad end up, at some point, bickering about who said what at which point and how it was bad and how responsibility is mostly on the other's shoulders. I am glad that at least this one got back to friendly attitude.

But ultimately nobody here cares about the friendly bickering part, not even you and me: we're just trapping ourselves in that web. I hope you'll understand that for this reason, I take it upon myself to cut it now instead of replying point by point to defend whatever I feel should be defended. Hopefully my reply to Krylo is enough to satisfy you.


Alright, you probably hope for a word on your feminism paragraph. I'm a humanist which implies I am also a firm feminist so long as equity between genders hasn't become a reality. But from reading your post it is clear that we live in different contexts, and while I know fairly well American cultures, I wasn't raised there and they do not hold the frame of my perceptions and consciousness. So based on what you said, I don't expect you to easily understand when I say that Justice is supposed to be topic-independent. We must question decisions the same way regardless of topic, i.e. heavy research is always needed no matter what. The press article you linked to is not made of such wood.
Regarding press, you possibly won't understand easily when I say that, the same way you're weary of what politicians say, you should be weary of what press says. But I wrote more on that down the post.



So now we're onto cultural differences and differences in the inner workings of nations. Here we have different Press, different Justice and a different balance between the four powers. The educated portion of my people has a way more serious distrust towards small journalism, rather than Judges. Where I live, Judges try to take down main political figures for real. We have great respect for those guys who never ever talk to the press to defend themselves, yet have politicians discharge truckloads of insanities through low calibre media. The same politicians then try to tie the Judges hands and control their decisions by embedding their ideology or their interests into law, using one-time anecdotes that will foster the people's willingness to let happen what they otherwise wouldn't.

I think you have some of this too, although your Judges don't have the same standing in your eyes.

The medias on the other hand are a really really strong power and therefore need a really really strong independent check - but they have none. They never criticize themselves. Yet they move society far more than Justice is able to. Justice is arguably the weakling among the four powers over here, and the most reasonable.

This, coupled with the fact that our Judges are historically seen to be of high morality and highly neutral, and do not defend themselves against hearsay, makes us very prudent when we see small press articles being all over them. It has empirically proven to be a correct stance so far.

There is higher calibre journalism fortunately, able to shame Judges that make really bad mistakes, and helping trigger the appropriate System safeties to correct such injustices. That journalism, *real* journalism, is admirable and precious, but even it suffers from the fact that press is a mouth forced to always stay open and talk always, hereby expressing way more than it has to say, and often twisting reality.

Actually, the whole "I hate humanity" current is very much fuelled by press bias, and although that's another story, it doesn't help alleviating the prudent distrust and distance taken from whatever the mass media are up to.

[Krylo]

Sorry, I have to disagree after I re-read my first post on page 2.

It is unfortunate, then, that we can not always control the way in which we come off to others.

You are free to disagree but multiple people, both staff members and otherwise, have seen it.

If a bunch of people misconstrue your point, it is advisable that you take into consideration that your wording may not have been as clear as you had thought, or that, perhaps, this is simply a topic where trying to segue into other things is not the most diplomatic approach.

All we're asking is you be more mindful of how you may come off around sensitive topics in the future.

If you want to talk about press bias I invite you to do so in a new thread, preferably in a couple of days with your points thought out in such a way as to not relate to this case or thread.

The same goes for how humanity is great, or any other topic you have tried to cover here.

If you are to continue posting in this thread, I further request, on behalf of the administration, that it be on topic of one of the articles already posted, or to be posting your own news stories that are in line with the opening post.

This thread has been derailed quite enough already, and action may need to be taken (moving or deleting posts) to keep it from being derailed further.

[RawBot]

If a bunch of people misconstrue your point, it is advisable that you take into consideration that your wording may not have been as clear as you had thought, or that, perhaps, this is simply a topic where trying to segue into other things is not the most diplomatic approach.

If you want to talk about press bias I invite you to do so in a new thread, preferably in a couple of daysDamn spider web of bickering. That's exactly what I have been saying for several posts; especially since the rape case was already off the thread's topic. I am unlikely to post anymore threads, don't worry.

As for the rich getting off, let's mark the return on topic with an old image :)

http://i.imgur.com/5UFcj4k.jpg