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

[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.

Originally Posted by Anatole France

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]

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

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

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[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)


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_]

Originally Posted by RawBot

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.