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

[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]

Originally Posted by RawBot

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]

Originally Posted by Red Mage Black

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.