Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 06-15-2016, 04:46 PM
joyfool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Texas
Posts: 9,813
Just thought I'd share this here........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
And now the District Attorney's office has used a rarely used power to disqualify Judge Persky from presiding over a sexual assault trial:

Judge who issued controversial six-month sentence in Stanford trial removed from new sex assault case
  #302  
Old 06-17-2016, 06:49 AM
CairoCarol is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 5,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
EVERY top school lowers their standards for athletes, legacies, and underrepresented minorities.
Nitpick: this is not true. I can't speak for every school, but MIT makes it exceedingly clear that they give zero preference to legacies. My husband is an MIT grad, and our son applied to MIT this past year. MIT sent my husband both e-mails and snail mails to remind us that our son would not receive any preference.

In the event, CairoSon was rejected; had their been a legacy boost, he might very well have been accepted given that he was a credible if not amazing candidate. Nonetheless, I commend MIT for its approach. They are absolutely right to give no preference to legacies.
  #303  
Old 06-17-2016, 08:35 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by CairoCarol View Post
Nitpick: this is not true. I can't speak for every school, but MIT makes it exceedingly clear that they give zero preference to legacies. My husband is an MIT grad, and our son applied to MIT this past year. MIT sent my husband both e-mails and snail mails to remind us that our son would not receive any preference.

In the event, CairoSon was rejected; had their been a legacy boost, he might very well have been accepted given that he was a credible if not amazing candidate. Nonetheless, I commend MIT for its approach. They are absolutely right to give no preference to legacies.
On the merits, you are right. But selfishly, I'm glad this is not the case at Stanford--otherwise, my kids would probably have little chance to get in.
  #304  
Old 06-17-2016, 08:58 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by faithfool View Post
Just thought I'd share this here........
On your second link: It is unclear whether the case that was dismissed by the judge was a sexual assault case or not. If it was, good on the prosecutors. If not, I'd have a bit of trouble with it.

I served as juror on a felony burglary case once. The window on a business was smashed and people were observed entering the store and handing goods out. The cops arrived and everybody scattered. The defendant was found crouching behind a semi-trailer in the back of the next lot over. The prosecution put forth its case, we broke for a late lunch, and when we came back, the judge announced that he had dismissed the case and thanked us for our time.

When the prosecution rested its case, I literally thought, "That's it? I'll listen to the defense but I'm going to find hard to convict on what's before me now." For example, the witness who IDed the defendant was across the street, seven traffic lanes and two parking lots away. The arresting officer testified the defendant was unable to give a good account as to why he was hiding behind a trailer and his shoes were confiscated when he was arrested, but the shoes were not offered as evidence nor was there any mention of any forensic discoveries (like glass fragments on the soles).

The two attorneys and several jurors (including me) hung around for a couple minutes afterward and at least the ones who stuck around were of the same mind as me: it would have been hard to convict. The prosecutor said she knew the case was pretty unwinnable, but the office had decided to go ahead if only to show the kid how much trouble he could get into.

I'm fairly certain that he was guilty, but that's a long, long away from "beyond the shadow of a doubt." The judge's decision to dismiss the case was okay by me.
  #305  
Old 06-17-2016, 09:10 AM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 11,112
It wasn't a sexual assault case, but the description (from the prosecutor, so TTFWIW) does sound like something that's at least worth letting the jury see:

Quote:
Leonard said the first case after Turner’s sentencing was a misdemeanor stolen property case. The defendant was accused of having two pieces of mail belonging to other people open in her purse, he said, with promotional checks from credit-card companies, and the people to whom the mail was addressed testified that the defendant was not known to them and did not have permission to open their mail and they had previously had mail taken. The defense made a motion to dismiss the case and Persky granted the motion, Leonard said, surprising prosecutors. “It’s a fairly routine motion,” he said, “and it’s very rarely granted.”
  #306  
Old 06-17-2016, 09:47 AM
Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
It wasn't a sexual assault case, but the description (from the prosecutor, so TTFWIW) does sound like something that's at least worth letting the jury see:
And he's won the vote for identity thieves everywhere.
  #307  
Old 06-17-2016, 10:46 AM
CairoCarol is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 5,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
On the merits, you are right. But selfishly, I'm glad this is not the case at Stanford--otherwise, my kids would probably have little chance to get in.
Totally understand and agree. I approve of the MIT policy, but if our son had been accepted and MIT had a pro-legacy policy...well, let's just say I would not have said, "but this is a tainted acceptance! You can't go there!" We would have all been thrilled.
  #308  
Old 06-17-2016, 10:59 AM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by CairoCarol View Post
Nitpick: this is not true. I can't speak for every school, but MIT makes it exceedingly clear that they give zero preference to legacies. My husband is an MIT grad, and our son applied to MIT this past year. MIT sent my husband both e-mails and snail mails to remind us that our son would not receive any preference.
Oh shit, you're right. MIT and Cal Tech do not seem to practice legacy preferences (or athletic or racial preferences for that matter). Neither do some of the top public schools.

Quote:
In the event, CairoSon was rejected; had their been a legacy boost, he might very well have been accepted given that he was a credible if not amazing candidate. Nonetheless, I commend MIT for its approach. They are absolutely right to give no preference to legacies.
I agree. Intellectually I know that it is not fair for my son to get a legacy preference but people are weird when it comes to their own kids. Notions of fairness and equity are frequently put on hold, see letter from Brock Turner's parents.
  #309  
Old 06-17-2016, 11:13 AM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
I'm fairly certain that he was guilty, but that's a long, long away from "beyond the shadow of a doubt." The judge's decision to dismiss the case was okay by me.
It's "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond the shadow of a doubt."

But I know what you mean. I was on a jury once that hung, because while some people were going with a "gut feeling" the defendant was guilty, others couldn't get past the horrible presentation of the prosecution. I mean, you could have made a "What not to do" video from the prosecutor's performance. He stuttered, and forgot things, changed his mind about what he was talking about mid-sentence, and relied mainly on teary testimony by an unlikable victim, who couldn't actually identify the defendant-- he claimed to recognize him in court, but he had not be able to pick out his picture, nor identify him in a line-up earlier; and on the testimony of the arresting officer who emphasized the fact that the defendant had a gun. A lot of people in Indiana have guns and have never committed a crime. The victim couldn't identify the type of gun his attacker had-- not even whether or not it took a clip or was a revolver.

There was no other evidence whatsoever. I know the world isn't CSI, but there was nothing. It was a daylight crime, and there were no witnesses.

I realize the prosecutor has only what the police give him, but they probably should have dismissed this one.
  #310  
Old 06-17-2016, 11:50 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Intellectually I know that it is not fair for my son to get a legacy preference but people are weird when it comes to their own kids. Notions of fairness and equity are frequently put on hold, see letter from Brock Turner's parents.
Agreed, except that I don't find it all that weird. I think evolutionary psychology has a more powerful grip on human beings than most people understand, or are comfortable admitting. I don't even try to fight it: I figure other parents can try to advance their kids as best as they can, and good luck to everyone.
  #311  
Old 06-17-2016, 12:00 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I agree. Intellectually I know that it is not fair for my son to get a legacy preference but people are weird when it comes to their own kids. Notions of fairness and equity are frequently put on hold, see letter from Brock Turner's parents.
There's nothing weird about that at all. A parent prefers the welfare of their child over other children. It is perfectly rational to prefer there be a fair system for all children while acting for your child's best interests within an unfair system. This is a classic problem, quite easily described with basic arithmetic, in microeconomics.

Nor is this something people struggle to admit, as Slackerinc suggest. Of course people admit they love their kids more than kids they don't know. I buy Christmas presents for my kids, but not for yours. Everyone understands that.
  #312  
Old 06-17-2016, 12:15 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
There's nothing weird about that at all. A parent prefers the welfare of their child over other children. It is perfectly rational to prefer there be a fair system for all children while acting for your child's best interests within an unfair system. This is a classic problem, quite easily described with basic arithmetic, in microeconomics.

Nor is this something people struggle to admit, as Slackerinc suggest. Of course people admit they love their kids more than kids they don't know. I buy Christmas presents for my kids, but not for yours. Everyone understands that.
Sure, but look at the example we are discussing. Many people will feel sheepish about admitting "yeah, my kid got into Stanford/Harvard/Yale/etc. because of a family connection that I exploited".

And your construction of "It is perfectly rational to prefer there be a fair system for all children while acting for your child's best interests within an unfair system" kind of sidesteps the point: if there were a referendum banning legacy admissions, would you vote for it? I would vote against it as things stand now. If my dad were not a Stanford alum (or equivalent), I would vote for it. I'm not going to pretend otherwise, but I continue to believe most people would not so brazenly admit something like that.
  #313  
Old 06-17-2016, 12:24 PM
ivylass is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Orlando(ish)
Posts: 22,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
It wasn't a sexual assault case, but the description (from the prosecutor, so TTFWIW) does sound like something that's at least worth letting the jury see:
The defendant was probably another Stanford alum.
  #314  
Old 06-17-2016, 12:48 PM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 11,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivylass View Post
The defendant was probably another Stanford alum.
I wonder what her lap times were.
  #315  
Old 06-17-2016, 01:13 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And your construction of "It is perfectly rational to prefer there be a fair system for all children while acting for your child's best interests within an unfair system" kind of sidesteps the point: if there were a referendum banning legacy admissions, would you vote for it?
It depends on how much I personally would benefit or not benefit from such a policy.
  #316  
Old 06-17-2016, 04:53 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
There's nothing weird about that at all. A parent prefers the welfare of their child over other children. It is perfectly rational to prefer there be a fair system for all children while acting for your child's best interests within an unfair system. This is a classic problem, quite easily described with basic arithmetic, in microeconomics.

Nor is this something people struggle to admit, as Slackerinc suggest. Of course people admit they love their kids more than kids they don't know. I buy Christmas presents for my kids, but not for yours. Everyone understands that.
I'm not saying that you love your kids more than a stranger's kids. I'm saying that otherwise fair and honest people ignore concepts of fairness if it provides an advantage for their own kids.

Everyone TALKS about how they want there to be fairness and a level playing field in education but they actively pursue legacy advantages and turn a blind eye to discrimination that helps their own kids. They're not just doing the best they can within an unfair system, they have a preference for the unfair system because the unfair system provides unearned advantages for their kid.
  #317  
Old 06-17-2016, 04:58 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Everyone TALKS about how they want there to be fairness and a level playing field in education but they actively pursue legacy advantages and turn a blind eye to discrimination that helps their own kids. They're not just doing the best they can within an unfair system, they have a preference for the unfair system because the unfair system provides unearned advantages for their kid.
Right. RickJay and I both copped to doing this. But he seems to think most parents not only do it but make no bones about it. I believe a lot of them are not so up front about it, and if I'm reading you right, I think you agree?
  #318  
Old 06-29-2016, 01:25 PM
hotflungwok is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,374
Looks like Judge Persky isn't concerned about what impact jail might have on someone who isn't rich and white.
  #319  
Old 06-29-2016, 01:29 PM
treis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,264
Quote:
Because Ramirez ultimately pleaded guilty to a felony offense that does not have an option for probation or a lighter sentence, Persky was limited in the sentence he could approve for the specific conviction.
So because the same judge sentenced a different offender who pled guilty to a different offense to the minimum he possibly could means he's racist?



And there's more:

Quote:
An Associated Press review of 20 criminal cases for which Persky has issued sentences also concluded that there didn’t appear to be any racial biases in his decisions.

Gary Goodman, a supervising attorney for the Santa Clara County public defender’s office, who has spoken up in favor of Persky, was one of several lawyers who represented Ramirez.

He pointed out that the distinct outcomes in the two cases stems from the way that California law treats sexual assault of a conscious person as a more serious offense than attacking an unconscious victim.

Last edited by treis; 06-29-2016 at 01:30 PM.
  #320  
Old 06-29-2016, 01:40 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Right. RickJay and I both copped to doing this. But he seems to think most parents not only do it but make no bones about it. I believe a lot of them are not so up front about it, and if I'm reading you right, I think you agree?
Yes, that is correct. People are usually ashamed of unfair advantages and will generally deny having them.
  #321  
Old 06-30-2016, 12:33 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Yes, that is correct. People are usually ashamed of unfair advantages and will generally deny having them.
Which only makes sense. You try to look for and use every advantage you can in life.
  #322  
Old 08-30-2016, 05:36 PM
hotflungwok is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,374
Clearly 6 months was far too long to hold someone as well behaved as Brock Turner so they're letting him go 3 months early.
  #323  
Old 08-30-2016, 07:23 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,307
I believe that it was reported at the time that he would likely serve only three months.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #324  
Old 08-30-2016, 09:02 PM
Backwater Under_Duck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,154
On the other hand, the California legislators have come to the conclusion that mandatory sentences for rape might be useful. I don't know.
  #325  
Old 08-30-2016, 10:38 PM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,705
I'm not a fan of mandatory sentencing because that blade cuts both ways and too often comes down handing down heavy sentences for relatively minor incidents. I would support giving the state appeal rights on sentencing the way that defendants do.
  #326  
Old 08-30-2016, 10:58 PM
Peremensoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 11,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Projammer View Post
I'm not a fan of mandatory sentencing because that blade cuts both ways and too often comes down handing down heavy sentences for relatively minor incidents.
That would seem to be a problem of the particular mandatory sentence being set too high for the crime, or the charged crime not fitting the event.
  #327  
Old 08-31-2016, 08:40 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotflungwok View Post
Clearly 6 months was far too long to hold someone as well behaved as Brock Turner so they're letting him go 3 months early.
"And you'd better shape up, or next time we'll slap you on both wrists."
  #328  
Old 08-31-2016, 09:49 AM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,770
Looks like Howdy Doody had a son.
  #329  
Old 08-31-2016, 10:25 AM
Death of Rats is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: A Humid Oven
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwater Under_Duck View Post
On the other hand, the California legislators have come to the conclusion that mandatory sentences for rape might be useful. I don't know.
They already had that. It just did not cover instances where the victim was unconscious or unable to defend themselves. The legislation closes that loophole. So, not new, just fixes poorly written previous laws.
  #330  
Old 08-31-2016, 11:43 AM
Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,555
I caught up on this thread, then got in my car where NPR was doing a piece on the President commuting sentences. They talked to a woman whose sentence was commuted a year ago. She did ten out of twenty years for possession with intent to distribute of cocaine. She left her kids on the outside for a decade. My guess (although it was radio, so I don't know) was that she was a poor person of color.

Now, I don't think you should be able to deal narcotics and dance away without any penalty, but twenty years - commuted to ten - for possession with intent and six months - released after three - for RAPE! I could see the blood vessels in my head starting to throb.
__________________
One day, in Teletubbie land, it was Tinkie Winkie's turn to wear the skirt.
  #331  
Old 08-31-2016, 11:49 AM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peremensoe View Post
That would seem to be a problem of the particular mandatory sentence being set too high for the crime, or the charged crime not fitting the event.
More often it's a matter of the category being too broad. I don't have a specific cite in front of me so I'll attempt to reconstruct an example from memory. Someone was sentenced to 20 years under mandatory sentencing for repeat offenders of drug possession. For having a single joint. The same sentence he would have received for having a kilo of heroin.

I personally witnessed a trial where a man was sentenced to 40 years under third strike guidelines. For shoplifting a carton of cigarettes.

I have no interest in being light on criminals, but I do think that the penalty should be appropriate to the specific crime.
  #332  
Old 08-31-2016, 02:00 PM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerosa View Post
I caught up on this thread, then got in my car where NPR was doing a piece on the President commuting sentences. They talked to a woman whose sentence was commuted a year ago. She did ten out of twenty years for possession with intent to distribute of cocaine. She left her kids on the outside for a decade. My guess (although it was radio, so I don't know) was that she was a poor person of color.

Now, I don't think you should be able to deal narcotics and dance away without any penalty, but twenty years - commuted to ten - for possession with intent and six months - released after three - for RAPE! I could see the blood vessels in my head starting to throb.
She was convicted of a federal crime and he of a state crime. Apples and oranges. And the fact that she was charged by the Feds means there is more to her case than you have stated.
  #333  
Old 08-31-2016, 04:29 PM
Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
She was convicted of a federal crime and he of a state crime. Apples and oranges. And the fact that she was charged by the Feds means there is more to her case than you have stated.
No kidding?! She was charged with possession with intent and he was charged with rape - yes, its apples to oranges, ya think?
  #334  
Old 08-31-2016, 06:39 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Yeah, we have mandatory minimums on the wrong things. Remove them from drug crimes, put them on Rape, Pedophilia, Kidnapping, Manslaughter and Murder.
  #335  
Old 08-31-2016, 08:44 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
Yeah, we have mandatory minimums on the wrong things. Remove them from drug crimes, put them on Rape, Pedophilia, Kidnapping, Manslaughter and Murder.
I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but I would say to reserve them only for the last two.
  #336  
Old 08-31-2016, 08:48 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
I dunno, I don't have a problem with a manmin of 2 or 3 years on a Rape charge. Would certainly have made this piece of shit serve more time.

Where we run into trouble as a society is when we go nutso and put 10 year mandatory minimums on things.
  #337  
Old 08-31-2016, 09:06 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
I have long thought anyone guilty of criminally causing the death of another person should never get to rejoin society. You shouldn't have to run into your mother's killer in the A&P, or the waiting room at the doctor's office. If you get convicted of manslaughter, you get a nicer cell and more visitation privileges.
  #338  
Old 08-31-2016, 10:34 PM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerosa View Post
No kidding?! She was charged with possession with intent and he was charged with rape - yes, its apples to oranges, ya think?
The cases arent comparible because the courts are different. The womans case was adjudicated at the federal level; and her sentence would have been much less had she cooperated with the prosecution. The douchebag rapist was a state charge and his sentence was solely the fault of a bleeding heart judge who didnt want to 'severely impact' the life of a young athlete-rapist. This sentence would have been impossible at the federal level because of mandatory minimum sentencing.
  #339  
Old 09-02-2016, 02:46 PM
Drunky Smurf's Avatar
Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 11,194
YAY!!!!!!!!! He's free!!!!!!!!!

Ding Dong the Prince is free!
Which Ol' Prince?
The Rapey Prince!

Ding Dong the Rapey Prince is free!
  #340  
Old 09-02-2016, 03:16 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,196
If they are going to change laws regarding rape, they'll have to change the definition of rape to include what he did - don't forget, he wasn't convicted of rape and there's no reason to think that, under the law, he did actually rape her. Simply changing the minimum sentence won't affect cases like this.

To make it clear, the law should be changed to punish this sort of action much more severely, the distinction between penetrating with a penis or another object shouldn't make that much difference.
  #341  
Old 09-02-2016, 03:27 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,307
You think they will forget to change the sentencing rules for felony sexual assault if they want to change the sentencing rules for felony sexual assault?
  #342  
Old 09-02-2016, 06:43 PM
Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
The cases arent comparible because the courts are different. The womans case was adjudicated at the federal level; and her sentence would have been much less had she cooperated with the prosecution. The douchebag rapist was a state charge and his sentence was solely the fault of a bleeding heart judge who didnt want to 'severely impact' the life of a young athlete-rapist. This sentence would have been impossible at the federal level because of mandatory minimum sentencing.
Are you under the impression that I am blindingly stupid so that you have to keep explaining this? Because I assure you, I'm well aware of absolutely everything you posted and you are coming across as patronizing.
  #343  
Old 09-04-2016, 03:22 AM
Hocus Pocus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: South King County, WA
Posts: 344
I hope all the inmates got their 20 minutes of action.
__________________
Carpe Per Diem

"Seize the meal money!"
  #344  
Old 09-04-2016, 09:41 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,307
I don't. Rape is wrong, regardless of who the victim is.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #345  
Old 09-04-2016, 04:29 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I don't. Rape is wrong, regardless of who the victim is.
It's not rape. It's "action".
  #346  
Old 09-04-2016, 04:50 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
It's not rape. It's "action".
If you thought it was wrong when Brock Turner did it, then it's wrong when it's done to Brock Turner.
  #347  
Old 09-04-2016, 05:02 PM
Mosier is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vegas
Posts: 7,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
YAY!!!!!!!!! He's free!!!!!!!!!

Ding Dong the Prince is free!
Which Ol' Prince?
The Rapey Prince!

Ding Dong the Rapey Prince is free!
It's really fun to imagine an actual drunk Smurf singing this song. Thanks!
  #348  
Old 09-04-2016, 10:33 PM
Little_Pig is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mountain View Ca.
Posts: 3,382
Protesters show up with signs, guns at Ohio home of Brock Turner's parents.
  #349  
Old 09-05-2016, 04:21 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Not cool. A perfect illustration of the dangers of ginning up an Internet mob.
  #350  
Old 09-05-2016, 04:35 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Not cool. A perfect illustration of the dangers of ginning up an Internet mob.
An illustration of the dangers of promoting the idea that protestors should be armed. It's only a matter of time before one of these armed protests turns into a bloodbath.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017