No. Most people do the stupid thing, or more than one stupid thing, and they learn, even if they get away with it. I don’t think that means we ought to let them get away with it, but sometimes it just happens.
But a stupid thing that results in injuries to others, lives lost, and stuff like that? No. No getting away with it and no pass.
Despite the claims of the rapist’s father, there has been substantial documentation by the prosecutors’s office, (documentation ignored by the judge), that the rapist’s behavior was consistent with his previous behavior in college along with evidence that his doping, that he claimed began under bad influences in college, was well developed in high school.
If we give him a pass for “one stupid action,” we can use that for behavior long past and he should not have been given a pass on this event.
The guy pretty much already got the equivalent of a pass with such a freaking light penalty for what he did, sure he’ll be labeled a sex offender, but his life isn’t even closed to being ruined or anything, he’ll have his freedom again shortly.
I do think that people should have a chance to repay the damage caused. I don’t think that anybody should be allowed to get away free no matter how much of a one-off it was.
And one-offs, let’s be honest, are unlikely. Somebody that goes away drunk driving once will probably do it again. Someone who rapes an unconscious girl will do the same next time that he finds a passed-out woman… at least until he suffers some sort of consequences.
Yes. The reason people rape is because ultimately they don’t think it’s a “stupid thing” to do. They consider it satisfying, and/or “badass”, and/or bragworthy (there’s some evidence that the Stanford rapist sent photos of his victim’s exposed body to his buddies during the rape). Letting them get away with it is not going to change that attitude.
We do. It’s called “sealing your juvenile record”.
Not really. It’s brought into question how wealth and privilege can effectively buy someone a free pass for committing a criminal act.
What would you have happen if it was a person you loved who was killed by their reckless disregard?
Truly accidently mistakes are treated differently from negligence which are treated differently from willful criminal acts.
And honestly, who gives a shit if a rapist was a good student or varsity athlete?
For something like rape or murder? Absolutely. For vehicular homicide, no. And actual sentencing tends to reflect that.
We don’t put people in prison for their benefit.
It’s the general attitude that “boys will be boys” and that the rapist deserves a “free pass” because they happen to be an otherwise upstanding citizen.
In fact, it’s part of a more general “entitlement culture”. I saw a lot of this starting in college. No rapes that I’m aware of. But just a general affluent fraternity mentality that rules are mostly a joke to be followed by other people and that money and a closed network can serve to insulate people from the consequences of their actions.
You don’t think a tougher punishment for vehicular homicide will act as a deterrent against reckless driving, distracted driving, driving while tired & sleepy, etc.?
Society is irrelevant in a rape case. There is a rapist and a victim. The victim should decide. If a victim would rather see the person in jail a long time, ok. If they want money, ok. If they want to turn the other cheek, ok.
No. The rapist has committed a crime against their victim, *and *they have committed a crime against society. Society says that those actions are criminal, not the victim. And society should say, fuck that guy he should rot.
So a wealthy rapist should be allowed to keep committing rapes as long as his past victims were willing to accept cash settlements? Shouldn’t there be some attempt to stop him from committing future rapes?
And that’s ignoring the issue that your system allows wealthy rapists to commit a string of rapes while not granting poor rapists the same. What’s the distinction you see between rape committed by a wealthy person and rape committed by a poor person? Why is one more acceptable than the other?
Everyone gets one oops in their life. Don’t like your MIL? Off her. Her survivors can then off you.
Family of a rapee can off the rapist.
But just one oops per life. This may free up the courts. Maybe slow down population growth.
Or people may treat each other better, if they know you haven’t used up your opps.
Urbanredneck, are you willing to be the person killed by the first-time young drunk driver -oops? If no, then why are you willing for the rest of society to risk being that person? If I’m killed by a young drunk driver I would prefer my killer be punished, not let off easy because oops.
What happens if I use up my one free oops too early in life? Say I’m a fourteen year old and I kill my math teacher for giving me a pop quiz.
Years later, I realize that was a trivial waste of my once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Can I declare that using up my free oops was a stupid thing to do and have another one? Doesn’t everyone deserve a second chance after making a stupid mistake?
That’s part of it for sure. But it’s more than that. Your average frat boy has a very different level of entitlement about the “rules” about a drunk sorority girl than about, say, the rules about a professor’s Beamer.
Why don’t we let everyone who wants the one-time free pass get a tattoo somewhere visible? That way, when they go to rape or steal or kill, they can as long as they choose a victim who is in on the deal and leave the rest of us alone.