|
Jack Trades posted:Maybe what you think is racism and sexism are not what they actually are? your argument is literally "humans have been wrong before, you are a human, therefore you might be wrong", which is the dumbest, most philosophy 101 poo poo ever.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
stone cold posted:This doesn't seem like it should be a criminal justice system issue though tbh
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:What mental disease does a person have to have where "treating child prostitutes as victims who need support instead of criminals" reads as "legalization of child prostitution"? I guess those horribly abused and exploited children deserve to suffer in prison so that a more just world might exist. The reasoning, according to actual statements from law enforcement and the rescue industry is that they have no choice but to arrest them. Otherwise these soiled doves will not change their wanton ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Hopefully this means in CA it won't be any more, but in most of the country the local government can choose between jail or nothing when it comes to dealing with people who need a structured environment. Right, which was an excellent point brought up an in earlier article about a raised rate of arrests of teenage girls in MA for domestic abuse, because local law enforcement isn't exactly harmonized to VAWA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
 When your penal code says it's worse to rearrange letters on a sign than to rape an unconscious woman behind a dumpster
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Yeah, that's part of her area of research. I think her discussion on the hypersexuality in portrayals of Asian and Asian American women, particularly in pornography, contrasted with the feminization of Asian men a pretty interesting contrast. She did some really fascinating archival research at the Kinsey Institute. stone cold posted:what does this have to do with feminism? So y'all talkin' 'bout how American women are now seriously hosed because you have some woman hatin' motherfuckers in high places now? What's been up on the grassroots level? I heard about the Nasty Women and whatnot, but have there been any post-Trump/election orgs springing up to fight back on the local level?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:
well that's absolutely horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
..
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:
What someone is "facing" usually won't actually end up getting, depending on how the court session goes. If Hollyweed guy gets a good lawyer he will probably get his sentence reduced to probation only. Brock Turner had an aggressive lawyer and said lawyer got him a lot of concessions in order to get such a short sentence. I don't know what California's rape laws are but I'm sure the recommended sentence is much longer than 3 months. It's screwed up but goes back to the "rich get away with it because they can hire the best lawyers" mantra.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:What someone is "facing" usually won't actually end up getting, depending on how the court session goes. If Hollyweed guy gets a good lawyer he will probably get his sentence reduced to probation only. Brock Turner also had his case heard before a judge who went to the same school as him, and gave him leniency for having a scholarship for swimming. So it wasn't just lawyers, it was "rich guy getting away with it because of old-boys mentality from a rich-guy judge", which is about as blatant an example of the patriarchy as you'll find.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Brock Turner also had his case heard before a judge who went to the same school as him, and gave him leniency for having a scholarship for swimming. So it wasn't just lawyers, it was "rich guy getting away with it because of old-boys mentality from a rich-guy judge", which is about as blatant an example of the patriarchy as you'll find. I've a question about that, since I've not followed the case at all. Do you all know whether the victim pursued damages against Turner through a civil suit? Related to that, how do people in this thread feel about a rising/upcoming legal paradigm of emphasizing victim's rights including simplifying and encouraging civil prosecution and civil suits for damages in criminal cases - particularly in cases where the accused is acquitted? It's sort of a trend in Europe, possibly in connection with ECHR law encouraging rape being seen as torture and imposing on signatory states a positive obligation/duty to act and safeguard victims of rape alongside victims of torture and murder - which again is possibly a consequence of feminist influence on law and politics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Brock Turner also had his case heard before a judge who went to the same school as him, and gave him leniency for having a scholarship for swimming. So it wasn't just lawyers, it was "rich guy getting away with it because of old-boys mentality from a rich-guy judge", which is about as blatant an example of the patriarchy as you'll find. Yeah, don't get me wrong - there's still plenty messed up about that case, and the flaws in our justice system. I think my main point was that Hollyweed guy probably won't get 6 months in jail unless he has a history of doing this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:What someone is "facing" usually won't actually end up getting, depending on how the court session goes. If Hollyweed guy gets a good lawyer he will probably get his sentence reduced to probation only. Turner was facing 14 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:Turner was facing 14 years. The maximum possible sentence was 14 years. The prosecuters recommended 6 years and the probation department (apparantly a thing in CA. I'm not a CA lawyer. Or any kind of lawyer) recommended a county jail sentence. Turner eventually got 6 months in jail with 3 years probation. Wikipedia article on the case says... posted:Nancy Brewer, a retired Santa Clara County assistant public defender, described Persky as being "respected by both prosecutors and defenders", further stating that he "is seen as a fair judge who is not soft on crime or someone who gives lenient sentences." Brewer said that Persky "carefully evaluated the evidence and did what he thought was a fair and appropriate sentence in the case ... based on the Santa Clara County Probation Department's pre-sentence investigation report." Danny Cevallos said the judge "absolutely is obliged to consider very seriously the [probation department] report" and noted that the California penal code allows a judge to depart from the statutory minimum (two years) after considering the defendant's lack of criminal history and the effect of incarceration. Cevallos believed that while the sentence was lenient, Turner's prior clean record made him a candidate for minimum sentencing.[62] Deputy Public Defender Sajid Khan did not consider the sentence lenient as he noted "Turner will register as a sex offender for life, and if he violates his probation he could go to prison for 14 years." Khan further stated that "Persky's reputation among public defenders (a group closely attuned to racial inequities in the courtroom) is that of a fair-minded jurist", saying, "No one has been able to cite an example so far of him [sic] where a similarly situated minority client has been treated harshly by him. We appreciated...the judge's understanding of Brock Turner's humanity...and we would want any judge to do the same for our clients."[22][63] Similarly, other sitting judges (both state and federal) and legal commentators have defended Persky's decision, noted that the sentence may, in their opinion, be disproportionate due to the life-long consequences of a criminal conviction and sex offender registration, and called on the bar to protect the independence of the judiciary Apparantly the sentence he was given was not out of line given CA law at the time and the judge's discretion. Defense attourneys seem to be pretty pro Persky even in other contexts. There have apparantly been consequences for the judge. Persky benched himself rather than have the controversy mucking things up for the CA judiciary, and faces a recall election in November 2017. quote:The move to recall Persky was opposed by the Santa Clara County public defender, who said she is "alarmed by the hysteria" about the Turner sentence. A group of 70 public defenders has petitioned in support of Persky, warning against "mass incarceration" brought upon by state legislatures or indiscreet judges, and fearing that the backlash against Persky could hurt their clients (mostly poor African and Latino) by compelling judges to give out harsh sentences. Deputy Public Defender Sajid Khan wrote "rather than using robotic, one size fits all punishment schemes, we want judges, like Judge Persky, to engage in thoughtful, case by case, individualized determinations of the appropriate sentence for a particular crime and particular offender".[22][23] Santa Clara County district attorney Jeff Rosen, whose office prosecuted Turner and will not appeal the sentence, stated, "While I strongly disagree with the sentence that Judge Persky issued in the Brock Turner case, I do not believe he should be removed from his judgeship"[74] and said "Judicial independence is a critical part of the U.S. justice system. The immense power that comes with judicial independence also comes with accountability to the people we serve."[23] Danny Cevallos stated that judges enjoy a modicum of independence from public pressure, and "there are no apparent grounds for impeachment or allegations of judicial misconduct, based on this sentence alone." Cevallos said that the recall movement "raises the question: is removing judges good for the spirit of the judiciary system, especially when the judge's sole transgression is a legal sentence" where he correctly applied the law.[75][76] The Santa Clara County Bar Association has released a statement saying that removing Persky would be a "threat to judicial independence" and weighs just one of his 13 years of decisions too heavily, saying they see "no credible assertions that in issuing the sentence, Judge Persky violated the law or his ethical obligations or acted in bad faith."[22] Similarly, other sitting judges (both state and federal) and legal commentators have defended Persky's decision, noted that the sentence might, in their opinion, be disproportionate due to the life-long consequences of a criminal conviction and sex offender registration, and called on the bar to protect the independence of the judiciary. Basically all lawyers including the prosecutor who tried the case are against this wokest of backlashes, which led to harsher minimum sentencing guidelines that ensure more people who could have been treated or rehabilitated will end up in prison instead. quote:The public outrage at the sentence in the Turner case prompted the California State Legislature to pass two bills that would change California state law on sexual assault. Assembly Bill 701 would broaden California's definition of rape so that it would cover digital, as well as penile, penetration. Assembly Bill 2888 (written by District Attorney Jeff Rosen) would provide for a mandatory minimum three-year prison sentence for sexual assault of an unconscious or intoxicated person. (Current California law provides a mandatory minimum prison sentence when a defendant uses force, but has no mandatory minimum sentence when the victim is unconscious or incapacitated and unable to resist.)[124][125][126][127][128] And also ensured maximum potential criminality of drunken hookups and almost-hookups between irresponsible young adults, which will surely have no unintended bad consequences whatsoever. (Though to be clear, what Turner did was not that.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:What someone is "facing" usually won't actually end up getting, depending on how the court session goes. If Hollyweed guy gets a good lawyer he will probably get his sentence reduced to probation only.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
The backlash against the judge is not about mandatory minimums being insufficient but the way he used his discretion to eliminate any real consequences for the rapist because he sympathized with the rapist in an inappropriate way. It does seem likely that the only structural response will be an increase in mandatory minimums that further destroy the lives of anyone a rich white man won't easily sympathize with, since that leaves the actual problem of the rich white boys' club and its protective effects untouched.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:The backlash against the judge is not about mandatory minimums being insufficient but the way he used his discretion to eliminate any real consequences for the rapist because he sympathized with the rapist in an inappropriate way. It does seem likely that the only structural response will be an increase in mandatory minimums that further destroy the lives of anyone a rich white man won't easily sympathize with, since that leaves the actual problem of the rich white boys' club and its protective effects untouched. That perception is why people are upset. I get that. But... A) The judge's decision was in line with the parol department's recommendation. Do you think they are part of the club, too? B) The kid will have a felony record and is branded a sex offender for life. That is not "elminiating any real consequences." Those things are going to follow him for the rest of his life. C) "because he sympathized with the rapist in an inappropriate way" is something being read into the judge's decision that isn't supported by any facts. It's the same expression of outrage that happens whenever people with their blood up think that someone didn't get what was coming to them. It's bloodlust and prejudice and it's wrong. Compassion in sentencing and treatment over punishment don't only apply when the offender is sympathetic. A young, first-time offender should be routed into treatment rather than incarcerated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That perception is why people are upset. I get that. But... The "Boys Will Be Boys" Club, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That perception is why people are upset. I get that. But... Yes, that's called the patriarchy
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Kelp Me! posted:Yes, that's called the patriarchy That's a facile explanation. Why is it a patriarchal injustice and not an application of progressive sentencing practices aimed at rehabilitation over punishment? edit: IDK if NM is reading this topic, or still posting for that matter, but maybe the perspective of a public defender from California (separate from the many public defenders who have voiced support) would be useful here. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Are you familiar with many parole departments? Because yeah, that's pretty much exactly how they run. They are usually part of the club. Also, if you're arguing seriously for the rehabilitation thing, maybe you should be clear about what rehabilative measures were taken in this case? Because I remember something roughly between jack and squat, but maybe I just missed it. The fact that the institutional response is going to be what it is is pretty lovely though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
I generally tend towards leniency in criminal justice with a big focus on rehabilitation over retribution, so the bigger problems (in my view) arise when you look at comparison cases. Hmm, how strange, people are a lot more interested in the rehabilitation of Brock Turner than they are in the rehabilitation of others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Are you familiar with many parole departments? Part of his sentence is the obligation to participate in a sex offender rehabilitation program. The wikipedia article didn't have more information. What is your familiarity with the way parole departments are run? I'd be interested to hear more about the inner workings of those sorts of institutions if you don't mind talking about it. edit: BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I generally tend towards leniency in criminal justice with a big focus on rehabilitation over retribution, so the bigger problems (in my view) arise when you look at comparison cases. Hmm, how strange, people are a lot more interested in the rehabilitation of Brock Turner than they are in the rehabilitation of others. Are you thinking of specific cases and specific people? wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Progressive sentencing is usually about getting people off drugs or moving them into jobs with skills that prevent them from stealing. Should rapists not be punished for visiting grave harm on another person or violating that person's bodily integrity? Nobody's saying he should got to prison for 378 years like somebody getting mandatory minimums for meth or crack (or pot under three strikes laws), but do you not understand why a punitive measure is appropriate for someone who callously harms another for the sake of his own gratification?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Are you thinking of specific cases and specific people? No, I'm thinking systemically. If you were to take what minority offenders get for non-violent crime as a baseline, Turner should be in for life. What causes us to see Turner and go "SIX MONTHS?!?" is knowing what else gets people six months. I'm in partial agreement with you because I think it's a backwards way of thinking about justice; I think we do better as a society if everyone gets the sentencing of the priviledged.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Progressive sentencing is usually about getting people off drugs or moving them into jobs with skills that prevent them from stealing. Should rapists not be punished for visiting grave harm on another person or violating that person's bodily integrity? Nobody's saying he should got to prison for 378 years like somebody getting mandatory minimums for meth or crack (or pot under three strikes laws), but do you not understand why a punitive measure is appropriate for someone who callously harms another for the sake of his own gratification? IDK man. There are societal pressures, and a culture of alcohol use, hooking up, and a general lack of accountability that goes along with being 20 and being in college that contributed to what he did. That doesn't excuse it at all, but that does make calling it callous harm sort of questionable. Ultimately IMO it is better to err towards rehab then towards punishment and to not give in to vengeful impulses. What interest is served by putting a kid in prison for 6 years? edit: BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:No, I'm thinking systemically. If you were to take what minority offenders get for non-violent crime as a baseline, Turner should be in for life. What causes us to see Turner and go "SIX MONTHS?!?" is knowing what else gets people six months. I'm in partial agreement with you because I think it's a backwards way of thinking about justice; I think we do better as a society if everyone gets the sentencing of the priviledged. What do you make of the below statement from a Deputy Public Defender familiar with the judge? quote:Deputy Public Defender Sajid Khan did not consider the sentence lenient as he noted "Turner will register as a sex offender for life, and if he violates his probation he could go to prison for 14 years." Khan further stated that "Persky's reputation among public defenders (a group closely attuned to racial inequities in the courtroom) is that of a fair-minded jurist", saying, "No one has been able to cite an example so far of him [sic] where a similarly situated minority client has been treated harshly by him. We appreciated...the judge's understanding of Brock Turner's humanity...and we would want any judge to do the same for our clients." (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That's a facile explanation. Why is it a patriarchal injustice and not an application of progressive sentencing practices aimed at rehabilitation over punishment? Why do you think those are mutually exclusive?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That's a facile explanation. Why is it a patriarchal injustice and not an application of progressive sentencing practices aimed at rehabilitation over punishment? Because this kind of rape/sexual assault has been shown time and again to be malicious and intentional and not, as you called it earlier "drunken hookups." That means that there is a burden of punishment, which this sentence does not fulfill. That sex offender rehab program is a bullshit copout and Turner is going to breeze through that poo poo and not learn a drat thing. wateroverfire posted:IDK man. There are societal pressures, and a culture of alcohol use, hooking up, and a general lack of accountability that goes along with being 20 and being in college that contributed to what he did. That doesn't excuse it at all, but that does make calling it callous harm sort of questionable. Ultimately IMO it is better to err towards rehab then towards punishment and to not give in to vengeful impulses. What interest is served by putting a kid in prison for 6 years? The interest that he willingly took advantage of and raped a girl, that he lied about it and tried to pass it off as "I got drunk because I don't really drink" despite texts from his phone indicating the opposite. Do you not see how "culture of alcohol use, hooking up and lack of accountability; but those things don't excuse it at all" and "calling it callous harm is questionable" are directly contradictory?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why do you think those are mutually exclusive? If it's reasonable progressive sentencing it can't really be unjust, can it? I guess I would ask what point you're trying to press.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:
That this public defender is also part of the patriarchy? Hint: it's the part where he talks about Brock Turner's humanity and completely ignores the humanity of the woman who watched a man who raped her get off with 6 months and had a big chunk of the men in power nod and say "that seems about right" He also talks about Turner's sentence vs. those of minorities which is pretty irrelevant to this conversation IMO so I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove with that quote? e: Khan also had nothing to do with the actual Turner case AFAIK so having what amounts to Joe the Plumber's opinion on the US economy as a whole is pretty worthless as a defensive argument Snow Cone Capone fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:IDK man. There are societal pressures, and a culture of alcohol use, hooking up, and a general lack of accountability that goes along with being 20 and being in college that contributed to what he did. That doesn't excuse it at all, but that does make calling it callous harm sort of questionable. Ultimately IMO it is better to err towards rehab then towards punishment and to not give in to vengeful impulses. What interest is served by putting a kid in prison for 6 years? Maybe we're all just set against rehabilitation because the proponents of it are always obviously more worried about young men being locked up for "no reason" than they are for preventing rape.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:It looks like Celine Shimizu is my homework for tonight because that is some fascinating and important work. Y'all took Austin's Police Chief and I'm sad about it. Acevedo did a good job of busting up the racist cops that Austin has been infested with, and he did it while getting heat internally because of it. If we're looking for someone that's interested in making sure that the cops aren't abusing victims, Acevedo is probably a better than average shot. This in tandem with him trying to get better mental health care for police officers really makes me think he just wants cops to not be lovely people. How much active help and outreach they do for the victims though? I have no idea how that will pan out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:50
|
|
.
|
wateroverfire posted:What is your familiarity with the way parole departments are run? I'd be interested to hear more about the inner workings of those sorts of institutions if you don't mind talking about it. It's uh, probably a bit off topic for this thread, but I'll be brief. It's through members of the Governor's Council, the local group responsible for voting on appointments made to the department, especially the board itself. Maybe not 100% relevant outside MA, but at least locally it has historically been made up of white male prosecutors that were personally acquainted with the governor and were willing to make significant "financial contributions" to the members of the Council to get their seat at an "easy, cushy job". Racism and sexism and classism were rampant among those who didn't simply recommend the maximum possible everything and deny parole 100% of the time - whether or not they liked and sympathized with the individual in question seems to be the beginning and end of it for many of them. It's improved a bit since parole department members were banned from paying Council members to get their seats (well, during the actual nomination hearings at least, it's still legal to send the money over in advance - and even for that, thank Romney! He pushed it through despite a very hostile local congress who thought it was important it stay the way it was), but they still deal with things like getting a call from a VA politician that he would ruin their political careers if they didn't approve of his sisters appointment despite her having almost no relevant experience (and sister subsequently getting appointed when various local congress folk confirmed they would back up the virginia guy on that) So yeah in my experience the Parole department tends to be the very definition of a good ol' boys club of well connected white folks (we recently made a serious effort to get women included and ours is now over 50% women, but historically it's been a lot worse). I like to think things have gotten a lot better than they were, but I imagine many states aren't far from where we ourselves were not all too long ago. (And the changes have been largely the result of more women pushing their way onto the Governor's Council, so good on them) So - sorry, thread, for this tangent!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Kelp Me! posted:Because this kind of rape/sexual assault has been shown time and again to be malicious and intentional and not, as you called it earlier "drunken hookups." That means that there is a burden of punishment, which this sentence does not fulfill. It really sounds like you have a general outrage that you're bringing into this situation that probably doesn't belong in any decision about how to handle the case. You call it malicious and intentional and of course he didn't just slip and accidentally finger her, but where does that shift the calculus from rehab to punishment? Almost all criminals are acting "maliciously and intentionally" but we'd rather they get better than get time. You seem to be really skeptical that he'll benefit from rehab and I'd ask you why. Kelp Me! posted:The interest that he willingly took advantage of and raped a girl, that he lied about it and tried to pass it off as "I got drunk because I don't really drink" despite texts from his phone indicating the opposite. I don't see those things as contradictory. Why do you think so?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
For what it's worth, sex offender reoffending rates are pretty low: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/976765 quote:Contrary to popular belief, as a group, sex offenders have the lowest rate of recidivism of all the crime categories. These statistics completely fly in the face of conventional wisdom about sex offenders being the most likely group of criminals to re-offend for their initial crime, but these are the facts. It could be argued that sex offender recidivism isn’t detected and that is why this number is so low, but that could also be said of other crime categories, too. Show remorse, get a short stay and probation / rehab, and if you offend again, get the book thrown at you. Prison time should be about rehab, and sex offenders will struggle with housing and holding a job coming out, so they're already at a disadvantage, which of course leads to a likelihood of reoffending. Of course, I don't think Turner will have much issue with these considering his family wealth. If it were any other perpetrator who wasn't wealthy, their life would be pretty ruined due to having a felony record and being an RSO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Parole department stuff. That's pretty interesting. Thanks for sharing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It really sounds like you have a general outrage that you're bringing into this situation that probably doesn't belong in any decision about how to handle the case. Yes, I would say it is correct to have a position of "general outrage" about insufficient sentencing in rape cases. Not sure why you would say "your opinion on rape/sexual assault doesn't belong in any decision about how to handle this rape/sexual assault" case. Unless you mean that what Turner did was neither rape nor sexual assault? wateroverfire posted:You call it malicious and intentional and of course he didn't just slip and accidentally finger her, but where does that shift the calculus from rehab to punishment? because it was an intentionally malicious act that Turner showed little to no remorse for over the entire course of the trial. Do I really need to explain this to you? wateroverfire posted:Almost all criminals are acting "maliciously and intentionally" but we'd rather they get better than get time. You seem to be really skeptical that he'll benefit from rehab and I'd ask you why. See above, also that's an incredibly nonsensical blanket statement. Rehab is offered in an extremely small portion of sentences, and unless someone could prove that Turner had a pathological need for sex or some form of fugue state nymphomania wherein he literally has no control over his sexual urges without therapy or medication, there's no reason to believe the mandatory rehab will be anything but several hours a week he has to kill sitting in a classroom. wateroverfire posted:I don't see those things as contradictory. Why do you think so? Because you are listing reasons why he shouldn't be 100% accountable for his actions, stating that you don't think these are reasons he shouldn't be 100% accountable for his actions, then stating that he shouldn't be 100% accountable for his actions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's uh, probably a bit off topic for this thread, but I'll be brief. It's through members of the Governor's Council, the local group responsible for voting on appointments made to the department, especially the board itself. Maybe not 100% relevant outside MA, but at least locally it has historically been made up of white male prosecutors that were personally acquainted with the governor and were willing to make significant "financial contributions" to the members of the Council to get their seat at an "easy, cushy job". Racism and sexism and classism were rampant among those who didn't simply recommend the maximum possible everything and deny parole 100% of the time - whether or not they liked and sympathized with the individual in question seems to be the beginning and end of it for many of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Hey wateroverfire, stop being a rape apologist in the Feminism thread. Right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Koalas March posted:Hey wateroverfire, stop being a rape apologist in the Feminism thread. Right now. I'm not a rape apologist. I'll drop it because I don't want to be probated. But it's lovely that in the forum for debating and discussing things, it's not permitted to debate or discuss the other side of issues that are complex and deserve more consideration than "hang 'em high" or "that's patriachy for you", no matter how respectfully.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:24
|
|