fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3443 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3443 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

(Thunderbirds Are Go! 2004 Movie)

__________________________________________________

03.

[Top Gear]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Chris Hardwick]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Dylan O’Brien]

__________________________________________________

06.

[A Little Princess by Frances Hodgson Burnett]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Orphan Black]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Captain America Civil War]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Drakengard 3]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Kiznaiver]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Doogie Howser, MD]

Notes:

Early because it's going to be a late day. :c

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 43 secrets from Secret Submission Post #492.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I could have put that a better way. He was sentenced to 15-25 years because of a mandatory minimum. That's what bothered me.

A fifteen year mandatory minimum sounds excessive to me. I suppose he could be out in eight years on parole, which makes it not sound so bad. Still, I don't think rehabilitation of violent felons should be assumed to take a minimum of seven years.

As I said above, it's not that I don't appreciate how bad rape is. It's that I don't think you all appreciate how bad confinement is.

In the case of the Stanford shitbag, the prosecutor was going for 6 years. Does that still seem excessive, given that he doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong except get drunk and do something stupid that fucked up his future prospects, and that he still sees the whole thing in terms of his life being ruined, rather than the harm he did to the woman he raped?

I don't think six years is unreasonable. The judge deciding to knock it down to six months is offensive in that context.

And if what you're objecting to is that Stanford people protect their own in this way, yeah, fair enough.

I've been having to rethink some stuff after this argument.

I was less bothered by you saying you thought 15 was too much and WAY more bothered by you saying you thought 6 months was enough.

I think 6 years (originally suggested sentence) would have been appropriate since it was a first offense.

ETA: ok, I got your two comments mixed up. My bad.

In general, I do disagree with the assessment that 15 years for rape is excessive because in some cases it is totally appropriate, especially if it's premeditated, particularly violent, a repeat offense, etc.

I don't know if I'd call 15 years "excessive" in this case but I would call it unnecessary.

Edited 2016-06-08 17:58 (UTC)

Well, I said some silly things in this thread.

I do think that multiple rapists should serve consecutive sentences, and that could stack up to many years in prison.

Let's just say I'm just glad he's being sentenced at all. And, thinking in terms of deterrence, I thought, "Maybe six months is a deterrent to him doing it again. Why don't we use that option more often?"

...

But if we're defining punishment by standards of vengeance, coming up with a standard of what a man should go through in revenge for being raped is hard. Some large minority of rapes result in pregnancy absent medical intervention. You can scare a man with a lot of things, but pregnancy isn't one of them.

I wasn't weighting that well: Living in a society with access to emergency contraception and early-term abortion may be skewing my sense of things. If I were his victim, I'd be angry, and I'd want to kill the man—but I know I most likely don't really have to carry a pregnancy to term.

Contrast that to someone without access to good medical care, though: Being raped would have a small chance of being a death sentence, and a large chance of leaving them with the rapist's child. That's the default risk, and I should treat it as such..

Anyway, I said a lot of stupid stuff. Sorry.

Edited 2016-06-08 19:55 (UTC)

I definitely do not see it in terms of vengeance, but I do see it relative to the way we punish other crimes, including EXTREMELY petty things like growing weed that are seen as a Big Deal by the government and put people away for many times as long as this guy. I also see it as being a very serious crime that should be treated as one of the most serious crimes on the books. I just think six months is too light. And it's three months in practical application.

The judge's decision was partly based on twisting of the situation ("she didn't say no, so she consented!") and his family and friends downplaying the issue and writing him letters which he read and took seriously. The case was skewed in his favor from the start. The overall problem here is we don't take rape seriously in a judicial sense and that needs to change.

OK.

I have a whole pet peeve about incarceration, and I knew nothing about this case before I basically stuck my foot in mouth and kept going in this thread.

I read more on it, and the judge's sentence and explanation of same seems incredibly messed up.

Sorry for sounding like a giant turd.

thanks, and it's good. Glad you did some more research.

Definitely there are many times when the justice system overreaches. I just think this is not one of those times, but rather an underreach, so to speak, in this particular situation.

[ SECRET POST #3443 ]

sorry...

Re: sorry...

Re: sorry...

Re: sorry...

Well, I said a lot of stupid stuff today. I apologise.

Re: Well, I said a lot of stupid stuff today. I apologise.

Re: Well, I said a lot of stupid stuff today. I apologise.

Re: Well, I said a lot of stupid stuff today. I apologise.