Author Topic: Stanford rape case  (Read 2544 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stanford rape case
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2016, 04:50:48 PM »
Your public intent has been noted for the record.   Thank you for your honesty
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stanford rape case
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2016, 05:15:33 PM »


i said priviledged because the judge did actually factor the boy`s background .

Yes , that should not happen.

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stanford rape case
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2016, 09:43:46 PM »
this may actually the death to the expression "boys will be boys"  I think it was actually used as a date rape defense over a decade ago

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stanford rape case
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2016, 09:42:44 PM »
Found a new twist on this case. Some attorneys I know stated the judge followed the recommendation of a female parole officer about the sentencing and that this is actually the harsher sentence due the lifetime predator list. That is true people would prefer a longer sentence than be on the list. People complaining now will have trouble understanding both is not an option

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stanford rape case
« Reply #19 on: June 29, 2016, 10:21:02 PM »
I just heard a report the other day, that this particular judge, had a similar case, not too long ago, before this one, where the judged sentenced the Hispanic immigrant defendant to the max allowed sentence, that the DA recommended...something like 3+years.  Apparently, that gentleman's future wasn't going to be "adversely effected"     >:(
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stanford rape case
« Reply #20 on: June 29, 2016, 11:47:14 PM »
The outrage on that case is he's hispanic so they claim the judge was on him because of this. I do not recall any mention if he was put on the list so im guessing he likely opted for the longer sentence to avoid it. .

note brock turner is the kind of person that can be greatly effected by being on the list. The other guy may not be adversly effected

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stanford rape case
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2016, 09:24:25 AM »
I think being on a sexual predator list would be bad for anyone.
The judge seems to have a two tiered way of regarding justice: "decent" people should get special treatment.
Minorities do not deserve any favors: they are already evil and deserve the maximum punishment.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stanford rape case
« Reply #22 on: June 30, 2016, 01:32:07 PM »
I'm trying say the minority got the better deal since Thiers no mention of being on the list. He may of agree the longer term to avoid it

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stanford rape case
« Reply #23 on: June 30, 2016, 01:35:53 PM »
I'll even cite example. Jeffrey Jones is a very well known actor as the principal in ferries bullet. He agree to be on the list to keep his career. He's  hasn't made a notable gig yet. Mostly voice now. He may never. Peewee still giving the good fight