-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Father who repeatedly raped his 12-year old daughter gets 60-day sentence.
- Thread starter freeofgreed
- Start date
- Status
freeofgreed
Member
Again what does his capability have to do with anything?
I don't even see what your even arguing for anymore.
The judge is capable in the sense that he found the man guilty. But his discretion in sentencing is completely off. Judges can give ridiculous sentence for whatever they please that isn't based off any laws. This is what people are mad at.
A judge gave an admitted rapist/pedophile who raped his 12 year old daughter 60 days. This is a fact. most people who aren't scum like you realize this is a huge miscarriage of justice and nothing the judge could possible say will justify this for most people including myself. So please get off your high horse.
The 'recent cases' are not outliers. They are just another example of how badly the American justice system treats rape cases. Do some damned research before you come into a thread pretending to be the only bastion of wisdom against the pleabs. Maybe there is a reason people are so upset about this case? And maybe the people that have told you their personal experiences with cases such as this might know what they are talking about?
And oh yeah, there's totally going to be an appeal when the girls own mother is supporting the rapist and will likely still live with him. Sure.
And oh yeah, there's totally going to be an appeal when the girls own mother is supporting the rapist and will likely still live with him. Sure.
Hippo_PRIME
Member
So the sentence isn't incorrect, but it's maybe not correct either? What are you even saying, then? What are you even doing in this thread other than muddying the waters in such a way that favors the child rapist?
A father, a person in a position of profound trust, raped his daughter and your response is, "Well, we don't have all the details. Let's trust the judge on this one."
I'll ask again, because it's that unknown to me and genuinely of interest, what is your intention in this thread?
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Assuming his position isn't appointed I hope someone runs against him the next time he's up for election. This is some easy ammo to beat this asshat.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
It is a suspended 30 year sentence. With phychiatric treatment.
That is fucking deplorable. And people wonder why so many have no faith in the justice system.
I also meant to comment on the disgusting mother and grandmother. Well, as long as the boys get their daddy, who cares about the daughter, right? What the fuck is wrong with these people? Ugh. I really didn't need this shit this early in the morning. Dammit, Gaborn! (RIP, man)
I also meant to comment on the disgusting mother and grandmother. Well, as long as the boys get their daddy, who cares about the daughter, right? What the fuck is wrong with these people? Ugh. I really didn't need this shit this early in the morning. Dammit, Gaborn! (RIP, man)
freeofgreed
Member
And....?
He still only has to serve
I cannot possibly say what evidence would cause this judgment, it is beyond my powers of imagination to think of something specific. However, that does not mean I can say that there is no possible evidence that would not be justifiable.
Again, if you're asking for some specific item which would instantly justify this, I have no idea. Do I believe that there is some combination of evidence that when put together could justify such sentence? Yes, I do.
And it is actually strictly rational to believe in the opinions of experts when information is not available. Let's say you have two judgments with no other info available: guilty, from Judge Reliable, and guilty, from Steve the drunk. you would obviously place far more weight on the former's opinion. Now, if you could see all the information that the two used in their respective cases, then this trumps the value of expertise, you would be able to judge for yourself, without reference to either man, what sentence is just.
In this case, we have some information. Enough to case doubt on the decision, to warrant further investigation, but not to condemn it straight away. My response to this would be to check the judges history for other aberrant lenience, and to see if the prosecution will seek an appeal. Nothing more than that based on what I have read.
You might ask why I'm even bothering to argue this point. Its because cases like this actively harm justice systems. They serve only to create a rabble, demanding judges be tougher and restrictions on justice. So politicians react rationally to this incentive and introduce mandatory minimums, and judges start handing out the maximum whenever they can, and a whole of host of people get shit on because of it.
That. again, doesn't mean that this was the right decision. It means that I ultimately have trust in the justice system and current regulations to sort it out without need to resort to mobs. I trust the prosecution to appeal overly lenient decisions, I trust local government to oversee judges, I trust the police or whomever to investigate shady judges. The media reports but they make money before that; the public act rationally but they are short of time and attention for complex cases; the politicians probably want to improve things but they want to get votes first and foremost. Together it can lead to a lot of negative outcomes.
I'm saying that reality isn't binary. You don't switch from 1 to 0 in terms of your opinion on this case, it's a sliding scale. People who think this is wrong probably wouldn't say that it is impossible for it to be write; they might assign a 10% chance of the judgment turning out to be correct in the end. For my part, I consider the following: first, I generally trust the justice system to deliver fair judgments. Second, I must reduce this prior belief given the fact that the news article makes it seem like a poor judgment. However, the reduction in my belief is only limited, as the media is not able to report every fact around the judgment. I would make an additional reduction in belief for the recent cases of bizarre rape judgments, but as those are only a handful amongst thousands of cases the change is very small. The end result is that I have slight confidence in this judgment being accurate, but would call for the prosecution to appeal and an examination of the judges history in case this is a pattern.
For your final point, see above.
freeofgreed
Member
Well I can. No possible evidence could make this sentence justifiable in my eyes. Again why do you kept bringing up the evidence aspect when the judge himself didn't even do this? You're making up defenses for him that he himself wasn't even using.
freeofgreed
Member
Didn't you just fucking say you weren't American? How the hell do you trust the justice system of a country you don't even live in?
You're a fucking clown man.
Edit: Our justice system is deeply flawed and in need of serious reform. Saying you trust the judges decisions solely on the basis that he's a judge is fucking mental.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
sohois is arguing that the public should trust judges to do their jobs, to trust prosecutors to appeal poor verdicts, and to trust that posters on a gaming forum didn't get all the information the judge would have had when deliberating sentencing from a 600 word news article they read for the first time today.
I mean hell, why even have a trial when the 100 or so people who have posted in this thread have navigated the complexities of this case within the first 30 seconds of having read the first post and decided upon a fair verdict (execution).
Plenty of pedophile defenders on here, some more overt than overs.
freeofgreed
Member
That isn't even what he was arguing. He's not arguing that he thinks the system will work, he's arguing that the system has already worked in giving out this sentence. Read his very first post in this thread.
Also having blanket trust in our justice system is fucking insane. You know that damn well. I doubt this case will get appealed or that his sentence will change since her parents seem fine with the verdict.
Edit: Sohois is arguing that people should be happy with this verdict and to let the justice system handle it. Do you not understand how ridiculous of a request that is? No amount of legal jargon could ever justify the fact that this rapist not only won't go to jail (for any reasonable amount of time) but that his daughter will probably end up having to continue to lvie with him and that's fucking disgusting, and competently inexcusable.
Calling people a "mob" just because they take issue with this is nonsense.
Putting aside the fact that people will probably have opinions on the systems of other countries, I think you yourself probably put trust in people everyday just because of who they are,
To give a non-justice example, imagine if a relative of yours went to the hospital thinking they had gout or somesuch. The doctor meets with them and says it isn't gout, its another disease. Do you go to your relative and say "well, they're just a doctor, trusting them solely on that basis is fucking mental"? I doubt you would, you would probably trust their opinion. The relative in question probably wouldn't need to provide you with test results or something to confirm it for you.
Everyday people place their faith in expert opinions. Generally you would need some good evidence not to trust them. Does this news article count as really good evidence for you? For me it does not. It seems weak evidence, enough to shift my confidence but not to a great degree.
What did he mean by this?
Member
I'm all for functional rehab programs, but There should definitely be something in place where he never sees his kids again or any kids for that matter.
heliosRAzi
Banned
This is exactly how I feel.
freeofgreed
Member
Sorry I'm done arguing with you. I feel like I'm speaking in circles as you keep bringing up points I've already refuted, and I don't feel like you presented any where near close of an argument as to why people should be alright with the outcome of this case. I tried to give you a legitimate shot but now in my mind you're either
1. trolling
2. playing devils advocate just for the sake of it
3. Legitimately just that garbage of a human being.
Whatever the 3 outcomes it doesn't make sense in my opinion to engage you any further.
ZackieChan
Member
Except the state's laws, apparently (as the judge points out in the article).
It's okay to call other posters "garbage human beings" here? Cool.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
Lots of public lynching defenders, havn't seen anyone argue that paedophillia is permissable or even palatable, will keep my eyes peeled though.
And if the case were to be appealed successfully, the system will have worked.
freeofgreed
Member
Which i've already noted...
I'm talking moral justification. I don't think the loophole he found was justification enough for the sentence.
And if it doesn't? (Which it probably won't since both parents are ok with the outcome and the girl is too young to do it herself).
Pai Pai Master
Banned
What the everliving fuck
You mean this post?
I'm not sure how you go from "we don't have enough evidence, maybe this is correct, but it could also be incorrect, let's not jump to conclusions" to your assessment of this post.
I have not suggested people must be happy with this judgment. But there are failsafes, such as the appeal system, if this is a miscarriage of justice. Becoming furious over one case can cause widespread damage though, when there just doesn't seem to be enough there to justify it
Given how willfully you misrepresented this opening post, I find it quite surprising that you now refuse to engage further. I have not misrepresented your positions, nor would I attack you for holding a more aggressive opinion on this case than I. I understand the emotional resonance a case such as this can have, which in many respects is what leads to this, since many throw aside reasonableness for crimes involving children, especially of a sexual nature. But I don't believe any of my responses in this thread warrant such replies.
freeofgreed
Member
I really don't want to reply to you any further since I don't think this discussion is going to amount to anything like I said. You keep coming at this situation from a legal stand point and you're removing the human element. I did not misconstrue your initial post at all.
While this case "may or may not" be correct from a legal stand point. It absolutely is incorrect from a moral stand point. So telling people they shouldn't be outraged (especially considering we have actual survives of sexual assault in this thread). Is downright disgraceful.
You keep focusing on the technicalities of this case, without focusing on the reality of it. Which is a rapist/pedophile will not only not serve time, but will potentially continue to live with the person he abused.
Also like i've said 1000 times. Yes the possibility for appeals is there, but in reality the chances of it happening aren't likely. So this will probably be the final verdict.
so for the last time. You can argue the legality of this all you want, but I don't care. I don't think that matters when it comes to peoples response to the case.
You keep talking about "there's things we don't know" But what we do know about the case, more than justifies people's anger towards it's outcome.
Wow. I can't even begin to imagine the horror this poor girl is going through. Rapist pedophile scum get's a slap on the wrist while ruining his daughters life and the family sides with the piece of shit.
Sociopaths. Including the fucked up poster playing devils advocate in here.
Sociopaths. Including the fucked up poster playing devils advocate in here.
ZackieChan
Member
Sentencing guidelines that direct them to have a psych eval performed and sentence according to the law isn't a "loophole." I'm taking what the judge says at face value, but it's not like he unearthed some 300 year old law that luckily freed this guy. You think it's a judge's job to just do whatever they want?
Morally, of course, I don't think anyone would argue that it's a horrendous outcome. But blame the lawmakers for thinking they were being progressive in such a horrible way.
fixedpoint
Member
What the fuck man - dude raped his own daughter. The judge is a moron and you're a weirdly apologetic sociopath.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
If that were the situation (I do not know) I hope the father gets the help he needs. I also hope for the daughter's sake the mother sees fit to never let him near the daughter again. I don't know what the situation there is.
Do you feel the same?
freeofgreed
Member
The prosecutes wanted the 25 years. That would've been a perfectly acceptable sentence legally speaking. He instead chose to give a more lighter alternative. That was his discretion. Sure the stature was already there, but it was his choice to utilize it which is what people have issues with.
Also re-read the thread. Sohois was absolutly tone policing peoples moral reaction to the sentence.
Because people taking issue with the fact that a rapist only gets 60 days in jail means where a bloodlusted mob. Dude came into this thread looking for trouble.
I can see your point here; I must say though that my comments do not exclude morality in their opinions. For me, morality and legality and are intrinsically linked, with morally worse crimes leading to much harsher judgments, such as the premeditation example I have given previously. Thus I am presuming that the judge was making not just a legal judgment but a moral one in his sentencing. Once again, it seems extraordinarily hard to imagine what could justify such a sentence on moral grounds, but I am not prepared to say nothing could justify it. Perhaps this judge believes in a utilitarian system of ethics and that the mans freedom will somehow maximise utility for the involved parties? I don't know.
Also, on the appeal point, I would guess that decisions to prosecute and appeal rest with the state or government in this case? Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but if this is the case then the opinions of the mother and grandmother wouldn't play a role in their decision beyond their effects on possible sentencing.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
💯
Ryzaki009
Member
You know what? I'm not even mad about the sentence.
It's one of those things that's just "I don't know what I expected." levels.
It's the daughter most likely going back to live with him and the mother and grandmother siding with the father part that enrages me. There's no order of protection, the mother clearly doesn't think he actually is a danger to her family given those they need a relationship with their father comments so what the hell.
What in the ever loving fuck is that bullshit? It's bad enough he gets a stupidly light sentence why on earth isn't the daughter's safety made a priority in any of this?
It's one of those things that's just "I don't know what I expected." levels.
It's the daughter most likely going back to live with him and the mother and grandmother siding with the father part that enrages me. There's no order of protection, the mother clearly doesn't think he actually is a danger to her family given those they need a relationship with their father comments so what the hell.
What in the ever loving fuck is that bullshit? It's bad enough he gets a stupidly light sentence why on earth isn't the daughter's safety made a priority in any of this?
You defend the judge, you defend the rapist.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
+1 vote.
freeofgreed
Member
I highly doubt that will happen since the mother pretty said otherwise
But hey at least the judge made the right
And here's where we disagree. Morality in theory should be linked to legality. However in reality this isn't always the case. As this case should be damning evidence of.
Also you say
You give the judge the benefit of the doubt, despite acknowledging you can't imagine what could justify such an outcome. I don't give him the same benefit, especially since he already gave his reasons for the sentancing following the outrage and it wasn't all that convincing.
In regards to appeals I'm not sure. I don't think the prosecutors could/would appeal it since he was found guilty. But I could be wrong.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I'm not sure why that's seen as the optimal system.
Rehabilitation for both criminals and victims should be the goal. Of course the arrangement set up in this case is terrible, but that doesn't discount the value of trying to rehabilitate our prison population.
- Status