rape defendant from 'good family' deserves leniency

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

15 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Thoughts? (from someone who has one fast approaching that age)     

No easy answer.

Drinking, smoking and driving are toughies. Kids at that age don't realize they aren't immortal. Rush got it right in Dreamline.

 

So telling them that doing that stuff is a bad idea because it will cause long term harm won't sink in. They will 'worry about it later' or it 'won't happen to them'. There are some kids who won't believe that anything bad can happen to them. Sangi was an excellent example of that. 

 

It's pretty clear that different actions & decisions require different levels of maturity. Impulse control and empathy (understanding how ones actions affect others) can be taught early, but often aren't.  That's why some choices are given kids earlier and some later. Of course, not all 18 year olds are 'grown up' enough to make good decisions on a lot of stuff. Hell, even some 30 year olds aren't.

For criminal actions (like the one in the OP), it can be really difficult. Which is why the 'one size fits all' approach of automatically shifting kids into adult court for some crimes (or only keeping them in the juvenile system) is not always the best idea. 
Some kids are pretty far gone and 'rehabilitating' them is difficult if not impossible. Others made a bad choice, compounded it with more bad decisions and ended up in a lot of trouble, yet aren't really "all that bad". 

[SkyDekker 1,123]

45 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I get it. But, that is more society as a whole. My own personal view on that is - Harming yourself vs. harming others. I've often thought - would teenagers (rebellious stage) be less apt to engage in cigarettes & alcohol if it wasn't so "you're not allowed to do this." I mean they can be responsible enough to drive a 3,000 lb slow-moving bullet at 16.

Thoughts? (from someone who has one fast approaching that age)     

I have a 25 year old, a 15 year old and a 13 year old. I grew up in Europe where the mentality around alcohol is quite different. I didn't know about the concept of drinking to get drunk, or pre-drinking etc. until getting exposed to that as an older teenager in Canada. I grew up having a glass of wine at home from early teens on, diluted in the beginning. It wasn't something that was hidden or ostracized.

I firmly believe that education and exposure is better than forbidding something. That goes for booze, that goes for sex and that to some degree goes for drugs.

[billvon 2,400]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I firmly believe that education and exposure is better than forbidding something. That goes for booze, that goes for sex and that to some degree goes for drugs.

Absolutely.  Having early experiences with those things - and far more importantly, being able to talk with your kids openly about them - is important.

At my college there wasn't much of a drinking problem.  Most people drank, a few problems.  Then, two years in, the entire campus went dry and we saw a big increase in drinking problems (police being called, students going to hospitals) - because now it had to be done in secret, and the normal talking about it / seeing what other people were doing / seeing early signs of problems went away.

[BIGUN 1,053]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

I have a 25 year old, a 15 year old and a 13 year old. I grew up in Europe where the mentality around alcohol is quite different. I didn't know about the concept of drinking to get drunk, or pre-drinking etc. until getting exposed to that as an older teenager in Canada. I grew up having a glass of wine at home from early teens on, diluted in the beginning. It wasn't something that was hidden or ostracized.

I firmly believe that education and exposure is better than forbidding something. That goes for booze, that goes for sex and that to some degree goes for drugs.

I'm aligned on this. Sicilian household and all. Espresso around 12. Wine around thirteen (just a half a glass at family events). All kind of made it where I wasn't so driven to sneak and imbibe like my friends at 16. Cigarettes - my parents smoked ~4 packs a day each. The house stunk, the ashtrays were horrible and it caused some kind of aversion therapy for me where if one of my fellow teens handed me a cigarette and I said no; and they pushed it. I would get angry. They left me alone about it.   

On that note and in the spirit of this thread. To me; there's a line between unintended and intended results - regardless of age.    

[millertime24 8]

13 hours ago, billvon said:

Would you be believed?  I don't know.  I would hope at least someone would look into it - would ask me about it, see if the story made any sense, asked where I was, see if this had happened before etc.

Let's ask you the same question.  Let's say you ran a DZ.  One night a woman came running from the direction of the bathrooms crying.  You asked what happened.  She said "a guy came in, stuck his hand down my shirt and . . and . ." and she runs to her car.  A minute later Joe the TM (who often gets a little too drunk) comes from the direction of the bathrooms saying "whatever she said it was a lie!  I didn't do nothing."

Would your response be "OK.  Wheels up at 8, we have a lot of tandems tomorrow."  After all, it's just he said-she said.  Right?

Now let's say this same thing happens 17 times.   Is he still going to be doing tandems for you?

No, I'd probably fire the guy if it was a trend. 

But I'm not talking about Joe TM nobody. I'm talking about a Kavanaugh who is a highly visible figure in a politically divisive world.

Is it completely out of your realm of possibility that one or two people "could" say anything it takes to attempt to destroy someone who doesn't align with a given political standing? 

[billvon 2,400]

6 hours ago, millertime24 said:

No, I'd probably fire the guy if it was a trend. 

Wait a minute!  It's a "he said she said."   They could have all been lying because they are man hating feminists who decided they hated skydiving.  It could be all political.  You would fire a guy on a political he said-she said?  Where's the proof, proof sufficient to deny someone their livelihood?

Quote

But I'm not talking about Joe TM nobody.

So someone who is privileged should be protected from accusations of sexual assault?  But if they are "nobody" it's OK to hold them accountable?

Quote

 

I'm talking about a Kavanaugh who is a highly visible figure in a politically divisive world.

Is it completely out of your realm of possibility that one or two people "could" say anything it takes to attempt to destroy someone who doesn't align with a given political standing? 

 

Of course it's possible.  In the case of Kavanaugh, it looks like it was not.  Ford had corroboration that she hadn't just made it up when he became a nominee, and even republicans said they believed her.  And Ramirez and Swetnick confirmed that he had done things like that to them as well.

As one pundit famously said, it's not that republicans didn't believe her - it's that they didn't care.  They didn't think a simple assault, and Kavanaugh's lies and theatrics in an attempt to deny it, was sufficient to deny a white straight republican male the privilege of being on the Supreme Court.  And as this thread demonstrates, that privilege is a powerful and pervasive thing indeed.

Graham on Kavanaugh - “It would be bad and wrong to ruin somebody’s life who has led I think a noble life.” 

This kid - he comes "from a good family” and will go “to a good college” - why expose him to “the devastating effect” of a trial?

Different people, different crimes - but the same defense.  Why ruin their lives?  Not "they didn't do it" - but an argument that they should not lose the privilege they have enjoyed.

[jakee 1,255]

7 hours ago, millertime24 said:

Is it completely out of your realm of possibility...

Careful you don’t put your back out moving those goalposts. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

31 minutes ago, billvon said:

Kavanaugh's lies and theatrics in an attempt to deny it,

Hi Bill,

And this is why I consider him a coward.

Jerry Baumchen

[millertime24 8]

16 hours ago, billvon said:

Wait a minute!  It's a "he said she said."   They could have all been lying because they are man hating feminists who decided they hated skydiving.  It could be all political.  You would fire a guy on a political he said-she said?  Where's the proof, proof sufficient to deny someone their livelihood?

So someone who is privileged should be protected from accusations of sexual assault?  But if they are "nobody" it's OK to hold them accountable?

Of course it's possible.  In the case of Kavanaugh, it looks like it was not.  Ford had corroboration that she hadn't just made it up when he became a nominee, and even republicans said they believed her.  And Ramirez and Swetnick confirmed that he had done things like that to them as well.

As one pundit famously said, it's not that republicans didn't believe her - it's that they didn't care.  They didn't think a simple assault, and Kavanaugh's lies and theatrics in an attempt to deny it, was sufficient to deny a white straight republican male the privilege of being on the Supreme Court.  And as this thread demonstrates, that privilege is a powerful and pervasive thing indeed.

Graham on Kavanaugh - “It would be bad and wrong to ruin somebody’s life who has led I think a noble life.” 

This kid - he comes "from a good family” and will go “to a good college” - why expose him to “the devastating effect” of a trial?

Different people, different crimes - but the same defense.  Why ruin their lives?  Not "they didn't do it" - but an argument that they should not lose the privilege they have enjoyed.

Ok then. In your mind "guilty until proven innocent" I guess. At least for anyone you politically disagree with. Got it.

[billvon 2,400]

15 hours ago, millertime24 said:

Ok then. In your mind "guilty until proven innocent" I guess.

Ironic that you would say that, since I do not believe that, but you apparently do (i.e. you would fire the guy for a "he said-she said" with no proof.)

[jakee 1,255]

22 hours ago, millertime24 said:

Ok then. In your mind "guilty until proven innocent" I guess. At least for anyone you politically disagree with. Got it.

Ok then. In your mind Harvey Weinstein should be hired back by Miramax immediately, I guess.

[TriGirl 268]

On ‎7‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 7:04 AM, millertime24 said:

Ok then. In your mind "guilty until proven innocent" I guess. At least for anyone you politically disagree with. Got it.

Kavanagh wasn't on trial, he was sitting a job interview.  "Lock him up" based on Blasey-Ford's testimony would have been applying "guilty until proven innocent."

[headoverheels 291]

30 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

Kavanagh wasn't on trial, he was sitting a job interview.  "Lock him up" based on Blasey-Ford's testimony would have been applying "guilty until proven innocent."

You don't have to lock him up to turn down his nomination.

 

[billvon 2,400]

Just now, headoverheels said:

You don't have to lock him up to turn down his nomination.

I think that was her point.

[turtlespeed 212]

On 7/3/2019 at 2:56 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48858761

'An appeals court has criticised a judge who ruled that a 16-year-old accused of rape should not be tried in an adult court as he was from a "good family" and attended an "excellent school".'

Thoughts?

Jerry Baumchen

Despicable - 

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

On 7/3/2019 at 12:56 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

 

Hi folks,

In this thread we have been discussing the idea of 'children' being prosecuted.

Here is a little more info on that:  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48920458

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 383]

On 7/5/2019 at 6:36 PM, billvon said:

Absolutely.  Having early experiences with those things - and far more importantly, being able to talk with your kids openly about them - is important.

At my college there wasn't much of a drinking problem.  Most people drank, a few problems.  Then, two years in, the entire campus went dry and we saw a big increase in drinking problems (police being called, students going to hospitals) - because now it had to be done in secret, and the normal talking about it / seeing what other people were doing / seeing early signs of problems went away.

Bill I cannot agree with this more strongly.  I witnessed this exact phenomenon at Penn State.  As “the man” pressed his boot more firmly on the neck of the student body, the student body rebelled.  We never had riots when students were allowed to smoke weed and drink beer on campus, however when a dry campus environment was imposed, all hell broke loose.

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

On 7/5/2019 at 6:36 PM, billvon said:

Absolutely.  Having early experiences with those things - and far more importantly, being able to talk with your kids openly about them - is important.

At my college there wasn't much of a drinking problem.  Most people drank, a few problems.  Then, two years in, the entire campus went dry and we saw a big increase in drinking problems (police being called, students going to hospitals) - because now it had to be done in secret, and the normal talking about it / seeing what other people were doing / seeing early signs of problems went away.

Bill I cannot agree with this more strongly.  I witnessed this exact phenomenon at Penn State.  As “the man” pressed his boot more firmly on the neck of the student body, the student body rebelled.  We never had riots when students were allowed to smoke weed and drink beer on campus, however when a dry campus environment was imposed, all hell broke loose.

Same shit here at MSU.  I think our riots even made national news.

The state changed underage drinking from a civil infraction to a misdemeanor and the school banned it everywhere on campus, even at tail gates.

All minor in possession misdemeanor charges are removed from your criminal record after several years even if you were 20 years old because they're obviously still treating you as a minor, but they still keep it listed on your driving record indefinitely even if it had absolutely nothing to do with driving. 

[kallend 1,623]

10 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

In this thread we have been discussing the idea of 'children' being prosecuted.

Here is a little more info on that:  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48920458

Jerry Baumchen

Negative. The issue is not whether they should be prosecuted, but whether they should be prosecuted as ADULTS.

[wmw999 2,122]

I think the backlash might have been more because college students had it, and it was taken away. That changed the dynamic -- before 1972 or so, they never had it at all. Campuses weren't necessarily dry, but underage drinking was still illegal. Kind of like Prohibition. 

Alcohol is bad for you. However, too much alcohol is worse.

Wendy P.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

10 hours ago, kallend said:

Negative. 

Hi John,

Strother Martin:  'What we've got here is a failure to communicate.'

IMO I communicated what I wanted to communicate; others may disagree.

And, I am OK with that.

Jerry Baumchen

[CygnusX-1 42]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Strother Martin:  'What we've got here is a failure to communicate.'

Not to get this thread off the rails, but I believe the quote is actually "What we've got here is failure to communicate."

[ryoder 1,384]

Rape Case Judge Resigns Over ‘Good Family’ Remark; State Orders Training

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/nyregion/judge-james-troiano-resigning.html

[DJL 232]

On 7/9/2019 at 9:41 PM, brenthutch said:

We never had riots when students were allowed to smoke weed and drink beer on campus, however when a dry campus environment was imposed, all hell broke loose.

I went to Virginia Military Institute.  Lot's of alcoholism issues as basically the culture was that once you were out of barracks you raged.

[turtlespeed 212]

7 hours ago, DJL said:

I went to Virginia Military Institute.  Lot's of alcoholism issues as basically the culture was that once you were out of barracks you raged.

You were a VMI Puke?

I did a stint at NMMI in Roswell.