they are too one sided. you got the dude right now who just posted that i said the guy doesn't deserve to have his future ruined - which i cleary never said. note i said that in the first post, which obviously doesnt mean people on 2p2 - how could it when it was the first post. go look at any comments section on any article or facebook post, seems like most people want this kid hung from a tree for what he did. i dont think there's a helluva a lot of difference between "90 days" and "1.5 years" yet people are all bent over that

Sentence seems too light. 2-3 years seems more fitting given the circumstances.

That being said I think the dad is being unfairly crucified by the internet mob for his statement. It's a pretty standard thing for the parents to write a "my son is such a good boy" letter to the judge pleading for leniency. His choice of words ("20 minutes of action") was horrifically bad given the crime, but of course he didn't mean "action" as in "getting some action", which is how people seem to be interpreting it.

The dad could be a grade-A douchebag but I think people are going after him as if the letter somehow proves he created an entitled rapist through bad parenting.

Nah, he'll be just fine. Dad will find a sympathetic colleague who's probably a Stanford alum that'll justify giving him a chance because boys will be boys. It's the perfect example of white privilege.

That's something I kept trying to bring up in the drunk sex threads but the SMP/MRA crowd never got it.

It's very important to understand that to internet white dudes, their experience of the world is mostly about getting their worthless feelings hurt and them getting upset.

And so when you talk about "rape culture" or whatever, that is a SLIGHT on the HONOR of bro-kind, the implication that men are rapists or whatever. And it just enrages them, because #notallmen would wait in a parking lot with a knife. Very few would!

But if their roomate's sister's friend from out of town got a little too tipsy at the house party and they happen to find her asleep in their bedroom, well, one thing might lead to another. It's not rape rape though, it's just drunk kids trying to **** and making mistakes, you know?

Like I said, it's funny how you gradually worked your way up to a slight moment of honesty about how reprehensible of a person you are, then immediately tried to walk it back, because you're also a coward.

It was very transparent. I don't know why people do that ****. If you have a point, spit it out, get right into the meat of the argument. When you phrase stuff in this incoherent passive-aggressive way of a two-sided issue, it's not rocket science to figure out what's really going on.

Yes, because the measure of a man's courage is how tough he's willing to talk on an internet forum under a pseudonym.

Here

I hope not, but you might be right.

But your larger point with respect to white privilege (and really, what you mean is rich white privilege) is 100% correct. If this was a poor black / Latino having sex with a passed out community college girl behind a dumpster, there's no way they would get 6 months for this. They'd be warming up the electric chair as we speak.

that's not saying he didnt deserve it, that's just stating a fact.

JUST STATING FACTS

and what was that "moment of honesty"?

it's real easy to get in a mob mentality that this kid should be locked away for good. that's easy to say. you can find a million people spouting that on any forum or comment thread. and apparently everyone who thinks that 6 months, 1.5 years, 3 years, 5 years, whatever is "enough" is reprehensible?

Right... doublefacepalm.jpg

that's really the best you got?

Hue posted this at the bottom of the page. Do you think "Leslie Rasmussen" writing a letter to the Judge would carry the same weight as on one written by "Latoya Jenkins?" That's privilege.

I think Fly's going a bit hard with his assumptions about you- but I'll say this:

1- It's a thin line between "mob mentality" and "the wisdom of crowds". Maybe there's a reason every decent person is up in arms here. I get that there's a natural instinct to see a dog pile and think that it's unfair, but sometimes something is just that wrong. 6 months for rape is just that wrong. (and thinking it's wrong doesn't mean you have to have an answer for what would actually be right)

2- The thing about playing Devil's Advocate is that you end up defending the devil. Why do you want to do that in this case, and why shouldn't we make assumptions as to your motivations? To be frank, you're not making coherent points here, and the more you fumble around your position the more makes it look like you're just trying to find the rape apologist's angle.

3- You may not be the bad guy, but your posts read a lot like all the other bad guys we've dealt with in all the other versions of this thread (you can find these conversations in the thread where your OP should have gone). Nobody comes out and defends rape, they dance around it with various poor articulated bull****. The more it happens the harder it becomes to give anybody credit for not being a piece of ****.

4- The most reasonable point you've made is, as others have pointed out, just a fundamental question about the very nature of justice. It's a good esoteric conversation, but not one you'll ever successfully have in a context such as this.

Well first of all, that woman is a f*cking ****** and her letter is despicable.

But the entire premise of your argument is false, because you cannot prove that her letter had any influence whatsoever on the Judge's sentence. You just know that she wrote that letter. We have no idea if the Judge was influenced by it or not (or if he even bothered to read it), we just know that she wrote a letter arguing for leniency and the Judge decided upon a sentence that was lenient.

Saying that her letter influenced the Judge's opinion would be somewhat analogous to claiming that President Obama decided not to invade Syria because I wrote him a letter saying it would be wrong to invade Syria. We just know that I wrote him a letter and he decided not to invade Syria, there's no evidence to suggest he was influenced by my letter in any way, shape, or form. And the same applies here, unless there's something concrete to suggest the Judge was influenced by this letter that I'm not aware of.

I would think a forum of poker players would be able to think about this more logically. Wealthy people with privileged lives have more to lose by definition. Thus, they should see shorter sentences. It's not like if you lock up some hobo they are going to be missing out on prime rib every night.

So I will say a couple of things. Simplicitus is totally correct that our current system of justice is based on, essentially, a medieval retributive view of justice. A lot of people mentioned deterrence as being a reason for a longer sentence, but in turns out that in most crimes these long sentences don't actually deter people from committing them very much. Most people aren't aware of the sentences before they make the "decision" to commit the crime, either theoretically or practically as it would be applied to them.

Our system of justice needs to be based on rehabilitation and sending somebody back out into the world that is able to function and be a productive member of society. Not on destroying someone's life forever and branding them and basically making them eat **** for life no matter how much they work to redeem themselves. It needs to be fundamentally changed. Our current system is prohibitively expensive and downright unconstitutional--putting someone in solitary for the next 30 years is no kind of solution and it's the exact opposite of cost-effective.

I've mentioned it before, but elected judges are not a good thing. Just as an elected judge has every incentive to lock away the key if the person convicted was poor and black, they have every incentive to be light if the person is say, the son of the sitting Governor. They know very well that everything they do is being scrutinized during that time, and it will affect their chances at reelection. Judges really like getting reelected, that much is clear.

Like this, here is some logic.

It's an extreme example that I used to illustrate a point. When you're trying to disprove an idea logically, it is sometimes useful to take it to an extreme position.

Hell, the rape will have happened either way, so why sentence him to anything at all? Just let him go; her life won't be any better or worse, right? And we can save the courts valuable time and money, plus there, like, won't be any "faux rage" on the Interwebs.

#lologic

I am guessing that there is a helluva lot of difference between 3 months at the Palo Alto County Jail and 1.5 years at the state pen for violent criminals.

The single biggest thing wrong with your state justice system in accordance with the above is Roy Moore, who is quite possible one of the most deranged people to ever hold elected office.

It's generally illiberal to believe that the justice system is there to deliver an eye for an eye type justice or have a lock the door and throw away the key mentality. Rehabilitation is a key part of any liberal justice system.

The concern in this case is that the judgement was extremely lenient for very dubious reasons.

This is generally true- but I think a big part of the outrage here is that

1- 6 months is such an extremely light sentence that it at least feels a lot more troublesome. Also the rational of "well we didn't want to ruin this kid's life" seems horrid in the context of deterrence.

2- There's so much active effort to educate young men on issues of sex, alcohol and consent. While any sentence may not be an effective deterrent in the moment before the crime- this just feels so damaging to the entire conversation that takes place in contexts where we have the hope of educating people in ways that might actually change things.