Rich man tootwoto rich for jail even after raping newborn!

[Day]

this thread raped my mind; you guys prolly dont beleeb me

[Rhinox]

On the one side we have blub and otherside we have that chick that wants to group a 15 year old finger banging his consenting 15 year old gf with child rapists. Love this thread

[Cliron]

On the one side we have blub and otherside we have that chick that wants to group a 15 year old finger banging his consenting 15 year old gf with child rapists. Love this thread

Que?

It's wrong to group rapists together? Is one more heinous of a crime...yeah obviously, but at the end of the day they still raped their victims.

I brought up a topic point of: Is it 'wrong' to always specifically state what type of rape (via legally defined terms) in every day speech/ media the rapist committed, rather than to just identity the crime as rape and then specify the crime (the degrees of rape and the subsequent sentence etc) in only very specific terms, and sparingly.

The difference being:
Headline- "Jim second degree raped that person."
Article body: "The victim was second degree raped over a period of a week by Jim. Jim was sentenced to 90 days in prison for second degree rape".

Rather than:
Headline: "Jim raped that person."
Article body: "The victim was raped over a period of a week by Jim. Jim was sentenced to 90 days in prison for second degree rape.

My thought process was: when 'degrees' are mentioned like this, do uninformed (non legal literate people...e.g 99% of the US) people have vast differential understandings of the degrees that might be make some people think some forms of rape are vastly 'more ok' than others.

E.g. Tom might think that first degree rape is the worst thing in the world. Second degree rape is only half as bad as first degree rape. Third degree rape is 3 times less bad than second degree rape.

However, Christopher might have completely different relational differences.

I wonder how that then drives peoples beliefs about rape. More specifically I'd be interested in then how that would influence rape beliefs for the general public, victims of rape, rapists. Oh and top tip: rapists were once not rapists.

Sum up:
There is no good rape.
I grouped rapists.
Interested in how wording of rape in informal discussion/media and how that influences rape beliefs. **

**(Suicide research for example shows that discussing suicide publicly often causes more suicide; that's why suicide should not be broadcasted to the public and most organisations refer to it as 'a tragic incident' or 'a tragic loss'.

Soooooooooooooooo, in conclusion if you can't understand what I stated and want to be an idiot, please continue to do so.

[quannum]

some idiot might take it wrong, so stop saying words?

[Roranora]

Thread probably wouldn't have been terrible if we had changed "to" to "too" in the title.

trufax car report

[Rhinox]

Que?

It's wrong to group rapists together? Is one more heinous of a crime...yeah obviously, but at the end of the day they still raped their victims.

I brought up a topic point of: Is it 'wrong' to always specifically state what type of rape (via legally defined terms) in every day speech/ media the rapist committed, rather than to just identity the crime as rape and then specify the crime (the degrees of rape and the subsequent sentence etc) in only very specific terms, and sparingly.

The difference being:
Headline- "Jim second degree raped that person."
Article body: "The victim was second degree raped over a period of a week by Jim. Jim was sentenced to 90 days in prison for second degree rape".

Rather than:
Headline: "Jim raped that person."
Article body: "The victim was raped over a period of a week by Jim. Jim was sentenced to 90 days in prison for second degree rape.

My thought process was: when 'degrees' are mentioned like this, do uninformed (non legal literate people...e.g 99% of the US) people have vast differential understandings of the degrees that might be make some people think some forms of rape are vastly 'more ok' than others.

E.g. Tom might think that first degree rape is the worst thing in the world. Second degree rape is only half as bad as first degree rape. Third degree rape is 3 times less bad than second degree rape.

However, Christopher might have completely different relational differences.

I wonder how that then drives peoples beliefs about rape. More specifically I'd be interested in then how that would influence rape beliefs for the general public, victims of rape, rapists. Oh and top tip: rapists were once not rapists.

Sum up:
There is no good rape.
I grouped rapists.
Interested in how wording of rape in informal discussion/media and how that influences rape beliefs. **

**(Suicide research for example shows that discussing suicide publicly often causes more suicide; that's why suicide should not be broadcasted to the public and most organisations refer to it as 'a tragic incident' or 'a tragic loss'.

Soooooooooooooooo, in conclusion if you can't understand what I stated and want to be an idiot, please continue to do so.

If you can't tell the difference between a 15 year old boy having sex with a peer in which he might be a day older and a sexual predator yes you're an idiot.

[Cliron]

I certainly can tell the difference. I'd liken it to running a red light when its safe to. There are no power differentials present in that situation. They are technically raping each other... Hmm, contrary to my previous point I guess I wouldn't call these kids rapists. So I guess some people who engage in rape behaviour shouldn't be labelled as such.

Possibly controversially I also think the same when grown adults normally capable of consent are both so drunk that they can't give consent that when they do have sex that they are technically raping each other (eg. Both partners equally responsible).

However I still think its appropriate to group a 30yr educator who has a duty of care to his victim to be grouped with the person who sexually assaults his young child. Which is what the latest posts have been referencing.

[Kurokikaze]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ca-prison-bias

The heir, the judge and the homeless mom: America's prison bias for the 1%
A DuPont trust-fund creep gets probation. A black woman looking for a job cries in jail for a week. Something's wrong here

Share 9047


inShare
8
Email
Sadhbh Walshe
theguardian.com, Wednesday 2 April 2014 10.12 EDT
Jump to comments (304)
dupont heir arizona homeless mom
The eight-year prison sentence of Robert H Richards IV was suspended. Shanesha Taylor languished in prison for more than a week. Photographs: Delaware State Police Department; Scottsdale Police
In 2009, when Robert H Richard IV, an unemployed heir to the DuPont family fortune, pled guilty to fourth-degree rape of his three-year-old daughter, a judge spared him a justifiable sentence – indeed, only put Richard on probation – because she figured this 1-percenter would "not fare well" in a prison setting.

Details of the case were kept quiet until just the other day, as Richard’s ex-wife filed a new lawsuit accusing him of also sexually abusing their son. Since then, the original verdict has been fueling some angry speculation – shock, horror - that the defendant's wealth and status may have played a role in his lenient sentencing.

I hate to shatter anyone's illusions, but inequality defines our criminal justice system just as it defines our society. It always has and it always will until we do something about it, beyond just getting upset at local news stories.

America incarcerates more people than any other country on the planet, with over 2m currently in prison and more than 7m under some form of correctional supervision. The people who make up this outsize correctional population do not typically come from the Delaware trust-fund-creep demographic: more than 60% are racial and ethnic minorities, and the vast majority are poor.

Who's to say whether that Superior Court judge thought this ongoing disparity – that Robert Richard would have been incarcerated among the anti-Robert Richard - was reason to spare this convicted rapist a prison term. There is an abundance of evidence, however, that both conscious and unconscious bias permeate every aspect of the criminal justice system, from arrests to sentencing and beyond. Unsurprisingly, this bias works in favor of wealthy (and white) defendants, while poor minorities routinely suffer.

In August of last year the Sentencing Project, a non-profit devoted to criminal justice reform, released a comprehensive report on bias in the system (pdf). This is the sentence you need to remember:

The United States in effect operates two distinct criminal justice systems: one for wealthy people and another for poor people and minorities.

At every level, from arrest to trial to sentencing, the report found that poor minorities were treated more harshly than their wealthier counterparts. Minorities are more likely to be stopped by the police, more likely to be arrested when they're stopped and more likely to face more severe charges than white defendants in similar situations. Because minority defendants are often poor, they are less likely to be able to afford adequate counsel and frequently end up with unduly harsh sentences.

If Robert H Richard IV had been poor and black when he was convicted of raping his toddler, just how long would his long prison term have been? Would he have "fared well" then?

I spoke with Sentencing Project executive director Marc Mauer about Richard and whether the fare-thee-well excuse should have had any influence on a prison term. "A lot of people suffer in prison," Mauer told me, "but we would like to see decision-makers consider the consequences of their sentencing actions on all defendants, not just on the privileged. If we gave the same consideration about harmful consequences to defendants across the board, it could lead to very different sentencing outcomes."

Far too often, we give far too little consideration to the consequences of a prison term on the life a poor defendant. At least the public is starting to pay attention to cases like that of Shanesha Taylor, who has been charged with felony child abuse in Scottsdale, Arizona, because she left her two small children alone in a car for a little over an hour to attend a job interview. Taylor was taken straight to jail, where she languished for over a week. Her children were put in the custody of Child Protective Services, where they remain. Obviously leaving two small children unattended in a car was an ill-advised thing to do, but under the circumstances Taylor may simply have exercised the least bad option available to her.

The law enforcement officials who chose to arrest this 35-year-old mother and charge her with a felony may have had little sympathy for the homeless woman's plight, but ordinary Americans who can relate to Taylor's struggles are not willing to let this woman become yet another statistic in an unforgiving justice system.

Since Taylor was taken to jail, an online fundraising effort has raised nearly $80,000 from over 2000 small donors to help defray her legal expenses. A church group reportedly posted bail on her behalf, and an online petition to have all charges dropped has already garnered over 5,000 signatures.

I'm not sure why Taylor's case has attracted this kind of support in particular. It might have been the apple-sized tears spilling down both cheeks in her mug shot, or just that she was trying to dig herself out of some pretty terrible circumstances and Americans love someone who tries. Whatever the reason, it's encouraging to see the inequality that defines our criminal justice system is getting this kind of attention.

In its devastating report, the Sentencing Project lists 10 concrete measures that would help eliminate some of the more obvious inequalities in the system, from scaling back the war on drugs to eliminating mandatory minimum sentences to abolishing the death penalty. But until we recognize that bias permeates the system at every level – however unconscious or unintended – meaningful change will elude us.

Media attention and Kickstarters aren't everything, but recognition of a deeper problem isn't nothing.

As I thought... Wtf.

[Aksannyi]

She left her kids in the car for over an hour in Arizona? She's lucky they're alive. I know the story behind it and why she did it, but damn son. Kids die of suffocation in cars way too often for her to really get any sympathy from me.

That said, both of them should have spent longer in jail (okay, he should have been there to begin with).

[Day]

I mean were the windows rolled up? I find it doubtful.

[Aksannyi]

None of the articles I've read seem to include that tidbit - that does make a difference, at least, then it's just leaving young children unattended and not leaving young children to suffocate.

[kuronosan]

Clearly leaving your children in a car with the possibility of suffocation is worse than raping them. She should have just did that instead.

[Day]

Used to sit in the car all the time when mom would go into grocery store. What were the age of the kids?

Was in an job interview too which makes the whole thing shitty. You almost can't help but feel bad for her. At least me anyways. That fuckin struggle.

[Aksannyi]

Yeah it's rough. If I were the interviewer I would have been perfectly fine with her bringing her kids in, definitely that over leaving them alone in a hot car. I wonder what the interviewer is thinking at this point. I know most people are cutthroat and would be like, "What? Arrested? No chance in hell is she getting hired." I would hope to think that there are people out there with enough heart to have thought, "Well if I'd known she was leaving her kids unattended like that I would have let her bring them inside while she interviewed."

Shame all around, but I can see why she would have been afraid to ask. If she couldn't get someone to watch them during the interview, who would watch them while she was at work? Obviously she could see where a potential boss might think that, hell I'm thinking that. Where was she trying to work? Where was she going to leave her kids while she worked? Homeless so obviously she can't afford any child care ... it's a sad story, but again, after knowing people who have let their kids suffocate in a car on a hot day, I find it really hard to be sympathetic toward her after that particular action. It's a struggle for me on that front.

This is really off topic, though.

[Roranora]

gotta say the heir, the judge, and the homeless mom of the recent past are some prime examples of the terribad US courts systems. they'll be top material down at 21st and Prime

[Salodin]

Never mind.

[Melena]

Ok, so he pleads guilty to 4th degree rape of the daughter, gets probation, and wife gets pissed and now sues him for molesting their son? Why was this shit not brought up at trial as well?

[kuronosan]

Ok, so he pleads guilty to 4th degree rape of the daughter, gets probation, and wife gets pissed and now sues him for molesting their son? Why was this shit not brought up at trial as well?

Clearly she's lying.

[Roranora]

she got big lawyers too. ex-wife of a trust funder is a solid occupation as well

[Senji]

Ok, so he pleads guilty to 4th degree rape of the daughter, gets probation, and wife gets pissed and now sues him for molesting their son? Why was this shit not brought up at trial as well?

It was. 4th degree for only one kid was the deal.