News that makes you say WTF! (29 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ford Prefect
- Start date
she thought she was slick 
- - - Updated - - -
i didnt believe you
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/jane-seo
- - - Updated - - -
i didnt believe you
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/jane-seo
Link was broken for me, but I suppose you mean this:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ball-coat-hanger-rape-teammate-john-rk-howard
Without really knowing the case it's impossible to understand what the prosecution might have been able to prove.
Since a plea bargain was reached, I wouldn't think too much of the prosecutor's statements. It's very likely that part of the plea bargain was them saying it wasn't hate / sex crime. The prosecutor is obviously saying these things taken into consideration that it wasn't proved they called him 'nigger' during the ordeal.
The real question here imo is why the prosecutor agreed to a plea bargain. The article seems to suggest that the prosecutor is somehow racist because he doesn't deem it a hate crime, but in all likelihood he simply can't do that anymore today. If you can prove that plea bargains are reached much more easily with white suspects and black victims, then you have a case.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ball-coat-hanger-rape-teammate-john-rk-howard
Without really knowing the case it's impossible to understand what the prosecution might have been able to prove.
Since a plea bargain was reached, I wouldn't think too much of the prosecutor's statements. It's very likely that part of the plea bargain was them saying it wasn't hate / sex crime. The prosecutor is obviously saying these things taken into consideration that it wasn't proved they called him 'nigger' during the ordeal.
The real question here imo is why the prosecutor agreed to a plea bargain. The article seems to suggest that the prosecutor is somehow racist because he doesn't deem it a hate crime, but in all likelihood he simply can't do that anymore today. If you can prove that plea bargains are reached much more easily with white suspects and black victims, then you have a case.
What kind of reporting of the case is this then? I don't get it. Forget about the hate crime, was the guy raped or not? How can a case be closed without any indication of whether or not the criminal act really happened? If it did happen, was the plea bargain reached again because a harsher punishment would have negatively affected the offender's future? Since i remember you supported the court's decision in Turner's case, do you find it a fair (i wish i had a better word) handling of the case here as well?
Pretty bad and sensational.
I don't know how they came to the plea bargain. Lots of things could be in it. But according to the article he agreed to a felony count of injury to a child. If that's what the plea bargain is about, it makes sense that the prosecutor then can't go out and say it's a hate and / or sex crime. In fact I guess the latter was probably a very important point for the defense, as that kind of thing can haunt you for life.
A plea bargain is basically an agreement between the prosecutor and the defense and is effectively a negotiated deal. In this case the defense agreed to a felony count of injury to a child, while the prosecutor agreed not to prosecute for rape or other sex and hate crimes. It's important to realise that the prosecutor is usually not very concerned with the offender's future. The prosecutor is not a judge. A prosecutor will usually strive to achieve the maximum penalty he thinks is fair. In most cases where a plea bargain is reached the prosecutor might feel that he cannot prove a more serious crime, so he'll agree to settle on a less serious crime. Depending on the country / state, the judge's involvement is very minimal and no actual trial might take place.
That's why, imo, the real question should be why the prosecutor decided to go for a plea bargain.
The Turner case is different. I didn't necessarily support the decision in Turner, but I did believe that most press (and people) seriousy underestimated the impact it has on a person's life if he has to register as a sex offender.
I don't know how they came to the plea bargain. Lots of things could be in it. But according to the article he agreed to a felony count of injury to a child. If that's what the plea bargain is about, it makes sense that the prosecutor then can't go out and say it's a hate and / or sex crime. In fact I guess the latter was probably a very important point for the defense, as that kind of thing can haunt you for life.
A plea bargain is basically an agreement between the prosecutor and the defense and is effectively a negotiated deal. In this case the defense agreed to a felony count of injury to a child, while the prosecutor agreed not to prosecute for rape or other sex and hate crimes. It's important to realise that the prosecutor is usually not very concerned with the offender's future. The prosecutor is not a judge. A prosecutor will usually strive to achieve the maximum penalty he thinks is fair. In most cases where a plea bargain is reached the prosecutor might feel that he cannot prove a more serious crime, so he'll agree to settle on a less serious crime. Depending on the country / state, the judge's involvement is very minimal and no actual trial might take place.
That's why, imo, the real question should be why the prosecutor decided to go for a plea bargain.
The Turner case is different. I didn't necessarily support the decision in Turner, but I did believe that most press (and people) seriousy underestimated the impact it has on a person's life if he has to register as a sex offender.
I don't underestimate those ramifications. I find them fair. One should think of them when assaulting an unconscious woman (no empathy with the consequences his "20 minutes of action" would have on her future?) or assaulting a disabled person with a hanger (the obvious negative consequences on the victim's life are his multiple suicide attempts it seems, no concerns for that?)
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
In the Turner case I understand the judge's reasoning. I don't have a true opinion on whether it was right or wrong, because I don't know enough about the case. I do think the judge was misunderstood by large segments of the population.
In this case the prosecutor and the defense team came to a deal. I'm saying investigate that deal and find out why the prosecutor thought it was the right thing to do. His statements after the deal mean nothing, simply because he can't accuse Howard of committing a sex or hate crime after they both came to a deal that it wasn't the case.
In the Turner case I understand the judge's reasoning. I don't have a true opinion on whether it was right or wrong, because I don't know enough about the case. I do think the judge was misunderstood by large segments of the population.
In this case the prosecutor and the defense team came to a deal. I'm saying investigate that deal and find out why the prosecutor thought it was the right thing to do. His statements after the deal mean nothing, simply because he can't accuse Howard of committing a sex or hate crime after they both came to a deal that it wasn't the case.
I was referring to the last paragraph of your previous post where you said you think people underestimate the effects of having to register as a sex offender. I don't. If one is a sex offender (and Turner was, he was caught assaulting an unconscious woman so no "she asked for it" bs), he should face the consequences.
@Seven
@Seven
Perhaps you don't. And yes, Turner should face that consequence. And he will. Because he does have to register as a sex offender. What I mean is that people act as if that's not part of the punishment, but it is. It can have very far reaching consequences on a person's life. Turner did not simply walk.
2017 in Denmark and we still charge people for blasphemy (first time in 46 years). That's truly wtf in my world.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lam-prosecuted-charged-46-years-a7594796.html
I wonder if anyone have ever been charged with blasphemy for burning 'on the origin of species'..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lam-prosecuted-charged-46-years-a7594796.html
I wonder if anyone have ever been charged with blasphemy for burning 'on the origin of species'..