Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Culture
Culture general
Stanford Rape Case: Victim Letter Going Viral
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Paracelsus" data-source="post: 977799" data-attributes="member: 8098"><p>Couple of thoughts here:</p><p></p><p>(1) I think jumping straight to the suggestion the jury got it wrong is disingenuous given the way we talk about how rape victims should be reporting to police and then leaving it up to a court to decide, that a court is the arbiter of fact. You have to remember courts are very familiar, back to fucking Blackstone in 1760, with the idea that the horror of a crime of rape is so great is can and sometimes does overwhelm juries' reasoning, and that therefore you have to guard against false accusations.</p><p></p><p>Do juries get it wrong on rape? Yes. Did they do so in this case? If you go only on the statistical occurrence of false rape accusations, ranging from the FBI's bullshit numbers to more objective surveys, there is a 50-90% chance that they did <strong>not</strong> get it wrong in this case. The same process that produced a knockout result against Gawker for Hulk Hogan -- trial by jury -- is the same process that produced a conviction on all counts against this kid for the charges as alleged.</p><p></p><p>You can't have it both ways. If you're going to push for rape victims to report to the police and present their accusations before a jury, you have to accept the idea that generally courts know what they're doing. And you have to accept the risk of a wrongful conviction and hope that the appeal process or subsequent investigation eventually vindicates those wrongly accused. Until the Illuminati produce mind-reading gear and universal CCTV surveillance everywhere, that position is not going to change.</p><p></p><p>(2) The media hysteria over this is in part manufactured, but I think the real target is the justice system itself. The <em>du jour</em> change.org petition isn't calling for the state to appeal the sentence, it's calling for the judge who sentenced the guy to 6 months to be sacked.</p><p></p><p>This is the aspect of the case you should all be fucking trembling in your boots over.</p><p></p><p>You should be hoping to high heaven some government official has sufficient guts to hold his ground and respect the independence of the judiciary, because it's the one real bulwark against the rule of the mob that you have in Western civilisation. A government that folds to this campaign and dismisses a sitting judge because he didn't make a decision that the mob liked is a government that will just as happily dismiss a sitting judge who applies the law against the government simply because it's the law.</p><p></p><p>(3) Six months is a short sentence for rape, but again, you have to have faith in the judge as well. He explicitly took into account the guy's prior good record and that the media attention on this case is going to be a significant punishment in and of itself. Sentences are open to appeal by the prosecution.</p><p></p><p>(4) It's armchair quarterbacking, but this guy had a retarded attorney, or an attorney who didn't have any experience handling sexual assault defence in the glare of publicity. For a start, the attorney was male. Bad idea. Jian Ghomeshi's smartest move was to hire a woman to defend him on these cases. Second, if the attorney made the sort of stupid remark that "he got an erection because it was cold" (and I accept that's coming from the 'victim', not the trial transcript) then it belies the sort of attorney who doesn't ask how a jury is going to perceive the allegation made.</p><p></p><p>(5) More generally, I always roll my eyes on the idea of "victim impact statements". They've only become popular in courtrooms in the past fifteen years or so, and they are slaps in the face of every judge who's required to hear them. Their very existence is stating to the judge "You are an ivory tower intellectual and not a human being, you can't appreciate the effect this event had on me, me, me, and I'm going to harangue you with how this event affected me, me, me because I am an infant who can't accept the idea of the rule of law and that a judge generally isn't put in that position for his fucking charm." More practically, you can't cross-examine on their content, so -- as with this case -- it's open to the victim to crap on with any amount of unverified or questionable assertions in the hope of influencing the judge into a harder sentence.</p><p></p><p>(6) It would not surprise me if that victim impact statement was not the woman's own work. 7,200 words, and from beginning to end the same tone, flow, and rhythm to it of an xojane article -- that is, written by an English graduate. Compare that with the father's victim impact statement which is about 300 words or so and has nothing near the same level of professionalism to it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paracelsus, post: 977799, member: 8098"] Couple of thoughts here: (1) I think jumping straight to the suggestion the jury got it wrong is disingenuous given the way we talk about how rape victims should be reporting to police and then leaving it up to a court to decide, that a court is the arbiter of fact. You have to remember courts are very familiar, back to fucking Blackstone in 1760, with the idea that the horror of a crime of rape is so great is can and sometimes does overwhelm juries' reasoning, and that therefore you have to guard against false accusations. Do juries get it wrong on rape? Yes. Did they do so in this case? If you go only on the statistical occurrence of false rape accusations, ranging from the FBI's bullshit numbers to more objective surveys, there is a 50-90% chance that they did [b]not[/b] get it wrong in this case. The same process that produced a knockout result against Gawker for Hulk Hogan -- trial by jury -- is the same process that produced a conviction on all counts against this kid for the charges as alleged. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to push for rape victims to report to the police and present their accusations before a jury, you have to accept the idea that generally courts know what they're doing. And you have to accept the risk of a wrongful conviction and hope that the appeal process or subsequent investigation eventually vindicates those wrongly accused. Until the Illuminati produce mind-reading gear and universal CCTV surveillance everywhere, that position is not going to change. (2) The media hysteria over this is in part manufactured, but I think the real target is the justice system itself. The [i]du jour[/i] change.org petition isn't calling for the state to appeal the sentence, it's calling for the judge who sentenced the guy to 6 months to be sacked. This is the aspect of the case you should all be fucking trembling in your boots over. You should be hoping to high heaven some government official has sufficient guts to hold his ground and respect the independence of the judiciary, because it's the one real bulwark against the rule of the mob that you have in Western civilisation. A government that folds to this campaign and dismisses a sitting judge because he didn't make a decision that the mob liked is a government that will just as happily dismiss a sitting judge who applies the law against the government simply because it's the law. (3) Six months is a short sentence for rape, but again, you have to have faith in the judge as well. He explicitly took into account the guy's prior good record and that the media attention on this case is going to be a significant punishment in and of itself. Sentences are open to appeal by the prosecution. (4) It's armchair quarterbacking, but this guy had a retarded attorney, or an attorney who didn't have any experience handling sexual assault defence in the glare of publicity. For a start, the attorney was male. Bad idea. Jian Ghomeshi's smartest move was to hire a woman to defend him on these cases. Second, if the attorney made the sort of stupid remark that "he got an erection because it was cold" (and I accept that's coming from the 'victim', not the trial transcript) then it belies the sort of attorney who doesn't ask how a jury is going to perceive the allegation made. (5) More generally, I always roll my eyes on the idea of "victim impact statements". They've only become popular in courtrooms in the past fifteen years or so, and they are slaps in the face of every judge who's required to hear them. Their very existence is stating to the judge "You are an ivory tower intellectual and not a human being, you can't appreciate the effect this event had on me, me, me, and I'm going to harangue you with how this event affected me, me, me because I am an infant who can't accept the idea of the rule of law and that a judge generally isn't put in that position for his fucking charm." More practically, you can't cross-examine on their content, so -- as with this case -- it's open to the victim to crap on with any amount of unverified or questionable assertions in the hope of influencing the judge into a harder sentence. (6) It would not surprise me if that victim impact statement was not the woman's own work. 7,200 words, and from beginning to end the same tone, flow, and rhythm to it of an xojane article -- that is, written by an English graduate. Compare that with the father's victim impact statement which is about 300 words or so and has nothing near the same level of professionalism to it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Culture
Culture general
Stanford Rape Case: Victim Letter Going Viral
Top
