793
submitted 1 year ago by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jkmooney@kbin.social 200 points 1 year ago

I don't know, this person has done a lot of decent things in his life. I'm not inclined to judge him by his worst decision.

[-] Backspacecentury@kbin.social 139 points 1 year ago

While I would tend to agree, if I'm reading this correctly, they sent the letters for the sentencing... meaning he was already convicted of rape and they were pleading for leniency for an old rapist buddy, like within the last few months. That is a really bad look no matter how you slice it.

[-] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 169 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He's also an old friend.

I don't believe in guilt by association. Asking for leniency for an old friend to a judge, and he didn't get it, doesn't make them monsters or rapists by proxy.

If our culture demands every felon be shunned by their friends and family members going forward, then end the perverse charade and just kill everyone upon a felony conviction.

Masterson did a very bad thing, some friends wrote letters to inform the judge that that isn't all he is and to consider that, not out of malice, but out of compassion.

Man, the internet has absolutely destroyed the concept of nuance. Then again, we only see our "justice," lol, system as a way to turn the screws on bad people... that our society made, btw. Wanton spectator cruelty without the guilt. Not even a hint of attempts at rehabilitation, and just about everyone roots for a parolee's failure to confirm their biases.

Advocating maximum cruelty be inflicted on a perpetrator shouldn't be confused with compassion for the victim. Americans largely ignore that distinction, because it's convenient, easy, and pleasurable to revel in cruelty and call it kindness.

[-] reverendsteveii@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It doesn't make them rapists by proxy, but it does make them someone who believes the rapist they like should be the exception.

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Is it really for an exception? Or just not making it any longer due to additional bad character traits?

My understanding is they look at the range of acceptable punishment, and then use these factors to determine where it should land. Providing a letter explaining his character would serve to put it on the lower end of it. It's not so much an exception as it is just providing evidence for the court to make an informed decision for the range.

[-] reverendsteveii@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He didn't get convicted of rape and being unlikeable. He was convicted of rape. The penalty being assessed is the penalty for rape. Whatever else he may have done, good or bad, he did the rape. He should pay the penalty for the rape that he did. If he collects money for disabled children on Sundays, he shouldn't be punished less, he should pay the penalty for rape. If he's a jerk who gets drunk on weeknights and starts his political opinions with "I'm not racist, but..." he shouldn't be penalized additionally for that. He should be penalized for rape. This thing where we make room for "He's a rapist, but..." is fucking garbage. It reeks of Brock Turner's dad trying to reduce the lifetime of harm his son inflicted on a woman to "10 minutes of action". If a rapist who operates a puppy rescue is less of a rapist than a rapist who does other things we all agree to be unpleasant then it's not about the harm inflicted, it's about how much we all generally like the rapist.

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I agree with you in principle. But that isn't how the judicial system works. Usually there's a minimum, which is the actual punishment for the crime. Then there's the maximum which is what they give you if you're a repeat offender or they just generally think you're an extra shitty person.

Given that, someone with otherwise good character is expected to get the minimum, which is the time for the crime without getting extra. In this case that minimum is 30 years.

But yeah, if you want to talk about how shit the judicial system is, I agree. I could go on about plea bargains, penalty ranges, etc being used as tools of oppression.

[-] reverendsteveii@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

He's a repeat offender. He was convicted on multiple counts. Strictly speaking, he's not just a rapist, he's a serial rapist.

But I do think we'd agree about plea bargains. They let the guilty off scot free and let the overworked, underfunded judicial system off the hook when it comes to innocent defendants.

load more comments (49 replies)
load more comments (57 replies)
load more comments (100 replies)
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
793 points (97.7% liked)

News

23367 readers
1724 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS