One difference I can see there is that the abuser was a minor herself when the crime took place. That doesnât make it less reprehensible, but is the kind of thing I could see a judge taking into account.
do you honestly believe that they would take that into account if the perpetrator was a 16 year old boy committing 50 counts?
Is it just me, or does anybody else see that there may be a new legal standard being set in place here, by Jurden and other judges, that essentially doesnât EXCUSE rich fucks after committing crimes, but may be used to preemptively DENY rich fucks access to a situation where they would, based on plenty of court-established evidence, be highly likely to break the law - In the same way that convicted pedophiles have to sign up to sex-offender lists and are barred from holding jobs that would put them in dangerously close proximity to their former prey ?
Think about it - A statute where rich fucks are barred from entering public places and private businesses because of the extreme likelihood that, being rich, theyâll also be gigantic criminal assholes. (Florida would be a GREAT place to road-test this statute - âWell, officer, I shot that mutual fund-hawking asshole BEFORE he could swindle my grammaw out of her pension. âStood my groundâ, and all that.â) Iâd like to think that these could be the first baby steps towards a culture of quarantining and isolating some of the worst bastards on the planet, BEFORE they wreck the lives of even ONE person, let alone millionsâŚ
Only that she went to prison.
In fact, I think that mandatory minimum sentancing is a bad idea regardless of the crime as it makes wide-scale descisions that should only be made by a judge, I would be in favour of a minimum sentance guideline that a judge would be required to take into consideration and comment on in their decision however. If your concern is the validity of this article, look up his name and you will find plently of other articles to the same effect. Do you seriously think that this manâs wealth is not relevant to his âsentanceâ, because thatâs what it sounds like and it says to me that you live in some kind of fairy land where justice is blind to wealth, class and privlege.
Itâs possible that it was pragmatic, but not because it is difficult to get testimony from a three-year-old but because when people have a ton of money they can make court cases extremely long and ugly. They can cost the state as much money as they are willing to spend and more. And after months and months of trial they can pounce on any minor procedural mistake to get a mistrial or otherwise delay or reset the process.
Unfortunately it is pragmatic, moment-to-moment, to uphold the status quo in most cases, even when the status quo is a carte blanche for the rich to commit rape. That`s how it got to be the status quo in the first place.
Itâs possible that everyone person involved in this investigation, prosecution and sentencing was doing their best to get the steepest possible punishment. If that was the case, and this was the result, that might be even more depressing than finding out heâd just bribed some people.
True, but only to the lesser crime of 4th degree rather than 2nd degree rape, which is how he avoided mandatory jail time.
âCitation neededâ, as the cool kids like to say. On its own, the phrase âare known to beâ is not terribly convincing.
The DAâs had to agree to the deal. âReally good lawyersâ arenât magical beings. Everyone says the OJ case was won by âreally good lawyersâ. But it was lost just as much by a pretty crappy case (as in lousy to no evidence other than circumstantial) and lousy prosecutors, not to mention the number of African-Americans on the jury.
The DA may have been cowed by the defense attorneys, but give me a break. They had the guy dead to rights from what it sounds like.
I think you are right, as far as it goes. Its all really of a piece with him being a (very) rich douchebag.
He would get life for felony ugly if nothing if I were the judge. His kind of ugly starts way deep inside.
âŚand your point isâŚ? Relative to this storyâŚhow?
The DAâs had to agree to the deal. âReally good lawyersâ arenât magical beings. Everyone says the OJ case was won by âreally good lawyersâ. But it was lost just as much by a pretty crappy case (as in lousy to no evidence other than circumstantial) and lousy prosecutors, not to mention the number of African-Americans on the jury.
The way Iâd rephrase that is that OJ was able to hire a better legal team than LA County was. Nothing is certain at trial, but litigation favors the prepared and OJ was able to buy a whole lot of preparation. This is very unusual, normally the prosecution is the side with the resources advantage I guess Iâve had a stealth point, namely that we need to properly fund public defenders, goddammit! Probably shouldâve de-cloaked
earlier.
The DA may have been cowed by the defense attorneys, but give me a break. They had the guy dead to rights from what it sounds like.
If there was a videotape of the crime he wouldâve been dead to rights. Instead, from what Iâve seen (please correct me if Iâm misinformed!) the DA had the testimony of a three-year-old and ambiguous medical evidence. Throw that against a guy able and willing to go all-out to trial and I can see deciding to cut your losses , get some sort of punishment, and spend your budget on something with better chances of winning. Iâd agree that the DA probably couldâve gotten a better deal, but OTOH I wasnât in the room.
I think you are right, as far as it goes. Its all really of a piece with him being a (very) rich douchebag.
The case was overdetermined :). But wealth is sufficient explanation without bringing in any possible DuPont influence.
I think we basically agree. Only thing Iâd add is that DuPont influence IS wealth influence. Iâm not claiming that the DuPont name alone scared the prosecutors. But Iâm sure it didnât hurt the defense either. Yes we need better funding for public defenders. Absolutely. What bothers me is that DAâs are so career driven and have such zeal for locking people up⌠when there is little risk to their âscorecardâ. Their incentives are all screwed up. We need justice, not prosecutors with career prospects to consider. Thatâs what is wrong with our society â incentives are all screwed up, and the powerful like it that way, or in some cases just donât give a shit, so it never changes.
Affluenza, in my opinion is the same as psychopathy or sociopathy, depending on whether they can feel empathy.
In which case, affluenza is a disease that should be treated. If treatment fails, then they should be committed to programs that keep them separated from society. Somewhere they canât keep hurting people.
And anyway, ignorance of the law isnât an excuse right? The money makes no difference to the fact that these people are mentally ill and need treatment.
Not so huge on facts and cost of public availabilityâŚit did drop âneed for treatment exceeds need for punishmentâ as an equally steep legal cowpie.
I think we basically agree.
Yup, just explicating the details.
Only thing Iâd add is that DuPont influence IS wealth influence. Iâm not claiming that the DuPont name alone scared the prosecutors. But Iâm sure it didnât hurt the defense either.
Still, the DuPont name (and Richards one for that matter) include others avenues of influence beyond simple money and Iâm excluding those. If the defendant was a lottery winner I doubt the results would different.
What bothers me is that DAâs are so career driven and have such zeal for locking people up⌠when there is little risk to their âscorecardâ. Their incentives are all screwed up. We need justice, not prosecutors with career prospects to consider.
While that sort of careerism is yet another problem, I wasnât trying to touch on it. I simply meant the DA has finite resources and ultimately has to make decisions on the best way to allocate them.
Thatâs what is wrong with our society â incentives are all screwed up, and the powerful like it that way, or in some cases just donât give a shit, so it never changes.
Yup. And what Iâm saying is that assuming everyone (including the defendant, what with presumption of innocence) was acting sincerely and with good will to do their assigned job as well as possible, youâd still get the same crappy result. Which is pretty damn bleak I think.
How many African Americans were on the jury, and why do you consider that relevant?
Edit: More relevant than, say, the number of whites on the jury?
âCitation neededâ is lame.
You might honestly wonder if pedophiles and sociopaths are actually hard to treat, but if you do - or if you actively believe the opposite - then just say so. If someone is interested in taking up a debate on the issue then they will.
Probation, as defined in this particular case:
Judge Jurden imposed a sentence of eight years in prison suspended in
favor of eight years of probation with strict conditions. Those
conditions included the completion of a rigorous residential and
outpatient treatment program for sex offenders, close monitoring during
the entire probation with zero tolerance for violations (which would
reinstate the prison sentence), and no contact with children (including
the defendantâs own children). This defendant has completed the sex
offender program and has spent more than five years on intensively
monitored probation under the supervision of Delawareâs highly trained
Probation and Parole office with no violations of parole.
@Boundegar not arguing with you, agreeing [I think] with you.
