I mean, in the UK there was a case where a woman stabbed her boyfriend and broke her bail conditions and was spared jail because of her "promising career" so it's not like this is unique.
It's a pernicious and infuriating habit that people from "good backgrounds" with "promising careers" are persistently viewed with undue favour, often by judges and juries.
In theory, such people should be less likely to commit an offence, because their privileged upbringing should have been better at instilling ideas of good conduct or they should have greatr fear of more to lose. Thus arguably it could be considered a more severe breach when they fail to demonstrate good conduct. On the other hand, "good background" and "promising career" generally means the wealth and status of class, when crime is more about a sense of psychological well-being. Let's face it, plenty of middle and upper class parents are quite capable of emotionally crippling their offspring even if they do give them an expensive education.
One might make the argument that criminalising and thus reducing the productivity of the talented places a greater loss to society than criminalising the less talented, but then people with "promising careers" are going to occupy positions of considerably greater power and responsibility, which means we need to be extra sure that they're not criminally inclined.
And as a final note, let's quote Adam Smith:
"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. That wealth and greatness are often regarded with the respect and admiration which are due only to wisdom and virtue; and that the contempt, of which vice and folly are the only proper objects, is often most unjustly bestowed upon poverty and weakness, has been the complaint of moralists in all ages."
Who said the point was that this was unique? Does it need to be unique to be a problem? The fact that you can ease your punishment for rape by just "having a promising career" is a big problem on itself.
The fact that you can ease your punishment for *anything* in that way (which is just pretty language around issues of wealth and status, to make it less blatant) is. But you'll notice that much of the thread pretends like this happened specifically because it's a rape case (for example the Saelune comment I replied to asking if it's possible for women to come from "good families"). Saelune's comment is actually why I chose the example I did specifically - it has a woman perp getting off similarly as a demonstration that yes, women can still benefit from the same.
That's a pretty preposterous argument from that judge. Who cares what family he comes from or what else he did? You gotta not rape people.
Question though, why should he be tried as an adult? Because he's not, he's 16. Clearly he should be punished, but if it's reasonable to have different standard for minors than for adults, and I think it is, it seems weird to just declare somebody an adult because they did something terrible.
That's a pretty preposterous argument from that judge. Who cares what family he comes from or what else he did? You gotta not rape people.
Question though, why should he be tried as an adult? Because he's not, he's 16. Clearly he should be punished, but if it's reasonable to have different standard for minors than for adults, and I think it is, it seems weird to just declare somebody an adult because they did something terrible.
I disagree. The way the Common Law system works, the actual law becomes less important and prior cases' rulings become more important. And without prior rulings a judge has way too much leeway to not only decide one case but lay a foundation for all similar future cases.
In practice, non-common law systems tend to have an effective equivalent of precedent too (i.e that prior cases set the tone for interpretation of law for existing ones), although it's generally not binding in the same way.
You also have to consider the advantages of precedent (or equivalent forms of established case law standards). Precedent encourages uniformity - or equality, if you like - in the application of law, because without it judges could apply different standards to similar individual cases where there is a point of contention not covered by statute.
One must also consider that the multiple checks on decisions through appeals systems means there is a LOT of oversight over setting precedent. And in the final analysis, if precedent does establish an unwelcome standard that is accepted to be a problem, statutes can be altered.
Question though, why should he be tried as an adult? Because he's not, he's 16. Clearly he should be punished, but if it's reasonable to have different standard for minors than for adults, and I think it is, it seems weird to just declare somebody an adult because they did something terrible.
Jurisdictions have set ages of legal responsibility. I think a 16-year-old generally should be aware enough of right and wrong to be tried as an adult - I mean, some people think 16-year-olds should be allowed the vote.
I would suggest the decision to try as adult or child should really depend on a judgement of the individual's mental capabilities (people maturing at different rates, contributing factors such as learning disabilities, etc.) It certainly shouldn't be an arbitrary decision by a judgde to give leniency to a favoured rich kid.
That's a pretty preposterous argument from that judge. Who cares what family he comes from or what else he did? You gotta not rape people.
Question though, why should he be tried as an adult? Because he's not, he's 16. Clearly he should be punished, but if it's reasonable to have different standard for minors than for adults, and I think it is, it seems weird to just declare somebody an adult because they did something terrible.
They really should not be and that is a result of a broken system. Much of the time the juvenile system is not equipped to deal with serious crimes well and due to the extremely severe lack of mental health services and actual rehabilitation made available to both juveniles and adults, they are often afraid those that pose and extreme threat to the public will likely be back on the street due to how messed up the system really is. The for profit abusive and corrupt mental health and prison system has made a pretty bad mess of things currently and unless it is pretty much redesigned from the ground up, it will never get better. Those who are profiting from it are preventing it from being fixed so it is an absurd fight to try to get even common sense improvements done. If they really want to fix the system they should take a good look at the Netherlands system. But that means actually treating people like human beings, take care of the people, provide proper mental health services, focus on rehabilitation and helping people gain the skills needed to survive and help them gain housing and provide them with jobs rather than focus on forcing people into desperation and suffering and survival of the fittest and forcing everything else to go to crap.
As long as they refuse to allow the necessary changes, the current US Justice system is anything but "just". There is no victim protection, they allow predators access to victims and crime even while incarcerated and do not focus on actual rehabilitation and treatment putting people back on the streets much worse than they went in with nothing and forcing them into even more desperate situations resulting in extremely high reoffending rates. They put people who should be in mental institutions in prison because they don't want to pay for their treatment. It is screwed up in so many ways, it really needs to be completely redesigned at this point. The corrupt, abusive system increases crime rather than decreases it, but why wouldn't they? The for profit prisons get paid more for more criminals, so there is no real incentives for decreasing crime.
A New Jersey appeals court has blasted a state family court judge ? and reversed his decision ? after he refused to try as an adult a 16-year-old boy accused of raping an intoxicated 16-year-old girl and sending video of the alleged sex assault to his buddies.
In a ruling last year in Monmouth County, New Jersey Superior Court Judge James Troiano denied prosecutors' motion to try the teen as an adult and instead said: "This young man comes from a good family who put him into an excellent school where he was doing extremely well."
"He is clearly a candidate for not just college but probably for a good college. His scores for college entry were very high," said Troiano, who also detailed the boy's extracurricular activities, including that he was an Eagle Scout.
Prosecutors say the boy, only identified in court documents as G.M.C., sexually assaulted the girl while at a pajama-themed basement party packed with about 30 other adolescents in New Jersey where alcohol was flowing.
The drunken boy had walked off to a closed-off, darkened area of the room with the visibly drunk victim and filmed himself on his cellphone penetrating the girl from behind with her bare torso exposed and her head hanging down, according to prosecutors.
He then sent the clip to several friends, and in the days following the incident, texted his pals, saying: "When your first time having sex was rape."
In denying the waiver to try the teen as an adult, Troiano noted: "I still in my mind ? distinguish between a sexual assault and a rape ? in my mind there is a distinction."
"There have been some, not many, but some cases of sexual assault involving juveniles which in my mind absolutely were the traditional case of rape," said the judge, who added that those cases generally involved two or more males and a gun or weapon.
The judge expressed concern that the prosecutor did not indicate that she explained to the victim and her mother "the devastating effect a waiver would have on G.M.C.'s life," according to the appeals court.
In case the Judge didn't get the memo of the new definition of Rape that is on the US Department of Justice Archives [https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape], it goes as follows
"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
To be fair to the judge, here's the definition of Sexual Assault [https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa] according to the DOJ.
The term "sexual assault" means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent
So, to give the 'Judge' credit, he's right. There's a clear definition between Rape and Sexual Assault. But since there was penetration, he's on the wrong side of the definition.
I find myself literally waiting for the old guard to fall out of power so we can get some actual equity in Justice in this damn world. Your position in the community should mean nothing. Your academic ability should mean nothing... You know what, I'm actually going to run that back. It should mean everything. Because it means you had enough exposure to the world and intelligence to know right from wrong.
If this boy was smart enough to get good grades, he was smart enough to know how humans are supposed to act to other humans. And In fact, he did. Because he tweeted out that he did a depraved act and shared this vileness with his friends.
People hate the "P" word. But when you have such an obvious case of Privilege affecting Privilege, it's an insult to everyone's intelligence for not pointing it out.
Yea another affluenza victim in a country that doesn't think rape is a big deal in the first place. Of course his future is far more important than his victims lives if he comes from a " good family" right? Not surprised in the least though with the rape conviction rate in this country I am sure no one is really surprised.
The fact that you can ease your punishment for *anything* in that way (which is just pretty language around issues of wealth and status, to make it less blatant) is.
Try to fix everything, and you'll fix nothing. That one judge isn't the one who eased the punishments of every affluent criminal in the world. Are you telling me that makes him not worth focusing on? Are you telling me that unless it encompasses all of the world's problems it isn't worth talking about? The case that the judge eased was a about a charge for rape. Why wouldn't we focus in that aspect? Isn't rape worth condemning with all the emphasis as possible?
Who's that fuck who only got six months for raping a girl because he was the local school's top swimmer? Brock Turner? This is like that, only somehow worse. Anyone at this point who can deny race, sex, or wealth privilege is burying their head in the sand.
That's a pretty preposterous argument from that judge. Who cares what family he comes from or what else he did? You gotta not rape people.
Question though, why should he be tried as an adult? Because he's not, he's 16. Clearly he should be punished, but if it's reasonable to have different standard for minors than for adults, and I think it is, it seems weird to just declare somebody an adult because they did something terrible.
Some juvenile cases get transferred to adult criminal court through a process called a "waiver"?when a judge waives the protections that juvenile court provides. Usually, juvenile cases that are subject to waiver involve more serious crimes, or minors who have been in trouble before. Although being tried in adult court gives a juvenile more constitutional protections, it has distinct disadvantages too?including the potential for a more severe sentence and the possibility of serving time in an adult correctional facility.
Essentially it is done when the act is of such a grievous nature that it's considered unreasonable to place them under juvenile law. Juvenile Law is usually implimented because the thought is that the youth hasn't grown enough to understand the implications of their actions (that was the theory anyway, I believe). Juvenile theft would be considered a lesser infraction than adult theft. And the lessen punishments are in place until every youth hits their 18th year. At which case, they are an adult and can be charged with Adult laws and punishments, as the thought is they are old enough and experienced enough of the world that they can appreciate the ramification of their actions.. but just chose not to follow the law.
Rape, as you can see from the quoted section, is one of those grievous crimes that warrants actual punishment.
Satinavian said:
ObsidianJones said:
All of that hinges on votes. People voting politicians into office to propose unfair ideas that benefit only them and people who delude themselves to think those Politicians represent them.
Judges who use their discretion to consider a white teen who smokes weed as someone like he was when he was a teen, so obviously he's not a bad guy... but the black kid smoking the same amount is a problem that needs the hammer dropped on him before he becomes another gangbanger.
Those Sheriffs you vote for who gain their power by running on fears and biases of the masses against the 'other'.
"Privilege" warps sensible laws as much as nonsensical ones.
In Germany, we don't vote for Judges. They get appointed. We also don't vote for police officials.
The only votes are for politicians who make laws. While a party can run on a promise of tougher laws, there is no way to run for sheriff on the promise to be extra tough on crime or something. There is no incentive for a judge to please the majority by plaing to their preconceptions.
That is not a guarantee for for the justice system to not have prejudiced people in it. But people don't get more powerful/influencial in the system by following common prejudices and getting votes.
Not everyone in the united states elects Police officials. Sheriffs, to my knowledge, are the only elected police officials, and I never even seen one until I left the New York Tristate Area.
I'm still not a hundred percent on what they do.
But again, we're actually saying the same thing. I understand it's backwards, but this is strictly so a certain demographic can do whatever they can to maintain control.
What would happen if it was actually scores, work ethic, and service to the community that would bring these people into power. Why, they might actually uphold the law instead of allowances I make for me and mine! We can't have that! Elect! Get the 'right' people into power!
The laws themselves can be sound. But the very act of electing people to interpret and preside other those laws is an asinine idea which is only done to maintain some semblance of power. Privilege is gonna Privilege .
(sorry for responding so late, I didn't see it. Still no notifications)
Lil devils x said:
ObsidianJones said:
A New Jersey appeals court has blasted a state family court judge ? and reversed his decision ? after he refused to try as an adult a 16-year-old boy accused of raping an intoxicated 16-year-old girl and sending video of the alleged sex assault to his buddies.
In a ruling last year in Monmouth County, New Jersey Superior Court Judge James Troiano denied prosecutors' motion to try the teen as an adult and instead said: "This young man comes from a good family who put him into an excellent school where he was doing extremely well."
"He is clearly a candidate for not just college but probably for a good college. His scores for college entry were very high," said Troiano, who also detailed the boy's extracurricular activities, including that he was an Eagle Scout.
Prosecutors say the boy, only identified in court documents as G.M.C., sexually assaulted the girl while at a pajama-themed basement party packed with about 30 other adolescents in New Jersey where alcohol was flowing.
The drunken boy had walked off to a closed-off, darkened area of the room with the visibly drunk victim and filmed himself on his cellphone penetrating the girl from behind with her bare torso exposed and her head hanging down, according to prosecutors.
He then sent the clip to several friends, and in the days following the incident, texted his pals, saying: "When your first time having sex was rape."
In denying the waiver to try the teen as an adult, Troiano noted: "I still in my mind ? distinguish between a sexual assault and a rape ? in my mind there is a distinction."
"There have been some, not many, but some cases of sexual assault involving juveniles which in my mind absolutely were the traditional case of rape," said the judge, who added that those cases generally involved two or more males and a gun or weapon.
The judge expressed concern that the prosecutor did not indicate that she explained to the victim and her mother "the devastating effect a waiver would have on G.M.C.'s life," according to the appeals court.
In case the Judge didn't get the memo of the new definition of Rape that is on the US Department of Justice Archives [https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape], it goes as follows
"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
To be fair to the judge, here's the definition of Sexual Assault [https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa] according to the DOJ.
The term "sexual assault" means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent
So, to give the 'Judge' credit, he's right. There's a clear definition between Rape and Sexual Assault. But since there was penetration, he's on the wrong side of the definition.
I find myself literally waiting for the old guard to fall out of power so we can get some actual equity in Justice in this damn world. Your position in the community should mean nothing. Your academic ability should mean nothing... You know what, I'm actually going to run that back. It should mean everything. Because it means you had enough exposure to the world and intelligence to know right from wrong.
If this boy was smart enough to get good grades, he was smart enough to know how humans are supposed to act to other humans. And In fact, he did. Because he tweeted out that he did a depraved act and shared this vileness with his friends.
People hate the "P" word. But when you have such an obvious case of Privilege affecting Privilege, it's an insult to everyone's intelligence for not pointing it out.
Yea another affluenza victim in a country that doesn't think rape is a big deal in the first place. Of course his future is far more important than his victims lives if he comes from a " good family" right? Not surprised in the least though with the rape conviction rate in this country I am sure no one is really surprised.
I know I'm trying to put logic in a stupid situation, and I know you're participating in Gallows Humor, but could an 'Affluenza' defense even be attempted? I mean, he literally admitted to rape. That means he has the capability of understanding what rape was, and that he was actually committing it.
That whole stupid Affluenza defense is suggesting you're so removed from normal life that you can't have the capability of understanding laws that will never affect you, or something really stupid like that. He obviously knows the laws, he knows the difference between actual sex and rape... and he clearly defines what he's doing is not sex.
Like... could anyone be stupid enough to try that as a defense?
Elfgore said:
Who's that fuck who only got six months for raping a girl because he was the local school's top swimmer? Brock Turner? This is like that, only somehow worse. Anyone at this point who can deny race, sex, or wealth privilege is burying their head in the sand.
I don't know. Brock's pretty bad. Because according to the Department of Justice, Brock did in fact rape her.
Remember, that definition is penetration with any body part, or anything. But in California [https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/stanford-rape-case-brock-turner-victims-statement-a7074246.html]...
Around the world outraged headlines have referred to the "Brock Turner rape case". And that?s quite accurate ? he was originally charged with rape of an intoxicated person and rape of an unconscious person. But those indictments were dropped at a preliminary hearing, reportedly after prosecutors received the results of DNA testing.
As such, the case continued on the basis of 'lesser' charges: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person; penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object; and penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. In essence, Californian state law defines rape as penetration by the penis. Since that did not occur Turner is a criminal, a sex offender... but he isn't, according to the law, a rapist.
Basically, he didn't go through what California defines a rape, he's not rapist. No matter what the DoJ says. If it he somewhere else in America, he wouldn't have had that luxury... we hope.
But then again, Brock didn't text him inside an unwilling person and admit that his first sexual experience was a rape. So... yeah. The Judge here in this case is pretty bad.
I used to not understand what 'rape culture' and 'the patriarchy' was, then an admitted rapist became president instead of the woman with more votes. Then I understood what those things were. This here, is more of both. This is rape culture, this is the patriarchy. Women aren't even the minority that LGBT and black people are, yet they too are second class citizens of the world.
I know I'm trying to put logic in a stupid situation, and I know you're participating in Gallows Humor, but could an 'Affluenza' defense even be attempted? I mean, he literally admitted to rape. That means he has the capability of understanding what rape was, and that he was actually committing it.
That whole stupid Affluenza defense is suggesting you're so removed from normal life that you can't have the capability of understanding laws that will never affect you, or something really stupid like that. He obviously knows the laws, he knows the difference between actual sex and rape... and he clearly defines what he's doing is not sex.
Like... could anyone be stupid enough to try that as a defense?
I'm sure they could. Plenty of people growing up in wealthy communities never had to face consequences for anything ever. Reminds me of a guy in my high school who wrecked his Ferrari in the school parking lot because he was distracted by a cheerleader's skirt flying up. His Dad went and got him a brand new Lamborghini the same day, he didn't even face consequences for wrecking his car, not even for a day. It is extremely common for the wealthy to never concern themselves with actually facing consequences for crimes every day. They steal from others, shoplift for thrills and their parents just make it disappear. They assault people, rape people, threaten people and their family just makes it seem like it never happened. They can buy whatever they want, why would this be any different in their eyes? Their mindset is at the core of it here, they actually do feel that the rest of the world is beneath them and does not apply because they are more often than not insulated from having to face consequences to any of their actions regardless.
I know I'm trying to put logic in a stupid situation, and I know you're participating in Gallows Humor, but could an 'Affluenza' defense even be attempted? I mean, he literally admitted to rape. That means he has the capability of understanding what rape was, and that he was actually committing it.
That whole stupid Affluenza defense is suggesting you're so removed from normal life that you can't have the capability of understanding laws that will never affect you, or something really stupid like that. He obviously knows the laws, he knows the difference between actual sex and rape... and he clearly defines what he's doing is not sex.
Like... could anyone be stupid enough to try that as a defense?
I'm sure they could. Plenty of people growing up in wealthy communities never had to face consequences for anything ever. Reminds me of a guy in my high school who wrecked his Ferrari in the school parking lot because he was distracted by a cheerleader's skirt flying up. His Dad went and got him a brand new Lamborghini the same day, he didn't even face consequences for wrecking his car, not even for a day. It is extremely common for the wealthy to never concern themselves with actually facing consequences for crimes every day. They steal from others, shoplift for thrills and their parents just make it disappear. They assault people, rape people, threaten people and their family just makes it seem like it never happened. They can buy whatever they want, why would this be any different in their eyes? Their mindset is at the core of it here, they actually do feel that the rest of the world is beneath them and does not apply because they are more often than not insulated from having to face consequences to any of their actions regardless.
That comment provided one or more examples from personal experience; I don't think it's appropriate to name and shame such people in this sort of public forum without them having an opportunity to defend themselves (unless already public domain).
I know I'm trying to put logic in a stupid situation, and I know you're participating in Gallows Humor, but could an 'Affluenza' defense even be attempted? I mean, he literally admitted to rape. That means he has the capability of understanding what rape was, and that he was actually committing it.
That whole stupid Affluenza defense is suggesting you're so removed from normal life that you can't have the capability of understanding laws that will never affect you, or something really stupid like that. He obviously knows the laws, he knows the difference between actual sex and rape... and he clearly defines what he's doing is not sex.
Like... could anyone be stupid enough to try that as a defense?
I'm sure they could. Plenty of people growing up in wealthy communities never had to face consequences for anything ever. Reminds me of a guy in my high school who wrecked his Ferrari in the school parking lot because he was distracted by a cheerleader's skirt flying up. His Dad went and got him a brand new Lamborghini the same day, he didn't even face consequences for wrecking his car, not even for a day. It is extremely common for the wealthy to never concern themselves with actually facing consequences for crimes every day. They steal from others, shoplift for thrills and their parents just make it disappear. They assault people, rape people, threaten people and their family just makes it seem like it never happened. They can buy whatever they want, why would this be any different in their eyes? Their mindset is at the core of it here, they actually do feel that the rest of the world is beneath them and does not apply because they are more often than not insulated from having to face consequences to any of their actions regardless.
You going to hunt them down and make them pay? LOL! I was terrified to go anywhere with one of my classmates from school because she kept shoplifting everywhere we went, but she didn't care because she was too wealthy for her to actually go to jail for it. It sucked when I had to go to her house after school everyday to work on our presentation for speech class because she would always stop at the store and cram stuff down her shirt for shits and giggles and to "see the reaction on my face". These people are not hard to find, they exist everywhere you have wealthy suburbs. We were pulled over once leaving with her actually driving on the wrong side of the road and once they saw her license to see who she was they just told her "sorry for the inconvenience, have a good day ma'am'. You would have thought they just pulled over Ivanka Trump with how the cops tuned changed. It really is unreal how this actually works in their world vs everyone else's.
That comment provided one or more examples from personal experience; I don't think it's appropriate to name and shame such people in this sort of public forum without them having an opportunity to defend themselves (unless already public domain).
Considering I didn't film them or call the police at the time, naming and shaming wealthy only leads to them suing you to shut you up regardless. Hell even when you have proof and call the cops they still manipulate people into silence so it wouldn't matter anyways. It isn't like they would actually have to face consequences. Even when you are a complete monster like Jeffery Epstein, how long did he go before having to face consequences for anything ever and how severe were those consequences compared to his actual crimes? The wealthy get away with it because the system allows them to.
I know I'm trying to put logic in a stupid situation, and I know you're participating in Gallows Humor, but could an 'Affluenza' defense even be attempted? I mean, he literally admitted to rape. That means he has the capability of understanding what rape was, and that he was actually committing it.
That whole stupid Affluenza defense is suggesting you're so removed from normal life that you can't have the capability of understanding laws that will never affect you, or something really stupid like that. He obviously knows the laws, he knows the difference between actual sex and rape... and he clearly defines what he's doing is not sex.
Like... could anyone be stupid enough to try that as a defense?
I'm sure they could. Plenty of people growing up in wealthy communities never had to face consequences for anything ever. Reminds me of a guy in my high school who wrecked his Ferrari in the school parking lot because he was distracted by a cheerleader's skirt flying up. His Dad went and got him a brand new Lamborghini the same day, he didn't even face consequences for wrecking his car, not even for a day. It is extremely common for the wealthy to never concern themselves with actually facing consequences for crimes every day. They steal from others, shoplift for thrills and their parents just make it disappear. They assault people, rape people, threaten people and their family just makes it seem like it never happened. They can buy whatever they want, why would this be any different in their eyes? Their mindset is at the core of it here, they actually do feel that the rest of the world is beneath them and does not apply because they are more often than not insulated from having to face consequences to any of their actions regardless.
That comment provided one or more examples from personal experience; I don't think it's appropriate to name and shame such people in this sort of public forum without them having an opportunity to defend themselves (unless already public domain).
I edited it to specify not to be the high-schooler's. If Affluenza is such a big deal, then lots of examples comparable to the OP's should be already public domain.
I know I'm trying to put logic in a stupid situation, and I know you're participating in Gallows Humor, but could an 'Affluenza' defense even be attempted? I mean, he literally admitted to rape. That means he has the capability of understanding what rape was, and that he was actually committing it.
That whole stupid Affluenza defense is suggesting you're so removed from normal life that you can't have the capability of understanding laws that will never affect you, or something really stupid like that. He obviously knows the laws, he knows the difference between actual sex and rape... and he clearly defines what he's doing is not sex.
Like... could anyone be stupid enough to try that as a defense?
I'm sure they could. Plenty of people growing up in wealthy communities never had to face consequences for anything ever. Reminds me of a guy in my high school who wrecked his Ferrari in the school parking lot because he was distracted by a cheerleader's skirt flying up. His Dad went and got him a brand new Lamborghini the same day, he didn't even face consequences for wrecking his car, not even for a day. It is extremely common for the wealthy to never concern themselves with actually facing consequences for crimes every day. They steal from others, shoplift for thrills and their parents just make it disappear. They assault people, rape people, threaten people and their family just makes it seem like it never happened. They can buy whatever they want, why would this be any different in their eyes? Their mindset is at the core of it here, they actually do feel that the rest of the world is beneath them and does not apply because they are more often than not insulated from having to face consequences to any of their actions regardless.
That comment provided one or more examples from personal experience; I don't think it's appropriate to name and shame such people in this sort of public forum without them having an opportunity to defend themselves (unless already public domain).
I edited it to specify not to be the high-schooler's. If Affluenza is such a big deal, then lots of examples comparable to the OP's should be already public domain.
There are, what were the consequences compared to Jefferey Epstein's crimes, why was he enabled to do this for so long and why is it still so difficult to have him actually pay for his crimes like everyone else?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
