[Politics] When Your Background matters more than Your Crime: NJ Judge goes easy on Rape Case

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

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.

(Source)

In case the Judge didn't get the memo of the new definition of Rape that is on the US Department of Justice Archives, 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 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.

The law is unequal.

If ever there was a prime example of systemic privilege at work. Lots of people hate lots of words, but words gotta be used when that's the very shit that's going on.

"Why to let a little rape get in the way of such a good young man's promising career?"

CaitSeith:
"Why to let a little rape get in the way of such a good young man's promising career?"

So, what kind of family did she come from? Was it a bad one, so she deserves to be raped, or was her good family not good enough? Or do women inherently not come from 'good families'?

Which is it Judge?

You've got to love how the guy even brags about how he raped the victim to his friends and the judge still doesn't see why this guy should get punished. One has to wonder if the judge is unusually naive, a pure misogynist or just took some kickbacks from the rapists family in order to land in the idea that the rapist should get off light after displaying such a callous attitude towards the crime he committed.

America, your justice system sucks.

I heard about this on the news... and it pisses me off.

Seriously, fuck this little shitstain and fuck the judge.

Not literally of course.

Gethsemani:
You've got to love how the guy even brags about how he raped the victim to his friends and the judge still doesn't see why this guy should get punished. One has to wonder if the judge is unusually naive, a pure misogynist or just took some kickbacks from the rapists family in order to land in the idea that the rapist should get off light after displaying such a callous attitude towards the crime he committed.

America, your justice system sucks.

Not fair. Our Justice System on the surface could be great.

But Those who are in Power enjoy the Privilege too much. They have empathy only for people who remind them of themselves.

America's ruling class of people suck. The actual laws are possibly very sound. We just don't know because we never saw them implemented in a just way yet.

Shit reads like a really fucked up r/entitledparents story

"My son's such a really good boy. We're a good family and he is doing really good in school. He deserves pussy, and if any girl doesn't give it up to him then she's a slut, because he's such a good boy. And how dare you call it rape. Everyone knows that's when a gang of no good coloreds take turns on some poor white innocent girl while holding her at gunpoint. That's totally not what happened with my son. That little slut was toying with my boy's feeling and now she wants to ruin his life. He deserves as much sex as he wants and she didn't refuse, so he was just taking what was rightfully his. She has no right to want to destroy his future like this. ..."

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."

So even when he's basically holding a sign over his head saying "I am Guilty as hell" they try and let him off? Some people just have relentlessly charmed lives don't they? Pretty sure if I filmed myself burning someone's house down then put the pictures up on instagram as #arson I wouldn't find myself being let go just because of the school I went to

Was this idiot asleep during Brock Turner? He knows what happened to that judge, right?

At least it was appealed and turned over, so it remsins a judge doing it, not the whole justice system.

But it is still a scandalous decision. I would say i am surprised, but that is not really true. I share Gethsemanis opinion about the US system.

ObsidianJones:

Not fair. Our Justice System on the surface could be great.

But Those who are in Power enjoy the Privilege too much. They have empathy only for people who remind them of themselves.

America's ruling class of people suck. The actual laws are possibly very sound. We just don't know because we never saw them implemented in a just way yet.

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.

Together that means that what is written as law and what actually is applied can differ a lot and the latter carries the baggage of hundeads of years of judges opinions and prejudices.

Also i have read that there is a habit of voting for judges. As well as voting for heads of law enforcement. So suddenly actual enforcemnt of laws and punishment for crimes is a matter of pleasing your personal voter base instead of trying to be impartial ? That is designed to fail horrible.

Also, how is it possible that the amount of money for lawsuits plays such a huge role in civil disputes ? That is not the case for most other nations and is obviously inherently unfair.

It bothers me the amount of energy used for a fictional character being black. Getting super disillusioned.

Satinavian:
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.

Together that means that what is written as law and what actually is applied can differ a lot and the latter carries the baggage of hundeads of years of judges opinions and prejudices.

Also i have read that there is a habit of voting for judges. As well as voting for heads of law enforcement. So suddenly actual enforcemnt of laws and punishment for crimes is a matter of pleasing your personal voter base instead of trying to be impartial ? That is designed to fail horrible.

Also, how is it possible that the amount of money for lawsuits plays such a huge role in civil disputes ? That is not the case for most other nations and is obviously inherently unfair.

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.

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.

ObsidianJones:

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.

CaitSeith:
"Why to let a little rape get in the way of such a good young man's promising career?"

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.

We should just call it what it is - wealthy, connected, or high status people and their children get away with whatever they'd like because money/status/connections.

Saelune:

CaitSeith:
"Why to let a little rape get in the way of such a good young man's promising career?"

So, what kind of family did she come from? Was it a bad one, so she deserves to be raped, or was her good family not good enough? Or do women inherently not come from 'good families'?

Which is it Judge?

Of course women can come from "good families" (meaning wealth/status/connections), see https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/25/oxford-student-judge-suggested-bright-prison-spared-jail-stabbing/

Schadrach:

CaitSeith:
"Why to let a little rape get in the way of such a good young man's promising career?"

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.

We should just call it what it is - wealthy, connected, or high status people and their children get away with whatever they'd like because money/status/connections.

Saelune:

CaitSeith:
"Why to let a little rape get in the way of such a good young man's promising career?"

So, what kind of family did she come from? Was it a bad one, so she deserves to be raped, or was her good family not good enough? Or do women inherently not come from 'good families'?

Which is it Judge?

Of course women can come from "good families" (meaning wealth/status/connections), see https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/25/oxford-student-judge-suggested-bright-prison-spared-jail-stabbing/

What an unnecessary deflection you brought to the table.

Majestic Manatee:

Schadrach:

CaitSeith:
"Why to let a little rape get in the way of such a good young man's promising career?"

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.

We should just call it what it is - wealthy, connected, or high status people and their children get away with whatever they'd like because money/status/connections.

Saelune:
So, what kind of family did she come from? Was it a bad one, so she deserves to be raped, or was her good family not good enough? Or do women inherently not come from 'good families'?

Which is it Judge?

Of course women can come from "good families" (meaning wealth/status/connections), see https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/25/oxford-student-judge-suggested-bright-prison-spared-jail-stabbing/

What an unnecessary deflection you brought to the table.

Anything to defend the status quo

Schadrach:

CaitSeith:
"Why to let a little rape get in the way of such a good young man's promising career?"

it's not like this is unique.

Who said the point was that this was unique? Does it need to be unique to be a problem? The fact that this judge eases someone's punishment for rape just because they "have a promising career" is a big problem on itself.

Double post.

Schadrach:

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.

Indeed.

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."

CaitSeith:
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.

Pseudonym:
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.

This is a good question.

Pseudonym:
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 don't know the legal answer but lots of juveniles get tried as adults

Satinavian:
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.

Pseudonym:

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.

trunkage:

Pseudonym:
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 don't know the legal answer but lots of juveniles get tried as adults

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.

ObsidianJones:

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.

Okay but people are making this a race thing, when I'm just sitting her wondering if the kids parent's are rich.

I mean am I crazy or do the judges statements sound more like the talk of a defense lawyer?

Schadrach:

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.

Pseudonym:
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.

(Source)

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:

ObsidianJones:

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:

ObsidianJones:

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:
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...

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.

ObsidianJones:
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.

Lil devils x:

ObsidianJones:
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.

Names please (preferably not the high-schooler's).

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here