• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ghislaine Maxwell

Bob001 said:
There were multiple crimes with multiple victims committed as part of a conspiracy over a period of years. And who are you to say that teenage girls weren't traumatized?
Click to expand...

I feel sure many were seriously traumatised. By the same token, some are capable of sleeping with men for money and think nothing of it, especially of they are mixing with the wealthy and influential.
 
Vixen said:
You think the death penalty is proportionate?
Click to expand...
Why don't you answer the question you're asked, rather than responding with an unrelated one?


To remind you, you said:
Vixen said:
No being funny but 35 years for procuring prostitutes for the purpose of sex seems a bit harsh to me. OK, so several were between the ages of 14 to 17 but they all seem to have gone along to Epstein's mansion willingly and returned time and again for the $200 per session pay out. Yes, it is a heinous crime to procure underage persons for prostitution but is it really on a par with murder in terms of sentencing?
Click to expand...


How is 35 years on a par with the death sentence? To remind you, again, 35 years is the maximum, as is the death sentence. Please don't equivocate the maximum for one crime with the usual sentence for another, nor the maximum sentence for one crime in one country with that for a different crime in a different country.
 
zooterkin said:
Why don't you answer the question you're asked, rather than responding with an unrelated one?


To remind you, you said:



How is 35 years on a par with the death sentence? To remind you, again, 35 years is the maximum, as is the death sentence. Please don't equivocate the maximum for one crime with the usual sentence for another, nor the maximum sentence for one crime in one country with that for a different crime in a different country.
Click to expand...


Whatevs.
 
Vixen said:
I feel sure many were seriously traumatised.
Click to expand...

Pretty much everyone feels sure about this. Hence the widespread approval of her life sentence. What's weird is you feeling sure that Gislaine Maxwell seriously traumatized many children, but don't like the sentence she's received.

What's doubly weird is that you think her sentence should be more lenient because maybe some of her victims escaped relatively unscathed. Like, she should get some kind of reward for failing to seriously traumatize all of her victims. Your position is morally perverse.
 
theprestige said:
Pretty much everyone feels sure about this. Hence the widespread approval of her life sentence. What's weird is you feeling sure that Gislaine Maxwell seriously traumatized many children, but don't like the sentence she's received.

What's doubly weird is that you think her sentence should be more lenient because maybe some of her victims escaped relatively unscathed. Like, she should get some kind of reward for failing to seriously traumatize all of her victims. Your position is morally perverse.
Click to expand...

I did not say the sentence should be lenient. Here in Europe it is considered twelve years is enough for murder, with parole after 2/3rds.

Just trying to get it into perspective. The way they hurt a criminal here is by awarding their victim compensation from them.
 
Maxwell ran a rape ring.

What ******* "perspective" do you think we need to keep?
 
zooterkin said:
How is 35 years on a par with the death sentence? To remind you, again, 35 years is the maximum, as is the death sentence. Please don't equivocate the maximum for one crime with the usual sentence for another, nor the maximum sentence for one crime in one country with that for a different crime in a different country.
Click to expand...
Here are some numbers.

https://bflawmd.com/average-maximum-jail-time-common-crimes/
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/sentencing-data/death-sentencing-rates

To me it seems accurate to claim that 35 years is on par with a murder sentence. No, it's not identical but I don't think the phrase "on par" requires exactly identical. And 35 years for a murder doesn't appear to be "the usual sentence". In fact for the state I happened to find data for at the link above it's greater than the maximum for 2nd degree murder.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Maxwell ran a rape ring.

What ******* "perspective" do you think we need to keep?
Click to expand...

Europe is better. Europe produced her; Europe knows best how to deal with her. The American Child Rape Impresario, Jeffrey Epstein, should get a quintessentially American outcome: death in solitary confinement under suspicious circumstances. But the European Child Rape Impresario should get a European outcome: 12 years in a country club for wayward socialites, parole after 8, and maybe pay some reparations.
 
theprestige said:
Pretty much everyone feels sure about this. Hence the widespread approval of her life sentence. What's weird is you feeling sure that Gislaine Maxwell seriously traumatized many children, but don't like the sentence she's received.

What's doubly weird is that you think her sentence should be more lenient because maybe some of her victims escaped relatively unscathed. Like, she should get some kind of reward for failing to seriously traumatize all of her victims. Your position is morally perverse.
Click to expand...


Hold on.

How did we get widespread approval of a life sentence “she’s received” before she was even tried?
 
theprestige said:
Pretty much everyone feels sure about this. Hence the widespread approval of her life sentence. What's weird is you feeling sure that Gislaine Maxwell seriously traumatized many children, but don't like the sentence she's received.....
Click to expand...

Let's just note that she hasn't received any sentence. She hasn't been convicted of anything. But the charges keep piling up.
 
Matthew Best said:
Hold on.

How did we get widespread approval of a life sentence “she’s received” before she was even tried?
Click to expand...

Because theprestige is a time traveller from the future, he's secretly John Titor!

Hey, Mr Prestige, have you found that IBM 5100 you're looking for yet?
 
Last edited:
Actually this explains Epstein's death. He was actually murdered somewhere else, in the future, and then they backtimed his body. Their goal was to avoid exposure as his co-conspirators, by erasing the whole timeline where he lived to go to trial, and ratted them out in a plea bargain.
 
theprestige said:
Europe is better. Europe produced her; Europe knows best how to deal with her. The American Child Rape Impresario, Jeffrey Epstein, should get a quintessentially American outcome: death in solitary confinement under suspicious circumstances. But the European Child Rape Impresario should get a European outcome: 12 years in a country club for wayward socialites, parole after 8, and maybe pay some reparations.
Click to expand...

It is probably true that someone used to a sheltered life would find prison far tougher than someone used to the rough and ready. Just being locked up for one day would be torture alone. In the UK so called 'white-collar' criminals are more likely to be sent to a soft open prison. They are also a target for other prisoners. Especially if they were once a policeman or something hated by the criminal classes. Maxwell would be seen as a 'nonce' and would need heavy protection.
 
Vixen said:
I did not say the sentence should be lenient. Here in Europe it is considered twelve years is enough for murder, with parole after 2/3rds.

Just trying to get it into perspective. The way they hurt a criminal here is by awarding their victim compensation from them.
Click to expand...


And as I've already explained, you don't actually understand the sentencing structures/guidelines "here in Europe" properly in any case... quite apart from it being irrelevant to compare apples from one country with oranges from another.


(As just one hint: a murder sentence of "life, with a minimum of 12 years" - which you've misunderstood to be "a 12-year sentence" - does not mean that the person is out on parole after 2/3 of those 12 years. It doesn't even mean that the person is first considered for parole after 2/3 of those 12 years. It means that the person is first considered for parole after 12 years. And even when the person does get parole - which might be after 12 years of imprisonment, or might be after 16 years, or might be after 40 years - their life sentence means that they are closely monitored and evaluated for the remainder of their life on Earth; if the monitoring authorities determine that the person has gone back to posing a risk to the public, the person can be returned to prison, irrespective of whether they actually commit any further offences.)
 
LondonJohn said:
And as I've already explained, you don't actually understand the sentencing structures/guidelines "here in Europe" properly in any case... quite apart from it being irrelevant to compare apples from one country with oranges from another.


(As just one hint: a murder sentence of "life, with a minimum of 12 years" - which you've misunderstood to be "a 12-year sentence" - does not mean that the person is out on parole after 2/3 of those 12 years. It doesn't even mean that the person is first considered for parole after 2/3 of those 12 years. It means that the person is first considered for parole after 12 years. And even when the person does get parole - which might be after 12 years of imprisonment, or might be after 16 years, or might be after 40 years - their life sentence means that they are closely monitored and evaluated for the remainder of their life on Earth; if the monitoring authorities determine that the person has gone back to posing a risk to the public, the person can be returned to prison, irrespective of whether they actually commit any further offences.)
Click to expand...

We have similar sentencing here, for example, Scott Watson, who was found guilty of double murder in 1999 (he didn't do it, but that is another story - link to thread if anyone is interested) and was sentenced to life with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. That takes it to 2016, but five years later, he's still in jail, having been refused parole three times because he maintains his innocence.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is probably true that someone used to a sheltered life would find prison far tougher than someone used to the rough and ready. Just being locked up for one day would be torture alone. In the UK so called 'white-collar' criminals are more likely to be sent to a soft open prison. They are also a target for other prisoners. Especially if they were once a policeman or something hated by the criminal classes. Maxwell would be seen as a 'nonce' and would need heavy protection.
Click to expand...



Someone make this nonsense stop. Please.

The term "white-collar criminals" refers solely and exclusively to the type of crime for which the person has been convicted and sentenced. It does not refer to the demographic status of the person who committed the crime. A person attracts the label "white-collar criminal" only on account of that person having committed a "white-collar crime". Not the other way round.


So-called "white-collar crimes" are loosely defined as crimes which involve no physical violence, no threatening or sexual behaviour, no intimidation etc. So, for example, credit card fraud is a white-collar crime; while bank robbery is not.

And it almost goes without saying that those who are convicted of white-collar crimes are typically housed in less restrictive, less secure conditions than those who've been convicted of those crimes which are not white-collar in their nature. I would hope that it wouldn't be difficult to understand why that should be the case.
 
smartcooky said:
We have similar sentencing here, for example, Scott Watson, who was found guilty of double murder in 1999 (he didn't do it, but that is another story) and was sentenced to life with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. That takes it to 2016, but five years later, he's still in jail, having been refused parole three times because he maintains his innocence.
Click to expand...



Yes. And indeed, this is one of those more-than-unfortunate Catch-22 problems: those criminals who believe they've been wrongfully convicted will (almost by definition) a) protest their innocence, and b) find it effectively impossible to accept that they did wrong. And that, in turn, means that it will be much more difficult - in some instances impossible - for them to get released from prison, even after the minimum determinate sentence of imprisonment has been reached.

There are a few sad examples of people who have refused to "come to terms" with their crimes, which has directly resulted in them being repeatedly denied parole long after their minimum prison sentence has been exceeded - but then ultimately they've been exonerated on appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom