Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

angrysoba said:
Certainly there have been some famous examples of judges saying dumb things in the UK. “She was no angel herself” about a rape victim and if Lady Chatterley’s Lover was the kind of book that people would want their wife or servants to read.
Click to expand...

Although to be fair that one was 57 years ago, and raised more than a few eyebrows - both in and outside the courtroom - even at the time.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
You have not heard about the Nassar case before?

It has been getting a lot of coverage in the media.
Click to expand...

I’ve only heard about this recently as well. TBH given the scope and scale I find it shocking just how little media attention this has received.


The Graham James case was actively in the news for years here in Canada. Granted that involved players who went on to significant NHL careers which tends top raise it’s profile a lot in Canada, but Olympic Gymnastics is still a big deal especially so close top the Olympics. Even considering the fact that most of James’ victims never came forward Nassar seems to have a much higher number of victims.
 
Darat said:
Given the rest of your post I'm confused about the first bit!

In one scenario the criminal is released after 8 years, the other after 15 years because the family's views formed part of the decision. Given you want longer sentencing anyway how come you are happy with the murderer being released earlier? That seems contradictory to me?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't quite get the point across

What I mean is, I don't much care for the inequities of parole for child murderers... if you think that granting of parole is inequitable, don't put yourself in the position of having to face a parole board in the first place.
 
I'm against victim impact statements.

I just have a hard time grokking why in a case like this that's the hill everyone suddenly decided to die defending.

This isn't a guy who stole a loaf of bread getting the chair because the bake shop owner gave a Castro length speech against him in the courtroom.
 
ddt said:
The ECHR does not agree. They've repeatedly come down against both the UK and the Netherlands for imposing life-without-parole sentences.
Click to expand...

The bleeding heart liberals at the ECHR have no jurisdiction in the USA., of for that matter, anywhere outside of the 47 contracting states.
 
smartcooky said:
The bleeding heart liberals at the ECHR have no jurisdiction in the USA., of for that matter, anywhere outside of the 47 contracting states.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that anyone reading this thread doesn't know this? What possible point is there to stating the bleeding obvious.........or was it just so you could trot out a little perjorative and lazy cliche just to make sure that everyone well understands that you aren't a bleeding heart liberal?
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm against victim impact statements.

I just have a hard time grokking why in a case like this that's the hill everyone suddenly decided to die defending.

This isn't a guy who stole a loaf of bread getting the chair because the bake shop owner gave a Castro length speech against him in the courtroom.
Click to expand...

I'm 100% in favour of them.

This isn't just about punishment for the guilty, its about justice for the victims, and part of that justice in the opportunity for the victim to face their abuser in a situation where the victim has the control.

Ask any victim who has given an impact statement, they will tell you that it was empowering for them, and helped them to move on.
 
smartcooky said:
The bleeding heart liberals at the ECHR have no jurisdiction in the USA., of for that matter, anywhere outside of the 47 contracting states.
Click to expand...

Sure, but - notwithstanding the fact that ddt sepcificallly talked about the UK and Netherlands - a sizeable chunk of threads on this forum have some "it wouldn't happen in X jurisdiction" comments. It's called "comparison."
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm against victim impact statements.

I just have a hard time grokking why in a case like this that's the hill everyone suddenly decided to die defending.

This isn't a guy who stole a loaf of bread getting the chair because the bake shop owner gave a Castro length speech against him in the courtroom.
Click to expand...

If you don't have sentences that mean there is no discretion, there certainly seems to be a place for the severity of the harm done to be weighed as part of the sentencing. So did the assault cause me to permanently lose vision in my eye and have near daily splitting headaches?
 
here the victim impact statements have had the additional beneficial effect of drawing attention to those people and organizations who allowed this scumbag's conduct to continue uninterrupted for almost two decades.
 
MikeG said:
Do you really think that anyone reading this thread doesn't know this? What possible point is there to stating the bleeding obvious.........or was it just so you could trot out a little perjorative and lazy cliche just to make sure that everyone well understands that you aren't a bleeding heart liberal?
Click to expand...

Because the ECHR has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the case being discussed. I don't know why ddt even brought it up


Why is ANYONE in this thread rabbitting on about the Law in their own countries? Most of us don't give a rats arse what the Law says in the UK, or Netherlands, or Outer Mongolia, or anywhere else, WHEN THIS CASE WAS HEARD THE USA so it their Laws that apply.
 
smartcooky said:
I'm 100% in favour of them.

This isn't just about punishment for the guilty, its about justice for the victims, and part of that justice in the opportunity for the victim to face their abuser in a situation where the victim has the control.

Ask any victim who has given an impact statement, they will tell you that it was empowering for them, and helped them to move on.
Click to expand...

ponderingturtle said:
If you don't have sentences that mean there is no discretion, there certainly seems to be a place for the severity of the harm done to be weighed as part of the sentencing. So did the assault cause me to permanently lose vision in my eye and have near daily splitting headaches?
Click to expand...

As best as I can put it into words I have an issue with them because they are a one way street.

Nobody could stand up in court and go "Yeah my client stabbed somebody to death... but let's be honest that guy was sort of a douche. Nobody liked him. So let's be honest does my client really deserve the maximum sentence?" and I don't see this but the same thing just in a different direction.

I'm against more sympathetic or likable victims getting more "justice" than unlikable or sympathetic victims. There's way too much room for personal biases and emotional pleading to be intentionally or unintentionally introduced into what is supposed to be passionless system.

Person A getting a heavier sentence than Person B because Person A has someone to stand up in court and gush about how wonderful of a person they were just doesn't sit well with me.

The poor, unloved hobo doesn't deserve less justice than the prom queen and I don't see how this sort of mentality isn't just different variations on and degrees of that.
 
MikeG said:
Do you really think that anyone reading this thread doesn't know this? What possible point is there to stating the bleeding obvious.........or was it just so you could trot out a little perjorative and lazy cliche just to make sure that everyone well understands that you aren't a bleeding heart liberal?
Click to expand...


Is this stating of the bleeding obvious the 'virtue signalling' I hear so much about?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Because the ECHR has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the case being discussed. I don't know why ddt even brought it up


Why is ANYONE in this thread rabbitting on about the Law in their own countries? Most of us don't give a rats arse what the Law says in the UK, or Netherlands, or Outer Mongolia, or anywhere else, WHEN THIS CASE WAS HEARD THE USA so it their Laws that apply.
Click to expand...

Comparison isn't something you've ever heard of then?

Some people brought up under different systems are pretty incredulous about how the US system works. What do you want them to say? "Your system seems a bit strange, but I absolutely wouldn't dream of mentioning how it works elsewhere because that would be..... " ....what exactly? What precisely is wrong with raising the differences and asking about them? In fact, I'm buggered if I can see how anyone from abroad (ie non-USA) could comment without seeking some context or reference from where they live. The practical effect of your argument is that only Americans or those with intimate knowledge of the American legal system should be commenting in the thread.

It's also rather bizarre that some guy from NZ seems to want to get offended on behalf of the Americans by such comparison, despite the fact that the Americans don't actually seem offended for themselves. But no, do please carry on. I'm sure you can rationalise being a non-American telling a whole lot of other non-Americans to shut up because they're non-Americans.
 
The Big Dog said:
here the victim impact statements have had the additional beneficial effect of drawing attention to those people and organizations who allowed this scumbag's conduct to continue uninterrupted for almost two decades.
Click to expand...


The lesson here, of course, is choose ineloquent victims.
 
MikeG said:
Comparison isn't something you've ever heard of then?
Click to expand...

Comparison is not relevant to the Larry Nassar case

If you want to discuss it, the Laws Comparison thread is thataway ->

MikeG said:
It's also rather bizarre that some guy from NZ seems to want to get offended on behalf of the Americans by such comparison, despite the fact that the Americans don't actually seem offended for themselves. But no, do please carry on. I'm sure you can rationalise being a non-American telling a whole lot of other non-Americans to shut up because they're non-Americans.
Click to expand...

I'm not "offended", I'm just annoyed a having to pick my way through all the the irrelevant bollocks about the *********** laws in Europe in order to get to the subject of this thread... the sentencing of Larry Nassar.

Every time there is a thread about some court case or another, it devolves into pointless and irrelevant arguments about the application of laws in different countries.

How about we just get back ON TOPIC now, OK with you?
 
smartcooky said:
Comparison is not relevant to the Larry Nassar case

If you want to discuss it, the Laws Comparison thread is thataway ->

[snip]

How about we just get back ON TOPIC now, OK with you?
Click to expand...

Come on, man. We compare things all the time while discussing a topic. I don't see why you want the discussion to be very narrowly on topic like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom