Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

[Checkmite]

“There was no way there could have been so much,” Smith told ESPN. “Larry would have to have been doing this all day, every day, with no one catching on.

Well it was literally his job, so it's not like that's exactly out of the question; but let's examine in more detail.

The earliest reported allegations against Nassar go as far back as 1992. The USOC stopped working with him after the scandal broke in 2015, which gives us 23 years.

23 years makes 8,395 days (I haven't bothered with leap days because I'm lazy); which divided by 265 alleged victims gives us one victimization every just-over-31 days. That's of course if each victim had only been victimized once. Although given the nature of the complaints it seems that he would molest several different victims concurrently, and there logically were times when he would be at liberty to make several of his assaults within a short period (i.e., during competitions when the team had to travel and stay together as a group). At any rate, not even the least bit out of the realm of possibility.

This is a guy who put child pornography in a trash can. He’s not a savvy guy.”

This is what I like to call the "Joe Paterno gambit", as it emerged during the Sandusky case, where we have Paterno who was a brilliant, innovative, and legendary football coach with a spectacular career, whose fans and supporters were suddenly insistent that he was some feeble-minded, doddering old fool from a "different time" when men didn't know what sex and child molestation was and was thus incapable of understanding the severity of things he was told by Spanier and McQueary about Sandusky.

Likewise in this case we have a medical doctor with a career spanning decades, and bright and talented enough to earn major leadership and policy-making positions in the USOC, but there's no way he could've molested all those children because he was just too dumb to not get caught.

 

[Minoosh]

Does it seem crazy to have a system in which prisoners scheduled for release might be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they still pose a threat to society?

Some U.S. states have such systems for what are considered to be high-risk offenders. After their term is up, they can be committed via state initiative to psychiatric hospitals. This has happened to people who may never have actually touched a child (but have child porn) or may have tried to lure a teenager to a face-to-face meeting (usually it's not really a teenager but a law enforcement sting).

When I hear about such cases it usually is connected with pedophilia, not plain old rape.

 

[Puppycow]

Larry Nassar case: Michigan police apologise to victim

Even when he was reported to the police (back in 2004) he was able to talk his way out of it.

 

[Worm]

"A father whose three daughters were abused by disgraced US gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar has tried to attack him in a Michigan courtroom."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42922431

 

[theprestige]

His protection?

My apologies. Somehow I missed that the first time around. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Does the equation change if it's the only way a parent can see their child getting a college education?

Can't say, and I realize we are privileged in this regard.

But damn, I can tell you, if you can't afford to send a child to college, how can you afford gymnastics training?

It costs us probably $2500/year just for our 10 hours a week (adding in meet dues and travel - some meets involve overnight trips, like when the meet is 3 hours away and starts at 7:30 am).

You could take that money and put it in a 529 instead.

As I said, we have the privilege of being able to do both. If it came down to a choice, I think the 529 would be more of sure thing.

OBTW, those are the costs for us, going to a gym that doesn't prepare the kids for college. Top end volleyball clubs will cost $10K a year in fees with national travel on top of it.

I have this same conversation all the time with parents of kids who are spending thousands of dollars on athletics every year but don't have a 529 account for their kids. It is mind boggling since just half the amount they spend on athletics would all but assure their child of a decent college education, without putting all the burden on their child to stick with that one sport for 12+ years.

It is all about that one in a million shot at fame and glory. For the parents. Having a backup plan is seen as a weakness, not a strength.

 

[Trebuchet]

"A father whose three daughters were abused by disgraced US gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar has tried to attack him in a Michigan courtroom."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42922431

After first asking the judge for 15 minutes with him in a locked room.

 

[3point14]

Can't say, and I realize we are privileged in this regard.

Since most children who get through college aren't gymnasts or other athletes, a parent who sees gymnastics as the "only way" is delusional from the get go.

My thanks to you both. It's something I know very little about, as may be apparent

 

[I Am The Scum]

"A father whose three daughters were abused by disgraced US gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar has tried to attack him in a Michigan courtroom."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42922431

The people criticizing the judge's harsh words will surely be criticizing this guy's actual violence. Yup, I am quite certain that they are typing up those tweets right this moment. We should be seeing them aaaaaaany minute now.

 

[3point14]

The people criticizing the judge's harsh words will surely be criticizing this guy's actual violence. Yup, I am quite certain that they are typing up those tweets right this moment. We should be seeing them aaaaaaany minute now.

I can understand his violence. I certainly can't condone it. You seem to begging the question that the only reasonable option is to cheer on this gentleman as he institutes vigilante justice. It isn't.



This is why we need the rule of law and for the law to be dispassionate.

The emotional side of me is all up for holding the dude while the father hits him.

The logical side, that can actually do thinking about the longer term and wider consequences of things outside of a specific case is very aware of the reasons it's not a good idea to allow this sort of stuff.

The law must be consistent. Vigilante retribution and the like make it not so.



Someone used to have this as their sig. Its appropriate now:


Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

 

[Matthew Best]

The people criticizing the judge's harsh words will surely be criticizing this guy's actual violence.

I don't care much about the judge's harsh words, but this guy's violence, while understandable, was wrong and he shouldn't have done it. For one thing, seeing their father attacked and restrained by a bunch of policemen would probably have been upsetting for the children who have already been traumatised enough.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I guess my message wasn't as clear as I thought.

The people criticizing the judge's harsh words will surely be criticizing this guy's actual violence.

The joke is that the highlighted part definitely will not happen to the same degree as the judge's criticism.

For the record, I was fine with the judge's words, and oppose the father's violence. Getting assaulted should not play a role in sentencing, and should be minimized for all prisoners.

 

[Matthew Best]

I guess my message wasn't as clear as I thought.

That can happen when what you write is the opposite of what you mean!

 

[Checkmite]

The father has been released, after being made to apologize. To the court, that is, not Nassar.

 

[3point14]

I guess my message wasn't as clear as I thought.


The joke is that the highlighted part definitely will not happen to the same degree as the judge's criticism.

For the record, I was fine with the judge's words, and oppose the father's violence. Getting assaulted should not play a role in sentencing, and should be minimized for all prisoners.

Totally up to speed now, thanks

 

[Arcade22]

Some U.S. states have such systems for what are considered to be high-risk offenders. After their term is up, they can be committed via state initiative to psychiatric hospitals. This has happened to people who may never have actually touched a child (but have child porn) or may have tried to lure a teenager to a face-to-face meeting (usually it's not really a teenager but a law enforcement sting).

When I hear about such cases it usually is connected with pedophilia, not plain old rape.

Sweden has something similar, where someone who is deemed to suffer from a "severe mental disorder" can be sentenced to a psychiatric institution instead of prison.

If the person who has committed a crime, for which fines is not found to be sufficient, suffers of a severe mental disorder, the court may surrender him to forensic psychiatric care if, in view of his mental state and personal circumstances, he is called on to be admitted to a medical care institution for psychiatric care, associated with detention and other compulsion.

If the crime has been committed under the influence of a severe mental disorder, the court may decide that special discharge examination according to the law (1991: 1129) on legal psychiatric care shall take place in the course of care if, as a consequence of the mental disorder, there is a risk of his return to crime of a serious nature.

Basically, not only the head psychiatrist of the institution must agree that he's "healthy enough" to be released but a administrative court must also rule that he's unlikely to commit any further serious crime(s).

Merely being a pedophile, possessing child pornography or having committed rape isn't sufficient: the individual must also essentially be mentally deficient, impaired or otherwise be delusional.

For example, i read that the individual who has been incarcerated for the longest period of time in Sweden (40-50 years) is an old pedophile with intellectual deficiencies that apparently raped and strangled some young boy way back in the 60's.

Formally speaking one cannot be declared "innocent because of mental illness" in Swedish law, although in less serious cases it's possible for the court to simply not proscribe any sanctions at all.

 

[Dr. Keith]

"A father whose three daughters were abused by disgraced US gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar has tried to attack him in a Michigan courtroom."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42922431

I can understand the desire. I'm glad the personnel on hand prevented him from actually touching Nassar. I think the judge was very lenient on him but understanding that he was hearing some of this for the first time, I think the judge may have gotten it right.

The people criticizing the judge's harsh words will surely be criticizing this guy's actual violence. Yup, I am quite certain that they are typing up those tweets right this moment. We should be seeing them aaaaaaany minute now.

Do I have to sign up for twitter?

 

[ddt]

The people criticizing the judge's harsh words will surely be criticizing this guy's actual violence. Yup, I am quite certain that they are typing up those tweets right this moment. We should be seeing them aaaaaaany minute now.

Strawmanning much?

FWIW, I don't condone this guy's violence but I do understand it as he may have heard some of the things Nassar did to his three daughters for the first time. And as such, he has a totally different role than the judge who as a professional should behave dispassionate. And I didn't criticize the harshness of her words as much as that she made much too much a personal story out of it.

I don't think she called herself a "sister survivor", did she? She just called the victims "sister survivors".

It's somewhere in the middle. This is the actual quote:

At this time, I’m going to do it. And I want you to know as much as it was my honor and privilege to hear the sister survivors, it is my honor and privilege to sentence you because sir, you do not deserve to walk outside of a prison ever again.

 

[theprestige]

Strawmanning much?

FWIW, I don't condone this guy's violence but I do understand it as he may have heard some of the things Nassar did to his three daughters for the first time. And as such, he has a totally different role than the judge who as a professional should behave dispassionate. And I didn't criticize the harshness of her words as much as that she made much too much a personal story out of it.


It's somewhere in the middle. This is the actual quote:

She doesn't seem to be calling herself one of them.

 

[ddt]

She doesn't seem to be calling herself one of them.

Please explain exactly what the noun phrase "sister survivors" means in this sentence, and to whom each of those two nouns refer. Start with the noun "sister".