Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

Babbylonian said:
Given that female gymnasts (especially the ones performing at a high level) frequently experience delayed puberty, it would be a tough card to play here.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. It's one of those facts that I've seen mentioned before, in articles and news pieces about gymnastics - in fact I think (not 100% sure) I may have seen someone argue it as one reason to suspect that gymnastics as a sport, at least in the way it is currently trained, could be considered harmful to the children involved, if not physically abusive in its own way.

Nassar, being a physician specialized in treating gymnasts, would have known this. I could see a pedophile being drawn to or taking advantage of a situation like that, knowing that the children he has access to will remain "child-like" for a longer time than most kids. It's depressing to think about.

Also depressing to wonder how many more Nassars are out there right now. Not "if" there are any - but how many there are. In gymnastics, and other sports. A number of Nassar's victims were Olympians, winning medals and then getting their nightly visits from the team "doctor". It's going to be hard to watch events or even clips of the young, successful athletes in PyeongChang next month without wondering "which ones are getting abused tonight?"
 
dudalb said:
If a judge does not fell personal repugnance on what Nassar did, that judge should not be on the bench.
Click to expand...

I can respect that, but I don't agree with it. Applying the law does not require that you agree with it or disagree with the person you're handing a sentence to. It certainly doesn't require that you be disgusted with that person, nor is it hindered by the fact that you're not.
 
Belz... said:
I can respect that, but I don't agree with it. Applying the law does not require that you agree with it or disagree with the person you're handing a sentence to. It certainly doesn't require that you be disgusted with that person, nor is it hindered by the fact that you're not.
Click to expand...

I take that back, If you were not disgusted by Nassar actions, something is wrong with you, period.
You don't want a person as a judge, you want a robot.
 
In the US it is not even the least bit uncommon, as an aside, for the judge to admonish or deride a convicted person's character before giving sentence. I've never heard of an appeal claiming unfair bias due to a sentencing judge's comments even being filed, let alone succeeding.

Honestly, after an entire week listening to over a hundred victims give statements describing what they suffered, if a judge signaled that they didn't have as much contempt for the guilty party I'd consider them unfairly biased toward the convicted.
 
dudalb said:
I take that back, If you were not disgusted by Nassar actions, something is wrong with you, period.
Click to expand...

Well, something's certainly irregular with you if you're not. But judges deal with crimes of all sorts all the time. Like _any_ professional, I want them to apply the rules, not engage in personal retribution, which is much more likely if you encourage them to go on these tirades.

You don't want a person as a judge, you want a robot.
Click to expand...

Now why would you say something like that? We all have to put our feelings aside to do our job. Why would it be different for judges? Certainly not because criminals need to be punished or otherwise dealt with, because the law provides for the solution to that already.

And your rhetoric in this thread shows exactly what I'm talking about: Your jab at Arcade22's country, and then your surprise at his response in kind, and now you telling me I want robots for judges, shows that your emotional response to these admitedly terrible crimes is clouding your judgment and your ability to even have a civil discussion. Is that the kind of thing you want a judge to engage in?
 
Belz... said:
Now why would you say something like that? We all have to put our feelings aside to do our job. Why would it be different for judges? Certainly not because criminals need to be punished or otherwise dealt with, because the law provides for the solution to that already?
Click to expand...

wrong. the law requires an explanation of why the judge is giving the sentence she gave and if it is because she found that the defendant is a despicable piece of **** that is a menace to society she is obligated to say that he is a despicable piece of **** that is a menace to society.

The facts are that he is a despicable piece of **** that is a menace to society of course.
 
The Big Dog said:
wrong. the law requires an explanation of why the judge is giving the sentence she gave and if it is because she found that the defendant is a despicable piece of **** that is a menace to society she is obligated to say that he is a despicable piece of **** that is a menace to society.

The facts are that he is a despicable piece of **** that is a menace to society of course.
Click to expand...

Well, see, the second part is enough. "Despicable piece of ****" is not a legal term and has no place in a justification like this. Yes, they should justify their sentence but only with the relevant stuff. The rest is just ranting or grandstanding.
 
Belz... said:
Well, see, the second part is enough. "Despicable piece of ****" is not a legal term and has no place in a justification like this. Yes, they should justify their sentence but only with the relevant stuff. The rest is just ranting or grandstanding.
Click to expand...

she didn't actually use that precise phrase for petes sake....
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
I was addressing your made-up example, for pete's sake.

If you throw an example at me, why are you confused when I address exactly that?
Click to expand...

Because one expects a modicum of knowledge of the actual facts involved in a breaking news story
 
Apparently we shall not rest until we have made it clear that there is some way or other this man has suffered a terrible injustice.
 
The Big Dog said:
Because one expects a modicum of knowledge of the actual facts involved in a breaking news story
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with addressing your post? Was that a trap? Did you purposefully post a fictional judgment so if I'd address what you said you could do this and if I didn't you could accuse me of not addressing what you said? In what universe is addressing what you actually say wrong?

No one's saying that this ******* isn't a despicable piece of ****. The only contention is whether the judge should go beyond his legal duties to sentence and justify that sentence dispassionately.

I suppose it's emotionally satisfying to answer "yes" but then that has nothing to do with critical thinking.
 
Belz... said:
What does that have to do with addressing your post? Was that a trap? Did you purposefully post a fictional judgment so if I'd address what you said you could do this and if I didn't you could accuse me of not addressing what you said? In what universe is addressing what you actually say wrong?

No one's saying that this ******* isn't a despicable piece of ****. The only contention is whether the judge should go beyond his legal duties to sentence and justify that sentence dispassionately.

I suppose it's emotionally satisfying to answer "yes" but then that has nothing to do with critical thinking.
Click to expand...

"Critical thinking?"....give me a break. I repeat, you do not want a human being as a judge, but a passionless,emotionless robot.
 
Checkmite said:
That's a good point. It's one of those facts that I've seen mentioned before, in articles and news pieces about gymnastics - in fact I think (not 100% sure) I may have seen someone argue it as one reason to suspect that gymnastics as a sport, at least in the way it is currently trained, could be considered harmful to the children involved, if not physically abusive in its own way.
Click to expand...
Given the obvious inability for a small child (world-class gymnasts start training as early as preschool age and the training intensifies as they improve) to give informed consent, I think the sport as it's currently constituted is absolutely abuse. Anybody who has been coached in a sport can testify that coaches tend to push players hard; doing it to pre-teens seems insane to me.
Nassar, being a physician specialized in treating gymnasts, would have known this. I could see a pedophile being drawn to or taking advantage of a situation like that, knowing that the children he has access to will remain "child-like" for a longer time than most kids. It's depressing to think about.
Click to expand...
Depressing and almost certainly accurate. Of course, even if this wasn't a provable factor, the ages of his victims should be enough to permit uncontested application of the term "pedophile"...then again, since the term "rapist" caused argument, my assessment is probably optimistic.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
You don't see how a judge expressing personal repugnance at a defendant prior to handing down an enormous sentence doesn't present the defendant with an opportunity to appeal? Well, OK, I probably can't help any more with that, other than just keep repeating the same thing.
Click to expand...

A judge is expected to maintain an open mind and an impartial attitude during the trial. After he is convicted, he is convicted. The judge is free to express her personal feelings about the defendant and his crimes. And in this case, the judge imposed the sentence that was recommended by the prosecution. She didn't pull it out of the air.
 
No matter how long this disgusting individual gets in terms of years, nothing is going to be as painful for him as the butt-reaming he is in for from some of the other inmates... at least, I hope this is the case.
 
Bob001 said:
The judge is free to express her personal feelings about the defendant and his crimes.
Click to expand...

We all agree that this is the case, but MikeG and myself are arguing that depending on how the judge does this it might reveal or at least seem to reveal bias or prejudice on the part of the court, potentially opening up an avenue for an appeal and allowing the scumbag to walk. Better to just stay impartial and state your legal and professional opinion, instead, regardless of your feelings.
 
Wow. From child rape to absolute nitpicking semantic cluster with a side story about how the US is a hellhole because it... sentences child rapists in 2 pages.

This board never eases to amaze me. You'd think a serial child rapist going away would be the one thing nobody would put a big show of disagreeing about.

I swear this board would not only argue with a stop sign, it would nitpick the stop sign's grammar.

"Well acscthually 'stop' denotes a final end to motion or activity, so techicanically you should be called a 'pause' sign..."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom