Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

Checkmite said:
No mere empty claim. Maroney was under a non-disclosure agreement as a result of a settlement with USAG. The NDA prevented her or any member of her family from making public statements about Nassar, which would've included making a victim impact statement at Nassar's sentencing, at the risk of a $100,000 penalty.

The only reason that didn't happen is because that circumstance became a matter of public discussion and several wealthy individuals began offering to pay the penalty if Maroney would give a statement anyway. USAG was essentially forced to make a public statement releasing Maroney from the NDA.
Click to expand...

The NDA would have been voided anyway in a criminal case.

But the whole thing stinks on ice. The USGA needs to be pretty much torn down, and rebuilt.
 
Checkmite said:
Victim impact statements and judge statements qualifying sentences harm no one and are cathartic for a criminal's victims. There's no foundation for concerns that they somehow interfere with any technical legal processes. Here we have a case where a woman-judge was evidently all uppity and mean and "talked unnecessarily" about one of the worst serial rapists in the nation's history, and yet ultimately still sentenced him to the prosecutor recommendation that the defendant had plea-bargained for.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the judge being a woman. But she did make her statement much too much about herself and not about the case. That was unprofessional. And sheesh "I just signed your death warrant". No she didn't, a death warrant would have been sentencing him to the chair.
 
dudalb said:
The NDA would have been voided anyway in a criminal case.

But the whole thing stinks on ice. The USGA needs to be pretty much torn down, and rebuilt.
Click to expand...
With Pyeongchang approaching, all we need is another such scandal in a skating team.
 
Checkmite said:
Victim impact statements and judge statements qualifying sentences harm no one and are cathartic for a criminal's victims. There's no foundation for concerns that they somehow interfere with any technical legal processes. Here we have a case where a woman-judge was evidently all uppity and mean and "talked unnecessarily" about one of the worst serial rapists in the nation's history, and yet ultimately still sentenced him to the prosecutor recommendation that the defendant had plea-bargained for.
Click to expand...

If you need to paint your opponents as sexists when no statement of the kind was made by anyone, then you must have a pretty weak case, or a weak confidence in your conclusions.
 
ddt said:
One is an NDA to cover up a crime, the other is a settlement in a civil dispute between two persons. That's a fundamental difference.
Click to expand...

Assault is a criminal offence. A person can be charged with assault whetrehr or not the victim lays a complaint.

ddt said:
...to me hushing up a crime stinks to high heaven. That's my personal opinion.
Click to expand...

You'll get no disagreement from me on that

ddt said:
What even more stinks is, if what Checkmite wrote is true, that it prevented Maroney from making an impact statement. Once the police and/or the DA and/or the judge knew she too was a victim of Nassar, they should IMHO be able to compel her to give testimony, both in chambers and in public, without repercussions of the NDA kicking in.
Click to expand...

Well in this case, USAG was pressured into setting aside their NDA

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...only-when-others-offered-pay-fine/1041971001/
 
smartcooky said:
Assault is a criminal offence. A person can be charged with assault whetrehr or not the victim lays a complaint.
Click to expand...
Yes, and then? If nobody knows about the assault except the victim and the perp, the DA can't prosecute because the DA doesn't know about it.

And there's two aspects to an assault: the criminal side of the state versus the perp, and the civil side where the victim wants compensation for their damage.

smartcooky said:
You'll get no disagreement from me on that
Click to expand...
OK.

smartcooky said:
Well in this case, USAG was pressured into setting aside their NDA

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...only-when-others-offered-pay-fine/1041971001/
Click to expand...
That statement should, IMHO, be superfluous. It should be, IMHO, blindingly obvious that such an NDA is unenforceable and would be thrown out by any judge with extreme prejudice.
 
ddt said:
Yes, and then? If nobody knows about the assault except the victim and the perp, the DA can't prosecute because the DA doesn't know about it.

And there's two aspects to an assault: the criminal side of the state versus the perp, and the civil side where the victim wants compensation for their damage.
Click to expand...

If the DA knows about it and decides its worth prosecuting, then it probably isn't going to get as far as an NDA.

In the case of McKayla Maroney, I don't think the NDA came to light until after the Larry Nassar story broke.

ddt said:
That statement should, IMHO, be superfluous. It should be, IMHO, blindingly obvious that such an NDA is unenforceable and would be thrown out by any judge with extreme prejudice.
Click to expand...

I'll just go back and paraphrase what you said above....If nobody knows about the NDA except the victim and the perp, a judge can't set it aside because he doesn't know about it.
 
smartcooky said:
Psychology 101

https://study.com/academy/lesson/catharsis-in-psychology-theory-examples-definition.html
Click to expand...

Thanks. Did you watch the video you linked to? Your link says exactly what I thought it would - there is no evidence to back up the theory of catharsis or "releasing of negative emotions", and that in fact, the opposite is likely true that the venting does not make people satisfied but may make it worse.

In other words, Psychology 101 these days disputes the Freudian (and prior to that Aristotelian) view that negative emotions build up and can be released in a way that makes the person happier.

Is this really the rationale behind victim impact statements? If so, maybe it should be rethought.
 
MikeG said:
Was it a cover-up? Or just disbelief?
Click to expand...

From what I can tell, disbelief.

Which is kind of bizarre.

I really didn't pay much attention to this case. I had heard about it, but last week, as I listened to the story of 150 people testifying in court, I was baffled. How can you go about with that number of people, and going on for so long, without being caught? If we go back to the days of my youth (70s or so), maybe I could see it. We were a lot more naïve as a society, then. In more recent years, though, I would have thought people were a bit more savvy about such things.

So, finally, I read what happened. First, there was the matter of "sexual assault", and what was referred to earlier in the thread as "actual rape". I wondered what really meant, so I read what I could. Second, I just couldn't imagine so many victims, so passionate about what they were saying with accusations, but not coming forward earlier, or not coming forward earlier in such a way as to draw attention to 20 years of abuse. I just didn't get it.

Here's what I learned. Basically, as to what he actually did, he told girls that he was treating their injuries by sticking his fingers into their vaginas. He also rubbed breasts and buttocks, of course. "You've got a torn hamstring? Take off your clothes." He took advantage of his position as a doctor to feel up an awful lot of women/girls, and "feeling up" included actual penetration.

That a doctor would do that doesn't surprise me. That young women wouldn't understand and report it, surprised me a lot. Well, it turns out, several of them did. Not most of them. Not a majority of those 150 victims who testified last week, but a fair number of them.

What floored me, on reading the accounts of those who came forward, was that people apparently bought his line that he was performing legitimate medical treatment. This included some parents. He was confronted, and told them that everything that happened was part of treatment. Because of the sensitive nature of what was being discussed, there weren't details given, but in some cases, the girls who insist that he stuck fingers inside of them were told that perhaps it didn't really happen like that.

It's stunning to me, but it happened.

Now, it's all very easy for us to sit back in our armchairs watching the news and say how horrible those awful people were, but when there are that many people involved, I don't think that's all that easy to do. I think it says something about people, in general, as opposed to those specific people. Lots of people had to hear the victims, and deny what they were hearing, or doubt what they were being told, or just decide not to get involved.

I think it speaks volumes about our willingness to be led by an authority figure. This guy had a reputation. He treated gold medalists. He was an expert. If he said that sticking his fingers in a teenager's vagina would help achieve peak performance in competition, or recover from an injury, well, who are we to judge? He's a doctor. Apparently, there's still some mystique around doctors that people won't question them, even if they ought to know better.

It also says a lot about something near and dear to the hearts of this message board. There was just a total lack of skepticism and critical thinking. People bought into the lie that this was actually medical treatment. I just can't understand adults listening to some girl describe how a man treated her private parts, and the adults thinking, "Why did he do that?" and when they heard him say, "Trust me, I'm a doctor." they accepted that. Wait.....what?

We know that people are irrational. We know that people are easily fooled. It's just jarring to see a case where people were so willing to discard all critical thinking, all "common sense", all sense that sometimes, things are exactly as they seem to be.
 
angrysoba said:
Thanks. Did you watch the video you linked to? Your link says exactly what I thought it would - there is no evidence to back up the theory of catharsis or "releasing of negative emotions", and that in fact, the opposite is likely true that the venting does not make people satisfied but may make it worse.

In other words, Psychology 101 these days disputes the Freudian (and prior to that Aristotelian) view that negative emotions build up and can be released in a way that makes the person happier.

Is this really the rationale behind victim impact statements? If so, maybe it should be rethought.
Click to expand...

Psychology is always a controversial and subjective science. For every expert you can find that will tell me one thing, I will be able to find an expert who will disagree with him, and tell you the opposite. As Lyall Watson was reputed to have said "If the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

However, one thing is for certain.... I don't give a ripe fig what you, or what some psychologist or some video on a website says, if I am angry, and I go outside and smash some pumpkins, no-one, but no-one is going to tell me that I don't feel better for doing so.
 
smartcooky said:
Psychology is always a controversial and subjective science. For every expert you can find that will tell me one thing, I will be able to find an expert who will disagree with him, and tell you the opposite. As Lyall Watson was reputed to have said "If the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

However, one thing is for certain.... I don't give a ripe fig what you, or what some psychologist or some video on a website says, if I am angry, and I go outside and smash some pumpkins, no-one, but no-one is going to tell me that I don't feel better for doing so.
Click to expand...

It was you who posted the video because "Psychology 101" which I take to mean that you thought it was one of the most basic ideas that every schoolboy knows. Now that I have pointed out the idea is flawed you take issue with the evidence you posted and take a dump on the very concept of psychological knowledge.

Fine, have it your way. I am sure if you ever have to give a victim impact statement the court can arrange some pumpkins for you to smash.
 
smartcooky said:
If the DA knows about it and decides its worth prosecuting, then it probably isn't going to get as far as an NDA.

In the case of McKayla Maroney, I don't think the NDA came to light until after the Larry Nassar story broke.



I'll just go back and paraphrase what you said above....If nobody knows about the NDA except the victim and the perp, a judge can't set it aside because he doesn't know about it.
Click to expand...
At the time of signing of the NDA. If the DA or the judge finds out later, after the NDA is already signed...
 
ddt said:
But she did make her statement much too much about herself and not about the case. That was unprofessional.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think her comments were incisive and intentionally dramatic but entirely justified by the nature of the crime and not out-of-line in the least.
 
dudalb said:
BTW,in the US NDAs are voided in a criminal investigation.
Click to expand...

True; but Maroney's abuse wasn't part of the criminal investigation into Nassar. Nassar's guilty plea involved children he raped in the state of Michigan. Maroney and other Olympic athletes were assaulted at the Olympic gymnastics training facility in Texas, and in other cities worldwide that hosted events.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I know a criminal like this brings out a lot of emotion, but there is no reason to cheer on extra-judicial crimes being committed by other criminals as part of our "justice" system. Prison rape is still rape. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that people think treating criminals, including convicted rapists and murderers, with decency and respect is only to the benefit of the criminal. In reality it serves to restrain and moderate people's behaviour and keep violent vindictiveness in check.

Not only are those that call for rapists to be raped and murderers to be murdered more likely to commit violent crimes themselves but they also risk making society more violent and bloodthirsty in general.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom