Larry Nassar gets 175 years.....

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...


Tell me, can I introduce you to the subject of 'critical thinking'?
 
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...


Still not understanding that - the same criminal in the scenario I painted will serve 8 or 15 years depending on the family of their victim wishes. Do you think that is right? Its nothing to do with fairness for the murderer it's about ensuring criminals serve consistent and appropriate sentences.

I think a lot of the push for victim's wishes to be taken into account is the belief that it will lead to longer sentences, what I was pointing out is that it can in fact have the perverse option of shortening punishment sentences for criminals as well as making it longer

I just think it is the wrong approach.
 
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...

She may have thought that but I can't see how it can actually be the case? At the least in the UK a NDA can't prevent someone giving a statement in a criminal case.
 
smartcooky said:
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...

Because obviously that never happens about any other subject on this forum....
 
smartcooky said:
Just to make my position clear on this, IMO, the incarceration of criminals serves three purposes. In priority order they are...

1. Prevention and protection.
To prevent the criminal from further criminal activity and to protect the public at large

2. Punishment to fit the crime committed.
To punish the criminal for his behaviour.

3. Rehabilitation.
To normalize the criminal, bring him/her back into society in such a way that they do not offend again.

IMO, rehabilitation is a long, long way down the priority list. The first consideration is public safety, and then adequate punishment for the level of offending. Only when considerations related to 1 and 2 are met, should rehabilitation become a consideration.
Click to expand...

That's a massive contradiction, considering that rehabilitation can drastically reduce any potential threat.
 
Information Analyst said:
That's a massive contradiction, considering that rehabilitation can drastically reduce any potential threat.
Click to expand...

Really, Information Analyst? OK then, analyse this!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism

"According to the National Institute of Justice, about 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years."

250px-Recidivism_1994.jpg


Between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 are successfully rehabilitated. I struggle to see that as "drastically reducing any potential threat".

Meanwhile, actually keeping them locked up completely eliminates any potential threat.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
How is such an NDA even enforceable and why isn't it a crime in itself?
Click to expand...

I was wondering thaty, as well, especially in light of the Presidents Club thread. How can a NDA be used to silence someone in a criminal case? I doubt whether any court in Europe would hold a witness/victim to an NDA. Oh dear, a extra-jurisdictional comparison....
 
smartcooky said:
Really, Information Analyst? OK then, analyse this!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism

"According to the National Institute of Justice, about 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years."

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Recidivism_1994.jpg/250px-Recidivism_1994.jpg[/qimg]

Between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 are successfully rehabilitated. I struggle to see that as "drastically reducing any potential threat".
Click to expand...

I see that as evidence that the majority of prisoners are not adequately rehabilitated. You yourself say rehabilitation is not a priority, and it seems that many countries are in agreement with that, so it's hardly bloody surprising if re-offending rates are so high. Meanwhile, Scandanavian countries have re-offending rates below 50%, but obviously we have nothing to learn from them...

Meanwhile, actually keeping them locked up completely eliminates any potential threat.
Click to expand...
Apart from all that prison rape and murder you seem so keen on, of course.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
Meanwhile, Scandanavian countries have re-offending rates below 50%, but obviously we have nothing to learn from them...
Click to expand...

If anything American laws and social practices make recidivism more likely. They don't want criminals to be reintegrated and rehabilitated, rather they want them to be segregated and discriminated against.
 
Arcade22 said:
If anything American laws and social practices make recidivism more likely. They don't want criminals to be reintegrated and rehabilitated, rather they want them to be segregated and discriminated against.
Click to expand...

Or incarcerated and making money for someone. It's all about the money.
 
Checkmite said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I've said before, I have no problem with incisive comments directed to the perpetrator. I do have a problem with a judge weaving her personal life story into it. I also have a problem with a judge calling herself a "sister survivor". Replace each occurrence of "I" in that transcript with "the court" and see how much of it doesn't make sense anymore.
 
smartcooky said:
...and how would they find out?

If they don't know it exists, they don't know to investigate.
Click to expand...
If, as in this case, multiple other members of the US gymnasts team have been abused they do get the suspicion that she, too, may have been abused. Or it turns out that a third party did know about it, or there's security camera footage or whatever other evidence.

Anyway, the point is moot, as we've been told that NDAs are unenforceable in the context of a criminal investigation.
 
Darat said:
She may have thought that but I can't see how it can actually be the case? At the least in the UK a NDA can't prevent someone giving a statement in a criminal case.
Click to expand...

Same in the US, NDA's are null and void in a criminal investigation.
 
The problem is that ,as someone stated Psychology is a inexact science.

Fact is ,some offenders can be rehabilitated and others can't. I am particularly skeptical that serial killers and others whose acts are motivitated by severe mental problems can be surely "cured'.
But don't what reality interefere with "feel good" lefty dogma...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom