Is it really for an exception? Or just not making it any longer due to additional bad character traits?
My understanding is they look at the range of acceptable punishment, and then use these factors to determine where it should land. Providing a letter explaining his character would serve to put it on the lower end of it. It’s not so much an exception as it is just providing evidence for the court to make an informed decision for the range.
He didn’t get convicted of rape and being unlikeable. He was convicted of rape. The penalty being assessed is the penalty for rape. Whatever else he may have done, good or bad, he did the rape. He should pay the penalty for the rape that he did. If he collects money for disabled children on Sundays, he shouldn’t be punished less, he should pay the penalty for rape. If he’s a jerk who gets drunk on weeknights and starts his political opinions with “I’m not racist, but…” he shouldn’t be penalized additionally for that. He should be penalized for rape. This thing where we make room for “He’s a rapist, but…” is fucking garbage. It reeks of Brock Turner’s dad trying to reduce the lifetime of harm his son inflicted on a woman to “10 minutes of action”. If a rapist who operates a puppy rescue is less of a rapist than a rapist who does other things we all agree to be unpleasant then it’s not about the harm inflicted, it’s about how much we all generally like the rapist.
I agree with you in principle. But that isn’t how the judicial system works. Usually there’s a minimum, which is the actual punishment for the crime. Then there’s the maximum which is what they give you if you’re a repeat offender or they just generally think you’re an extra shitty person.
Given that, someone with otherwise good character is expected to get the minimum, which is the time for the crime without getting extra. In this case that minimum is 30 years.
But yeah, if you want to talk about how shit the judicial system is, I agree. I could go on about plea bargains, penalty ranges, etc being used as tools of oppression.
He’s a repeat offender. He was convicted on multiple counts. Strictly speaking, he’s not just a rapist, he’s a serial rapist.
But I do think we’d agree about plea bargains. They let the guilty off scot free and let the overworked, underfunded judicial system off the hook when it comes to innocent defendants.
It doesn’t make them rapists by proxy, but it does make them someone who believes the rapist they like should be the exception.
Is it really for an exception? Or just not making it any longer due to additional bad character traits?
My understanding is they look at the range of acceptable punishment, and then use these factors to determine where it should land. Providing a letter explaining his character would serve to put it on the lower end of it. It’s not so much an exception as it is just providing evidence for the court to make an informed decision for the range.
He didn’t get convicted of rape and being unlikeable. He was convicted of rape. The penalty being assessed is the penalty for rape. Whatever else he may have done, good or bad, he did the rape. He should pay the penalty for the rape that he did. If he collects money for disabled children on Sundays, he shouldn’t be punished less, he should pay the penalty for rape. If he’s a jerk who gets drunk on weeknights and starts his political opinions with “I’m not racist, but…” he shouldn’t be penalized additionally for that. He should be penalized for rape. This thing where we make room for “He’s a rapist, but…” is fucking garbage. It reeks of Brock Turner’s dad trying to reduce the lifetime of harm his son inflicted on a woman to “10 minutes of action”. If a rapist who operates a puppy rescue is less of a rapist than a rapist who does other things we all agree to be unpleasant then it’s not about the harm inflicted, it’s about how much we all generally like the rapist.
I agree with you in principle. But that isn’t how the judicial system works. Usually there’s a minimum, which is the actual punishment for the crime. Then there’s the maximum which is what they give you if you’re a repeat offender or they just generally think you’re an extra shitty person.
Given that, someone with otherwise good character is expected to get the minimum, which is the time for the crime without getting extra. In this case that minimum is 30 years.
But yeah, if you want to talk about how shit the judicial system is, I agree. I could go on about plea bargains, penalty ranges, etc being used as tools of oppression.
He’s a repeat offender. He was convicted on multiple counts. Strictly speaking, he’s not just a rapist, he’s a serial rapist.
But I do think we’d agree about plea bargains. They let the guilty off scot free and let the overworked, underfunded judicial system off the hook when it comes to innocent defendants.