Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,405
#2,405
I am going to preface this by saying that I hardly know anything about the Stanford case and only heard about it more in depth here. So, I can't speak to that case specifically.

As someone who works in the judicial system, there are often things that the public doesn't understand and/or the media doesn't understand and reports incorrectly. In most cases involving sentencing, there are guidelines that judges have to follow. Some benefit the defendant while others benefit the State. Those guidelines are usually outlined by statute, and the judge must consider them to reach a sentence. The judge can't just pick a sentence out of thin air. Each state is different, and federal courts have statutory and "advisory" guidelines as well. The judge can't go above or below the statutory parameters but there is some deference within that range.

All of this to say that absolutely every single case in the judicial system stands alone. Each case is different, has a different fact scenario, and each defendant and victim have their own stories and backgrounds. All of those things are taken into consideration at sentencing. Just that simple (or complicated).

I have no idea if the judge in California abused his discretion. I am not familiar with the exact facts or with California law. However, society just hears a certain sentence for a case and sometimes fails to understand the reasoning why judges made their decision. As I saw an earlier discussion about the Vandy case, in TN, aggravated rape carries 15 to 25 years. That cannot be changed by a judge as it is set by the legislature. The judge then has guidelines on where to start and where to end.

Sorry for the long post, but it gets frustrating sometimes when the public makes assumptions about cases when the judge very well may have been doing what he is supposed to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,406
#2,406
jave36 said:
They couldn't prove it because he didn't finish (no DNA), but the eye witness who stopped him was very specific about what he saw.

Edit two eye witnesses.
Click to expand...

One of the eye witnesses who tackled him was so upset by what he'd witnessed that by the time the cops arrived he couldn't immediately speak because he was sobbing so hard.
 
#2,408
#2,408
UTProf said:
One of the eye witnesses who tackled him was so upset by what he'd witnessed that by the time the cops arrived he couldn't immediately speak because he was sobbing so hard.
Click to expand...

Eye witnesses are often unreliable in the recall of the activity. Studies have shown that many eye witnesses are inaccurate when compared to film of the same event. The human mind is often not capable of remembering all the details of such events. The best evidence is film that has not had the opportunity to be altered. Many innocent people have been convicted by eyewitness testimony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,409
#2,409
Of course I don't know all the details of the case, but seriously, this kid only gets 6 months in a county jail? Which in reality will probably only turn into about 3 months? I'm disgusted. Other people that have done less in terms of law breaking have gotten more time than he did!! I'm especially disgusted with his father's comments about why he only deserved probation, because anything more would ruin his life for just "20 minutes of action." Do they not understand just how much Brock has ruined the woman's life? She will likely require countless hours of therapy due to trauma and PTSD symptoms, and she will NEVER be able to forget what happened to her (even if she was passed out at the time, as will the men who helped her). Brock Turner deserves much more than the slap on the wrist he got, because no matter what, it was wrong and he deserves to be punished. It doesn't matter how old he is, he deserves the appropriate punishment for destroying a woman's life. His father should be ashamed of himself also
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,410
#2,410
Can't believe we are going to have a criminal with blood on her hands in the white house. Jesus...
 
Last edited:
#2,416
#2,416
VoL The Impaler said:
Voting for president this election is like trying to decide what std you are the most comfortable living with.. :blink:
Click to expand...

How true and we, the voters, are responsible for where we are. It is not only the Presidential selection. The voters continue to elect Senators and Congressmen who have less than a 15 percent approval rating. I am afraid we have reached a point where our political decision making has hit rock bottom. Never in my 77 years have I felt so concerned where our political IQ rates at the moron level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,421
#2,421
Just so yall understand, a vote for a libertarian is a vote for Hillary. Third party will never win, and yall know it. I got nothing against Gary Johnson either. Keep the criminal out of the white house!!!
 
#2,422
#2,422
Catbone said:
Just so yall understand, a vote for a libertarian is a vote for Hillary. Third party will never win, and yall know it. I got nothing against Gary Johnson either. Keep the criminal out of the white house!!!
Click to expand...

In theory, maybe. But if you're in a state that is always gonna go red or blue, it literally won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. A vote for a 3rd party can at least contribute to that party potentially contribute to that party getting public campaign funding assistance.

Because let's be honest here, if you're in Tennessee, Bama, or Georgia, you could vote 20 times for a democrat or a 3rd party candidate and the state is still gonna come out red.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,423
#2,423
I say vote for whoever you want to be president. That's the reason for voting. Not to pick someone so that someone else doesn't get in. This is one reason why having political parties is just a dumb idea to have in the first place...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top