Just for curiosity’s sake, what did he do to deserve 25 1/2 years before he can be eligible for parole that convicted rapist Brock Allen Turner didn’t do when he raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster? They were both convicted in California. Why did Turner, who has been going by Allen Turner and was last seen in the Dayton, OH area, do differently such that his custodial sentence was for 6 months, roughly 2% of the custodial time that Masterson will serve?
Let me be clear that my issue here isn’t that Masterson was penalized too much. He took two women’s lives and he should spend the rest of his in prison for it. It’s just that I see two rapists, one was righteously destroyed by the justice system and the other whose court proceedings essentially made it seem like no one wanted to punish him at all but they very reluctantly felt like they had to.
If we look at it from a pragmatic point of view, the answer is time I believe, the Brock turner case was quite a few years ago, when the laws and public opinion were still in quite a mysogynistic place, the Danny Masterson case was settled today and I believe opened after the metoo movements, where public opinion was shifting more favourably towards the victims. Its wild to see this amount of progress this quickly but I think were starting to see a change for the better overall, same as to how we saw better changes to views of homophobia in the early 2000’s from the 90’s, where it was “fashionable” to call everything gay in a derogatory way. Also if I recall, brocks dad was involved heavily in the trial if that counts for anything
I think it was the fear that got put into other judges by the recall of the judge that oversaw the Turner debacle. He was removed from the bench by outraged voters, as is right and good.
I have no idea about this case, but there’s a big difference between restorative (which is tentatively being trialed in many places) and a more traditional retributive justice system.
The first seeks the victims input and attempts to compensate the community effected. Retributive justice uses a more nebusous sense of what’s right/deserved and what’s wrong/unjust.
Pros and cons to both approaches. It’s still debatable which one is better at rehabilitation. But our current system doesn’t seem to place a high priority on that anyways.
This isn’t a case where a different theory of justice was being experimented with. In this case, the rich white man going to the prestigious, expensive ivy league school was given 6 months for raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster because, among other reasons, a stiffer sentence would have negatively impacted his career as a competitive swimmer. The judge who sentenced Turner to only 6 months for raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster had also presided over a case where an underage girl was gang-raped, also while unconscious. He allowed to be entered into evidence photos of her at a party a year after she was raped as evidence that she did not suffer from PTSD after being gang raped by a baseball team. It’s hard to imagine anything other than that this judge was a proponent of rape and did his best to protect rapists from any sort of punishment at all, but when absolutely forced to render some sort of sentence he punished rapists as little as possible.
Let me understand. You are an american soldier, torture and kill war prisoners, 6 months and disonorably discharge. You kill 200.000 people and you are a war hero ( Oppenheimer ). You rape two american women, 30 years? And the world should follow american ethics?
Reality is that westerners are huge hypocrites, they see the rest of the world as less human, and below their own race. so such triple standards aren’t surprising.
Man, I love That 70s Show, but so much fuckery and creepy shit happened during production. The irony being that this guy could have had any woman he wanted without assaulting them. He was the “cool funny” one on the show. Fucking gross piece of shit.
Idk about any woman he wanted. There are plenty of people who were never attracted to him, and he may be dysfunctional in a way that draws him to those people.
No one can ever have anyone they want. There will always be someone that says no, and if you don’t have the maturity to accept that and let go of your sense of entitlement you might wind up turning into a predator like Masterson.
The juxtaposition of “anyone he wants without raping them” against “sentenced to 30 years for rape” has a pretty clear contextual implication that you intentionally ignored.
That was said in response to the context of Danny Masterson being sentenced to jail for rape.
It is relevant, and you are choosing to die on the hill of pedantry on a point no one but you is actually asserting. You choose to take a figure of speech, that was a juxtaposition of the title of the article and apply an absolute. It doesn’t read that easy to anyone who isn’t making a choice to omit the context.
Rape is about power. Rapists aren’t interested in anyone who wants to give it to them consensually. They want to feel that they are really hurting someone, really destroying their humanity. If it doesn’t demean and permanently fuck up their victim then they want no part in it.
I think there’s also a category of rapists who just flat out don’t see their victims as people so they try to take whatever they want if they can get away with it.
It’s still about power since they can only do that to people without power (temporarily due to impairment or permanently due to society).
But it’s not the rapist getting off on having power, it’s the rapist doing whatever they want because someone else has no power to stop them and the rapist has no empathy.
I never followed this case. So he raped 2 women? Or at least that’s what the sentence is for. A sentence as excessive as that does not seem wise to me. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any sympathy for rapists. I do have sympathy for the victims.
But what does this sentence really send as a message to criminals? From a criminal’s point of view you can just as well kill all witnesses, especially the victims, if it won’t make the consequences of being caught any worse but reduced the chances of being caught. This is really, really unwise.
I think in this case specifically, it was due to the threats and shit that were being thrown towards the judge and jury by the church of Scientology. The sentence is to send a full message to the church that no, you fucks cannot get away with these things anymore.
I’m glad he’s been put away, not just for the rapes, but the murder of Cedric Bixler-Zavala’s dog (from ATDI/Mars Volta. Masterson raped his wife, and two of Cedric’s dogs were poisoned after she came forward).
If he had been convicted of raping and murdering 2 women he’d likely be looking at life without parole or death. It would absolutely have made the consequences worse.
Yeah let’s make sure we don’t send the wrong message to psychopaths by sending them to jail for fear they will escalate their wrongdoings. Maybe we could just ask them pretty please to stop raping people. Or maybe just not worry about rape at all. /s
Imagine reading about the decades of wounds these poor women suffered, only for the associated press to ask you to pay them to read more about their pain.
I re-watched Beethoven’s 2nd a few weeks ago and everything made sense now.
Charles Grodin was always suspicious of Danny Masterson’s character right from the start, up until the very end. Danny also has a weird reaction when Ryce says she was looking for Taylor, knowing his opportunity to introduce her to Scientology was blown.
They didn’t, but with the amount of publicity it got they probably didn’t find it worth the investment since he likely wouldn’t be able to work anymore.
Scientologists poisoned the dog of one of the victims for speaking up. After that dog died the victim got a new dog which was then poisoned. They did what they could to shut her up.
It’s not that rich people are treated incorrectly, it’s that average people are treated too harshly. Rich people get what everyone should get: A way to defend themselves.
Nothing came out of the rammstein case. It was concluded that the statements given were false by the Berlin public prosecutors office.
To be fair, I think that is one of those cases where someone says something about something happening, and a whole bunch of people hop on a bandwagon saying the same thing to try and get something out of it. I mean some of the shit they were saying was straight up satirical, the “Suck Box”? Give me a break now.
Lynn even made it a point that Lindemann did not rape her, and then a bunch of women came out and said that he did but never testified against him in one of the safest countries on the planet to do so. The only thing I think is suspicious on rammsteins’ behalf is that they distanced themselves from Makeeva, but perhaps she was spreading rumors about her role with the band? Who knows.
Lol how do you out yourself as a misogynistic fuckface mansplaining shit they don’t actually understand without just saying it? Say this bullshit right here.
It’s pretty obvious who you were talking about buddy, don’t play stupid fucking games with me, we aren’t children.
And wow, you’re going to assume that I’m all of those things because I mentioned that Germany takes rape VERY seriously and if allegations are true (they have very invasive investigative procedures), then they should have persued it because justice will absolutely be served? You are an actual piece of shit.
I refuse to further this conversation. You should take time to think about what you said to another human being. You are so fucking rabid that you called me those things when I even presented potential evidence AGAINST them, just that the evidence for them heavily outweighs everything else. You have absolutely no idea what my views are and you automatically assumed I’m one of the worst kinds of people imagineable.
There’s definitely not another actual human being on the other side of that screen, other people definitely don’t matter and don’t have feelings just because you can’t see them.