Re: Woman faces descrimination as police and media refuse to label her crime "rape".
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:05 am
Ah, yes... The fetus was only in his ninth trimester.
Where everything is possible.
http://echoesofthemultiverse.com/
Yeah, I just find it astonishing that you could kill someone in such a horrifying manner and get so little time away from the public, never mind his "Unconditional release" that means that he doesn't even need to be checked up on any longer. Naturally, the family of the murdered guy was mortified.Beleriphon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:43 pmThat guy also spent 5 years in a psychiatric hospital as he was deemed not criminally responsible, but couldn't reasonably be released as he was a danger to the public. There is a vast difference between somebody knowingly committing a crime and somebody in a psychotic state committing a crime. Remember, to be convicted of a crime you need mens rea and actus reus: the intent and the action. The intent part is wrapped up in all kinds of mental health issues.Jabroniville wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:25 am Probably mental health + gender. A guy here did only 5-ish years for DECAPITATING SOMEONE ON A GREYHOUND BUS because he was "off his meds" and is now "low-risk".
The fundamentals are the same. Women are a protected class. On a fundamental level, humanity is wired to protect women. So when women are upset about something, our instinct is to fix it. So when a woman is sitting in a courtroom acting upset, at the very least about the possibility of going to prison, and hopefully with some regret for her actions, the instinct of every person around is to reframe the scenario in such a way that the crime wasn't really her fault, not REALLY, and therefore we can surely set up the sentence in such a way as to not be such a bother...Batgirl III wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:54 am There’s a big difference between putting women and children into the lifeboats first, and letting a woman who tried to strangle a toddler walk with less than a slap on the wrist...
As I would expect they are. Its an unfortunate reality but the criminal justice system actually doesn't really care that much about the victim of a crime. Criminal law just isn't setup to handle that aspect of what happens. A victim of an assault could completely forgive the accused, and not want to deal with criminal law at all. A good prosecutor would take that into account, but ultimately it doesn't matter what the victim thinks in whether or not prosecution proceeds or in what manner, because the entire process is meant to deal with accused and what they've been accused of doing.Jabroniville wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:37 amYeah, I just find it astonishing that you could kill someone in such a horrifying manner and get so little time away from the public, never mind his "Unconditional release" that means that he doesn't even need to be checked up on any longer. Naturally, the family of the murdered guy was mortified.
Here's a point on this. Whenever a man is accused of a crime, let's murder of his wife, the first common reaction you will see around you is the denunciation of him. He's a monster, why would he do that? All the blame is immediately fixated on him.BriarThrone wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:08 amThe fundamentals are the same. Women are a protected class. On a fundamental level, humanity is wired to protect women. So when women are upset about something, our instinct is to fix it. So when a woman is sitting in a courtroom acting upset, at the very least about the possibility of going to prison, and hopefully with some regret for her actions, the instinct of every person around is to reframe the scenario in such a way that the crime wasn't really her fault, not REALLY, and therefore we can surely set up the sentence in such a way as to not be such a bother...Batgirl III wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:54 am There’s a big difference between putting women and children into the lifeboats first, and letting a woman who tried to strangle a toddler walk with less than a slap on the wrist...
Man mutilates his wife: he is rightly castigated by the public immediately.Chris Brady wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:29 pmHere's a point on this. Whenever a man is accused of a crime, let's murder of his wife, the first common reaction you will see around you is the denunciation of him. He's a monster, why would he do that? All the blame is immediately fixated on him.BriarThrone wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:08 amThe fundamentals are the same. Women are a protected class. On a fundamental level, humanity is wired to protect women. So when women are upset about something, our instinct is to fix it. So when a woman is sitting in a courtroom acting upset, at the very least about the possibility of going to prison, and hopefully with some regret for her actions, the instinct of every person around is to reframe the scenario in such a way that the crime wasn't really her fault, not REALLY, and therefore we can surely set up the sentence in such a way as to not be such a bother...Batgirl III wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:54 am There’s a big difference between putting women and children into the lifeboats first, and letting a woman who tried to strangle a toddler walk with less than a slap on the wrist...
When a woman kills her husband, the first common reaction is, what did he do to drive her to that? The expectation is that she was forced into the act, rather than acting on her own.
However, if he had directed a movie like Chinatown, then it'd be perfectly okay.BriarThrone wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:45 am If the genders had been reversed, and it was a college-aged man inviting young high school girls over and having controlling sexual relationships with them, I'm pretty sure he'd be in prison right now, and rightly so.
Obviously, celebrities and high profile Democrat politicians are above the law. Which needs to change.Batgirl III wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:53 amHowever, if he had directed a movie like Chinatown, then it'd be perfectly okay.BriarThrone wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:45 am If the genders had been reversed, and it was a college-aged man inviting young high school girls over and having controlling sexual relationships with them, I'm pretty sure he'd be in prison right now, and rightly so.
I still don't buy the idea that Roseanne was being deliberately racist with that tweet, but it was obviously close enough to a thing associated with racism that it was easy for the media to twist into a Thing. Any celebrity that's not hard-socialist should know to cover their ass better.Batgirl III wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:21 pm Or a white woman with the wrong political opinions (Cf. Barr, Roseanne).