Larry Nassar

[momacacia]

I think the "death sentence" comment is in part related to the fact that he'll spend the rest of his life in jail, and her knowledge that Nassar has a heart condition so probably won't last very long in prison. Hopefully the state doesn't have to waste a lot of money on his medical care. 😒

[Lostinabook]

I'm with Celia. Frankly, after listening to the judge read the letter Nassar wrote (and apparently what she read were the least offensive bits) I thought she showed great restraint.

 

Back to the original topic, here's an article from the Lansing State Journal re: how Nassar avoided charges in 2014 and how much work and prep Rachael Denhollander had to do in order to confidently present her case.

 

 

[momacacia]

Is it just me, or is this while thing going to provide useful sex ed and self-protection curriculum content for my children. Snippets of statements, the MSU/USAG cover-up; this really happens, kids, this really happens. Sad that we have to talk about these things with our kids, but I think some of this trial will make an impression on mine.

[Soror]

Is it just me, or is this while thing going to provide useful sex ed and self-protection curriculum content for my children. Snippets of statements, the MSU/USAG cover-up; this really happens, kids, this really happens. Sad that we have to talk about these things with our kids, but I think some of this trial will make an impression on mine.

I had already had that talk with my oldest but I reiterated it. It doesn't matter if it is a dr or a relative or family friend or it is someone that is really nice, you have control over what happens to your body. And for anyone who says women don't have to worry about such things now, bullsh*t, we got miles to go.

[Spy Car]

Who said you needed to be silenced?

 

Your outrage is just so out of place on a day when so many other important words were said.

 

I’m wondering if being a man in the entertainment industry has been a pressing spot for you lately. LA must be a pressure cooker right now. Triggering.

 

Throw a couple of exclamation points on your multiple, repetitive, outraged statements and I might start wondering if Donald has joined the hive.

 

This is a deeply insulting and off-base post. 

 

Instead of embracing a "mob mentality" and losing our commitment to our highest values, the correct response to monsters like Larry Nasser is to embrace the rule of law.

 

He deserved to be excoriated in no-uncertain-terms. He words of his victims were powerful and damning, But the judge embarrassed the proceedings with her words yesterday. Nasser's victims deserved better.

 

There is right and wrong, and the judge crossed that line in a profound way.

 

Insulting me for seeing the truth of that is beneath contempt.

 

Bill    

[gardenmom5]

What is "unacceptable" and "absolutely chilling"

 

is that this man was NOT stopped and had unfettered access to innocent little girls in order to violate THEIR innocence for his disgusting pleasure and power!

 

That is unacceptable and chilling

 

I'd love to see accessory charges against those who covered his pattootie.

 

and that the judge basically told the girls they could sue him for all he's worth.

 

Nassar actually accused the judge in a letter of being “mean,†IIRC. He didn’t want to sit through the victim impact statements.

 

play the victim statements on a loop in his cell.  

 

I'm with Celia. Frankly, after listening to the judge read the letter Nassar wrote (and apparently what she read were the least offensive bits) I thought she showed great restraint.

 

Back to the original topic, here's an article from the Lansing State Journal re: how Nassar avoided charges in 2014 and how much work and prep Rachael Denhollander had to do in order to confidently present her case.

 

i'd say her law school education was well worth it.

[ErinE]

Yeah really. I’m already modifying my content to include “... and If a doctor is touching you and you don’t like it or want him to stop, TELL MOMMY RIGHT AWAY. Even the doctor doesn’t have a right to touch your body if you don’t want him to. Only you.â€

 

Add it to the long list of crap I wish I didn’t have to say :(

 

I've noticed that pediatricians, in two different offices, tell our children to never allow someone to touch them in an area they don't want to be touched and to tell a parent if they don't feel comfortable, even if it's a doctor. I appreciate these doctors reinforcing what I say to my kids.

 

All the doctors have said something along the lines of "I'm only touching you here because I need to check to make sure everything is okay and your mother is right here. Let me know if you want me to stop. Never be afraid to tell your parent if someone touches you in a way you don't like."

 

It didn't stop Nasser from preying on girls as it seems he abused some in the presence of their parents, but I think such conversations can help. Kyle Stephens' testimony about her father truly broke my heart.

Edited January 26, 2018 by ErinE

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that the 'mean judge' comments arose wrongly from the judge making Nassar listen to all those statements and that the meme was totally right to call that out.

 

But if we have the rule of law, then we have to object to the judge's comments, which in any other setting would be interpreted as a wink wink encouragement of unlawful torturous activity which is likely in any case.  As much as I find this guy detestable (and how much that is is impossible to overstate), we also have a responsibility to protect those who are incarcerated.  

 

We are better as a society because we do not pursue pure revenge but rather justice.  We had the Nuremburg trials, not the tearing apart that the perps who were tried surely deserved.  This makes us better.  It is also considerably more difficult.

[sassenach]

This is a deeply insulting and off-base post. 

 

Instead of embracing a "mob mentality" and losing our commitment to our highest values, the correct response to monsters like Larry Nasser is to embrace the rule of law.

 

He deserved to be excoriated in no-uncertain-terms. He words of his victims were powerful and damning, But the judge embarrassed the proceedings with her words yesterday. Nasser's victims deserved better.

 

There is right and wrong, and the judge crossed that line in a profound way.

 

Insulting me for seeing the truth of that is beneath contempt.

 

Bill    

I do not feel bad that you feel insulted.

 

You've made your shit bow and now you've got to wear it.

[Pam in CT]

re Nassar himself thought being forced to listen to victims was "mean" -- 

Nassar actually accused the judge in a letter of being “mean,†IIRC. He didn’t want to sit through the victim impact statements.

 

He did write to the judge before the victim statements, arguing that having to sit through their stories would be difficult for him.  I don't believe that his full text of his letter was made public, or know if he literally used the word "mean," but the judge read out portions of it in her statement:

 

In the letter, Nassar said he was worried about his own mental state and his ability to handle the continued victim impact statements.

"I'm very concerned about my ability to be able to face witnesses this next four days mentally," he wrote in the letter.

Cry me a river, spanky.

 

 

 

In a perfect world, the judge would have kept her personal, and yes, inappropriate comments to herself. But, the entire past week has demonstrated that this is far from a perfect world. The judge did something none of us have done - she listened as hundreds of women gave statement after statement about the horrors they endured and the after effects of the trauma that have reverberated throughout their lives and will continue to do so for years to come. We can cut her slack. She certainly isn’t the first judge to do that and she won’t be the last. It certainly isn’t worth disbarment. I, too, am appalled that the men are focusing on the female judge and not the male pedophile who assaulted an unknown number of young girls, changing the trajectory of their lives forever. This is the way people try to make it seem that Nassar and his ilk aren’t the real problem, that the judge is the real problem. That is wrong and is, most assuredly a straw man argument in the #metoo and #timesup arena in which we live. More than 50% of the population of our nation is female, stop trying to silence us because you don’t like what we are saying. In the words of Ms. Denhollander “What is a young woman’s life worth? What is a girls life worth?†That is what our society needs to grapple with, not the perceived slight by a judge, who is more accomplished, educated and powerful than the men who are so disturbed by her exercising that power. Again, “What is a young woman’s life worth? What is a girl’s life worth?â€

This.

 

Judges do, in particularly heinous or violent or betrayal-of-trust or over-decades-series-of crimes, express disgust. It happens.  

 

This was a staggeringly heinous betrayal of trust of young people on an unthinkable scale over a horrifying length of time.  If this doesn't evoke disgust it's hard to conceive of what WOULD.

 

 

 

To focus on the judge's disgust, rather than the crimes or their effects on victims, is AT BEST re-directing and enabling cover to the crimes.

 

More likely: trolling.  

 

(And yes, to Celia's point, there's been a good deal of it on Twitter.)

 

[ErinE]

I agree the judge should have been more judicious in her comments, more diplomatic, more rational. How about we agree that after everyone who participated in the cover-up, everyone who allowed Nasser access to girls, everyone who told girls to apologize for their allegations, once all those people are fired, disbarred, censured, removed from office, lost their license, whatever then we can discuss the judge's consequences. I think a brief talking-to is enough. Ruining a judge's career because she was harsh towards the defendant before her, who was unrepentant of the heinous crimes to which he plead guilty, is why people fear speaking up. 

[ktgrok]

 the correct response to monsters like Larry Nasser is to embrace the rule of law.

 

 

 

And in what way did his sentencing violate the rule of law? Tell me, how did it? Is there a law against WISHING ill of someone, but not following through with it? Pretty sure we don't have thought police just yet. 

 

She followed the rule of law in how she sentenced him. Her emotions are not legally bound in anyway. 

 

The only person who broke the "rule of law" is Larry Nasser, who you haven't had a thing to say about, in a thread about him. 

 

That you are more upset by the judge (who DID nothing, just WISHED things) than the man who DID break the law and DID molest at least 150 people, speaks volumes.

 

Furthermore, if Larry Nasser had simply said, "if I were not restrained by the law and the constitution, I wish I could molest girls" he wouldn't be going to prison. It's that he ACTED that is the illegal action.

Edited January 26, 2018 by ktgrok

[Bluegoat]

I think that the 'mean judge' comments arose wrongly from the judge making Nassar listen to all those statements and that the meme was totally right to call that out.

 

But if we have the rule of law, then we have to object to the judge's comments, which in any other setting would be interpreted as a wink wink encouragement of unlawful torturous activity which is likely in any case.  As much as I find this guy detestable (and how much that is is impossible to overstate), we also have a responsibility to protect those who are incarcerated.  

 

We are better as a society because we do not pursue pure revenge but rather justice.  We had the Nuremburg trials, not the tearing apart that the perps who were tried surely deserved.  This makes us better.  It is also considerably more difficult.

 

I agree with you, and it's not a bad topic for discussion in a more general sense.  The changes I've seen in recent years around justice and how people conceptualize it rather disturb me.

 

But I also don't think this is a huge deal where somehow this judge has invalidated the rule of law.  We don't even know for sure quite how she intended some of her remarks, and perhaps they weren't as clear as she thought.  If I was in charge of her, I'd talk to her - and others - about this.  But I sure as heck wouldn't be talking about removing them from the bench.

[Bluegoat]

And in what way did his sentencing violate the rule of law? Tell me, how did it? Is there a law against WISHING ill of someone, but not following through with it? Pretty sure we don't have thought police just yet. 

 

She followed the rule of law in how she sentenced him. Her emotions are not legally bound in anyway. 

 

The only person who broke the "rule of law" is Larry Nasser, who you haven't had a thing to say about, in a thread about him. 

 

That you are more upset by the judge (who DID nothing, just WISHED things) than the man who DID break the law and DID molest at least 150 people, speaks volumes.

 

It's rather different for a private citizen to wish ill of someone, even in words heard by others, and a judge on the bench giving a sentence doing so.  They aren't representing a private view or acting as a private individual.  That's why they wear special clothes and sit in a courtroom.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Bluegoat

[ktgrok]

 

 

You've made your shit bow and now you've got to wear it.

 

I want this on a shirt. BEST line ever. Seriously, market that one. 

[ktgrok]

I think that the 'mean judge' comments arose wrongly from the judge making Nassar listen to all those statements and that the meme was totally right to call that out.

 

But if we have the rule of law, then we have to object to the judge's comments, which in any other setting would be interpreted as a wink wink encouragement of unlawful torturous activity which is likely in any case.  As much as I find this guy detestable (and how much that is is impossible to overstate), we also have a responsibility to protect those who are incarcerated.  

 

We are better as a society because we do not pursue pure revenge but rather justice.  We had the Nuremburg trials, not the tearing apart that the perps who were tried surely deserved.  This makes us better.  It is also considerably more difficult.

 

See, I figure she knows very well that he will be kept in protective custody in jail. I don't think she meant that at all. 

[ktgrok]

And do people think that all police that are angry and wish ill towards criminals should lose their jobs, even if they ACT in a totally fair and just manner? Should all prosecutors, after spending YEARS dealing with the lowest of the low, who feel anger and wish ill towards those they prosecute, lose their jobs, even if they never act on those feelings and conduct their trials in accordance to the law?

 

Cause I'm going to go out on a limb and say we'd have very few lawyers and cops left. 

 

The POINT of rule of law is that you follow the letter of the law no matter what your own personal feelings are. She did exactly that. Her personal feelings are moot, if she conducted herself in accordance with the law. Otherwise we'd need androids to be judges. 

[bolt.]

I'm thinking Bill has an important point that is being missed becsyse so much justice was done, so many survivors vindicated, and an incredibly important outcome achieved.

 

But there are two issues:

 

One is that a prolific pedophile has been justly sentenced.

 

The other is that we expect judges to be fundamentally exemplary and flawless in every word that they say in the execution of their duties.

 

I think that the idea that "pedophiles should be punished and we're all pleased when they are" is deeply obvious.

 

But I don't think idea that "judges should be just and any mistakes they make need be taken seriously" needs to be eclipsed by the satisfaction we all feel about the very appropriate verdict and sentencing.

 

Having pedophiles doctors in a gymnastics org is bad. Having judges who openly say in court that they "might" or "would" wish for violent vengeance over justice for a criminal is also bad. (Not anywhere near as bad! But just a regular ordinary pretty bad thing, all on its own: independent of the context of who the criminal, what he did, or how horrible it was.)

 

Bill isn't saying the judge was "mean" -- he is saying that the judge had no right to make comments about her personal desire that she "might" or "would" wish that a criminal would suffer vengeance though violent criminal acts by "someone" or "many others" beyond what the law allows. Criminal violence as retribution is not justice.

 

That's not something a judge should be saying. Ever. Even in a particularly henous case like this one.

 

The judge also had no right to illustrate her point (that the sentence exceeded the criminals expected lifespan) by saying it was equivalent to a death warrant. If there was no difference between a long sentence and a death warrant, there world be no reason to make the distinction.

 

The distinction is that one is a legal sentence, and the other is not. Judges should not conflate them. (For a judge to do so is, yes, chilling.)

 

I think that we all hear the judge here "just saying what we are all thinking" -- so she sounds brave, strong and honest in our ears. She is brave, strong and honest, but her role is to be more that a brave, strong, honest voice for the people. She is obligated to uphold justice and the rule of law: she, of all people, is not entitled to verbally wish those things away in order to express the depth of her outrage. She embodies law. She needed to do that here.

 

She did the right thing -- but her words (just these few words) were inappropriate given her role. Bill noticed, and so did I. I think she can be forgiven the error, given the circumstances... but forgiveness means they were the wrong words. It doesn't mean that we can ignore them.

[Carol in Cal.]

See, I figure she knows very well that he will be kept in protective custody in jail. I don't think she meant that at all. 

I don't know whether she meant that or not.

 

I know how easy it is for protective custody to slip.

 

Anyway, to a large extent this is a distraction from the main issue, which is the heinous actions and the unpardonable coverups.  I don't think the judge should have provided that distraction but I also don't think she should lose her job over it.  Poor judgement, though.

[Sneezyone]

I'm thinking Bill has an important point that is being missed becsyse so much justice was done, so many survivors vindicated, and an incredibly important outcome achieved.

 

But there are two issues:

 

One is that a prolific pedophile has been justly sentenced.

 

The other is that we expect judges to be fundamentally exemplary and flawless in every word that they say in the execution of their duties.

 

I think that the idea that "pedophiles should be punished and we're all pleased when they are" is deeply obvious.

 

But I don't think idea that "judges should be just and any mistakes they make need be taken seriously" needs to be eclipsed by the satisfaction we all feel about the very appropriate verdict and sentencing.

 

Having pedophiles doctors in a gymnastics org is bad. Having judges who openly say in court that they "might" or "would" wish for violent vengeance over justice for a criminal is also bad. (Not anywhere near as bad! But just a regular ordinary pretty bad thing, all on its own: independent of the context of who the criminal, what he did, or how horrible it was.)

 

Bill isn't saying the judge was "mean" -- he is saying that the judge had no right to make comments about her personal desire that she "might" or "would" wish that a criminal would suffer vengeance though violent criminal acts by "someone" or "many others" beyond what the law allows. Criminal violence as retribution is not justice.

 

That's not something a judge should be saying. Ever. Even in a particularly henous case like this one.

 

The judge also had no right to illustrate her point (that the sentence exceeded the criminals expected lifespan) by saying it was equivalent to a death warrant. If there was no difference between a long sentence and a death warrant, there world be no reason to make the distinction.

 

The distinction is that one is a legal sentence, and the other is not. Judges should not conflate them. (For a judge to do so is, yes, chilling.)

 

I think that we all hear the judge here "just saying what we are all thinking" -- so she sounds brave, strong and honest in our ears. She is brave, strong and honest, but her role is to be more that a brave, strong, honest voice for the people. She is obligated to uphold justice and the rule of law: she, of all people, is not entitled to verbally wish those things away in order to express the depth of her outrage. She embodies law. She needed to do that here.

 

She did the right thing -- but her words (just these few words) were inappropriate given her role. Bill noticed, and so did I. I think she can be forgiven the error, given the circumstances... but forgiveness means they were the wrong words. It doesn't mean that we can ignore them.

 

But she did/does have that right at sentencing, as does every other judge. Judges routinely say things about and to defendants at sentencing that's prejudicial in some way. That's allowed. It's not beyond the pale. The whole premise of his complaint is flawed. She was passing judgment, explaining her judgment and issuing a sentence. Her feelings didn't have to be sugar-coated at that point.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Sneezyone

[4everHis]

I agree the judge should have been more judicious in her comments, more diplomatic, more rational. How about we agree that after everyone who participated in the cover-up, everyone who allowed Nasser access to girls, everyone who told girls to apologize for their allegations, once all those people are fired, disbarred, censured, removed from office, lost their license, whatever then we can discuss the judge's consequences. I think a brief talking-to is enough. Ruining a judge's career because she was harsh towards the defendant before her, who was unrepentant of the heinous crimes to which he plead guilty, is why people fear speaking up. 

 

Yes, yes, yes!

[gardenmom5]

being surprised there are multiple men who think this judge was "mean", I went and asked my "getting up there" (and not what modern society would call a feminist) dh what he thought about the judge's comments.

 

1) she was being realistic in that he's never getting out of jail - and

2) she understands how much other prisoners hate pedophiles, and is merely stating the obvious.

[TechWife]

The US Olympic Committee has given the USAG board six days to resign, or the organization will lose their status as a governing body for the purposes of qualifying Olympic athletes. There are other requirements set forth as well, as the USOC has stated their purpose is to see that the USAG rebuilds it's organization from the top down to get rid of obvious, systemic issues. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/26/us/usoc-orders-usa-gymnastics-resignations/index.html

[gardenmom5]

I think that the 'mean judge' comments arose wrongly from the judge making Nassar listen to all those statements and that the meme was totally right to call that out. 

 

as for nassar having to listen to 154? girls impact statments - and at least one coach I thought would beat him to a bloody pulp if given the chance - well, I'm with the judge.  he got his pleasure/made his bed - now he gets to listen to them/lie in the bed he made.  no sympathy.  it WAS his choice.

 

but - I've been accused of being "a mean mom".   it's called natural consequences.

[sassenach]

I'm thinking Bill has an important point that is being missed becsyse so much justice was done, so many survivors vindicated, and an incredibly important outcome achieved.

 

But there are two issues:

 

One is that a prolific pedophile has been justly sentenced.

 

The other is that we expect judges to be fundamentally exemplary and flawless in every word that they say in the execution of their duties.

 

I think that the idea that "pedophiles should be punished and we're all pleased when they are" is deeply obvious.

 

But I don't think idea that "judges should be just and any mistakes they make need be taken seriously" needs to be eclipsed by the satisfaction we all feel about the very appropriate verdict and sentencing.

 

Having pedophiles doctors in a gymnastics org is bad. Having judges who openly say in court that they "might" or "would" wish for violent vengeance over justice for a criminal is also bad. (Not anywhere near as bad! But just a regular ordinary pretty bad thing, all on its own: independent of the context of who the criminal, what he did, or how horrible it was.)

 

Bill isn't saying the judge was "mean" -- he is saying that the judge had no right to make comments about her personal desire that she "might" or "would" wish that a criminal would suffer vengeance though violent criminal acts by "someone" or "many others" beyond what the law allows. Criminal violence as retribution is not justice.

 

That's not something a judge should be saying. Ever. Even in a particularly henous case like this one.

 

The judge also had no right to illustrate her point (that the sentence exceeded the criminals expected lifespan) by saying it was equivalent to a death warrant. If there was no difference between a long sentence and a death warrant, there world be no reason to make the distinction.

 

The distinction is that one is a legal sentence, and the other is not. Judges should not conflate them. (For a judge to do so is, yes, chilling.)

 

I think that we all hear the judge here "just saying what we are all thinking" -- so she sounds brave, strong and honest in our ears. She is brave, strong and honest, but her role is to be more that a brave, strong, honest voice for the people. She is obligated to uphold justice and the rule of law: she, of all people, is not entitled to verbally wish those things away in order to express the depth of her outrage. She embodies law. She needed to do that here.

 

She did the right thing -- but her words (just these few words) were inappropriate given her role. Bill noticed, and so did I. I think she can be forgiven the error, given the circumstances... but forgiveness means they were the wrong words. It doesn't mean that we can ignore them.

I actually don't object to discussing Bill's point. Several of you have done so in a calm, meaningful way. I object to the fervor, outrage, and single-mindedness with which it is being delivered. I find the underlying emotion conveyed in his posts to be deeply disturbing.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Sassenach

[bolt.]

But she did/does have that right at sentencing, as does every other judge. Judges routinely say things about and to defendants at sentencing that's prejudicial in some way. That's allowed. It's not beyond the pale. The whole premise of his complaint is flawed. She was passing judgment, explaining her judgment and issuing a sentence. Her feelings didn't have to be sugar-coated at that point.

I don't think judges have the right to explain that their feelings towards the criminal are, in fact, to wish he could become the victim of multiple violent crimes.

 

It's not about the comments being "prejudicial" -- it's about her commentary on the inadequacy of a just and legal sentence to render enough punishment for her tastes, and her possible preference for criminal actions to enact "justice" instead. It's about her expression of regret that she is constrained and such "justice" as she might preferred remains hypothetical.

 

Prejudicial comments, personal insults and harsh words are expected. It's not the time for impartiality or sugar-coating; I agree.

 

A judge verbally wishing she had the privilege to ignore the law in order to knowingly subject a criminal to something "cruel and unusual" -- and criminal -- is not the same thing.

Edited January 26, 2018 by bolt.

[Spy Car]

The argument over the judges "meanness" is a red-herring.

 

His victims deserved their opportunity to speak and it was certainly just that he hear how much pain his actions caused.

 

And a judge, operating as a representative of our system of justice, quite rightfully should have condemned Nasser in the strongest possible terms.

 

But the *wink* *wink* comments that she'd signed his "death sentence" and that, were it up to her, he'd be multiply raped while in prison (before he is murdered) is beyond the pale.

 

The judge wore a black hat yesterday. We need people wearing white hats in that position. She should resign for an office that she's proven unfit to inhabit.

 

Bill 

[Spy Car]

I actually don't object to discussing Bill's point. Several of you have done so in a calm, meaningful way. I object to the fervor, outrage, and single-mindedness with which it is being delivered. I find the underlying emotion conveyed in his posts to be deeply disturbing.

 

There is no emotion, just a fidelity to civilization and the rule of law.

 

Civilization always breaks down at the margins, when crimes are so odious that officials who ought to know better--instead of standing with what's right--give voice to the darkest impulses of "the mob." 

 

When that happens--and it is praised--civilization is threatened.

 

I, for one, don't wish to live in a society where judges make threats of rape and death from the bench. Such would a deeply sick society. This judge represented the worse part of human nature yesterday.  She failed to live up to the expectations of her job.

 

It is a dangerous path and she deserves censure.

 

Bill

Edited January 26, 2018 by Spy Car

[SKL]

I don't think that what the judge said was that unusual.  It is pretty common for judges to lambaste the guilty at the time of sentencing.

[gardenmom5]

I don't think judges have the right to explain that their feelings towards the criminal are, in fact, to wish he could become the victim of multiple violent crimes.

 

It's not about the comments being "prejudicial" -- it's about her commentary on the inadequacy of a just and legal sentence to render enough punishment for her tastes, and her possible preference for criminal actions to enact "justice" instead. It's about her expression of regret that she is constrained and such "justice" as she might preferred remains hypothetical.

 

Prejudicial comments, personal insults and harsh words are expected. It's not the time for impartiality or sugar-coating; I agree.

 

A judge verbally wishing she had the privilege to ignore the law in order to knowingly subject a criminal to something "cruel and unusual" -- and criminal -- is not the same thing.

 

that wasn't my take on it at all.  I didn't hear her wishing for prisoners to take retribution - but rather, he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail. 

but there is the reality - she didn't create it - that he will be labeled a pedophile in prison  (he even pled guilty), and the reality that even though prisons try to prevent violence against pedophiles, it happens because they are hated by the rest of the prison population.

to me - she was merely stating that fact.  to have not said anything wouldn't change anything about him being a pedophile in prison - when other prisoners loath pedophiles.  that would have been ignoring reality, she just pointed it out.

[SKL]

PS is it OK for judges to have their own biases and opinions.  They are human and there is no unbiased human.  The judge isn't allowed to involve his bias in his decisions during the trial.

 

And if the "bias" is "I think people who molest underaged girls are some of the worst people alive," well I'm not even sure that counts as a bias, since it is a pretty universal belief.

[Spy Car]

And do people think that all police that are angry and wish ill towards criminals should lose their jobs, even if they ACT in a totally fair and just manner? Should all prosecutors, after spending YEARS dealing with the lowest of the low, who feel anger and wish ill towards those they prosecute, lose their jobs, even if they never act on those feelings and conduct their trials in accordance to the law?

 

Cause I'm going to go out on a limb and say we'd have very few lawyers and cops left. 

 

The POINT of rule of law is that you follow the letter of the law no matter what your own personal feelings are. She did exactly that. Her personal feelings are moot, if she conducted herself in accordance with the law. Otherwise we'd need androids to be judges. 

 

The judge didn't act within the law. She made thinly veiled threats that endorse the idea that Nasser should be raped and murdered in prison. This is not the way judges should behave while on the bench. She breached her duty.

 

It would have been proper for her to express society's outrage--that is her job. There is no amount of "meanness" that would have been too much for Larry Nasser.

 

What is unacceptable is giving voice to the idea that Nasser should be raped and murdered in prison. Her comments were unacceptable.

 

Bill

[SKL]

I haven't been following this case.  Were his victims pre-pubescent?  Because if not, then "pedophile" isn't an accurate term.

[Carol in Cal.]

The argument over the judges "meanness" is a red-herring.

 

 

No, it's not.

Rather, it is a separate issue.  It has to do with the victim statements being read in his presence rather than with the comments of the judge.

[Sneezyone]

I don't think judges have the right to explain that their feelings towards the criminal are, in fact, to wish he could become the victim of multiple violent crimes.

 

It's not about the comments being "prejudicial" -- it's about her commentary on the inadequacy of a just and legal sentence to render enough punishment for her tastes, and her possible preference for criminal actions to enact "justice" instead. It's about her expression of regret that she is constrained and such "justice" as she might preferred remains hypothetical.

 

Prejudicial comments, personal insults and harsh words are expected. It's not the time for impartiality or sugar-coating; I agree.

 

A judge verbally wishing she had the privilege to ignore the law in order to knowingly subject a criminal to something "cruel and unusual" -- and criminal -- is not the same thing.

 

Yes, it is the same. It's no different than a judge saying they think the defendant is a fine individual and has wonderful redeeming qualities and they wish he/she could just go home tomorrow but the law doesn't allow that (something that, yes, has happened with DV victims and kids who kill their abusers, etc.). The question is whether the sentence falls within the law not, ultimately, what the judge thinks or wishes. How does that expression go? If wishes were fishes... 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Carol in Cal.]

I haven't been following this case.  Were his victims pre-pubescent?  Because if not, then "pedophile" isn't an accurate term.

Both pre and post.

One friend of the family was 5.

Many of the athletes were in their teens.

[Spy Car]

PS is it OK for judges to have their own biases and opinions.  They are human and there is no unbiased human.  The judge isn't allowed to involve his bias in his decisions during the trial.

 

And if the "bias" is "I think people who molest underaged girls are some of the worst people alive," well I'm not even sure that counts as a bias, since it is a pretty universal belief.

 

Wrong. It is the role of jurists to rise above their biases and passions and to exemplify reason.

 

This judge gave into voicing the darkest part of her nature in an open courtroom. She failed the most basic test of judicial competency.

 

And people are defending her. Sheesh,

 

Bill

[Sneezyone]

I don't think that what the judge said was that unusual.  It is pretty common for judges to lambaste the guilty at the time of sentencing.

 

Exactly. Nothing about this particular criminal makes him the poster child for sympathy where judicial tongue lashing is concerned either.

[sassenach]

There is no emotion, just a fidelity to civilization and the rule of law.

 

Civilization always breaks down at the margins, when crimes are so odious that officials who ought to know better--instead of standing with what's right--give voice to the darkest impulses of "the mob."

 

When that happens--and it is praised--civilization is threatened.

 

I, for one, don't wish to live in a society where judges make threats of rape and death from the bench. Such would a deeply sick society. This judge represented the worse part of human nature yesterday. She failed to live up to the expectations of her job.

 

It is a dangerous path and she deserves censure.

 

Bill

I realize that getting the last word is important to you, but you don’t intimidate me, and I have all freaking day.

[maize]

The US Olympic Committee has given the USAG board six days to resign, or the organization will lose their status as a governing body for the purposes of qualifying Olympic athletes. There are other requirements set forth as well, as the USOC has stated their purpose is to see that the USAG rebuilds it's organization from the top down to get rid of obvious, systemic issues.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/26/us/usoc-orders-usa-gymnastics-resignations/index.html

Kudos to them.

 

I wonder if there is room for an entirely different gymnastics organization to step up? I'm not fond of USAG and their near monopoly of the sport.

 

I believe there are a few smaller organizations out there?

[ErinE]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the "ignore" function on this forum works wonderfully against pot-stirring trolls.

 

I really can't believe the amount of vitriol directed towards the judge instead of the defendant. That of all the things discussed in this thread - her words are what civilization rests on. Not the decades long egregious abuse, not the silencing and gaslighting of victims, not the cover-up in multiple large organizations. A judge expressing her thoughts and feelings toward a defendant who plead guilty, had no remorse for his actions, and blamed his victims because "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".

[Spy Car]

No, it's not.

Rather, it is a separate issue.  It has to do with the victim statements being read in his presence rather than with the comments of the judge.

 

Reading the victims statements in his presence was appropriate in my estimation. Anything less would have been an injustice to those women.

 

And Nasser deserved to hear how much pain his actions caused.

 

Had the judge rebuked him on society's behalf in the strongest possible terms, without comments about his "death sentence" and the multiple rapes she'd see him subject to were she able to allow it, then she'd have done her job.

 

But that's not what happened.

 

The objections to this judge have zero to do with "meanness," it is that she gave voice to the ugliest side of human nature and violated her duties to our civilization in the process.

 

She is unfit to remain on the bench.

 

Bill

Edited January 26, 2018 by Spy Car

[Aura]

I don't get this. The judge suggested or implied or wished or whatever that Nassar be...what? To have done to him EXACTLY WHAT HE DID TO THOSE GIRLS!!! The judge suggested that she'd like the criminal be treated like he treated his victims. She didn't just wish some random cruelty. And people are outraged at that? I find that outrage disgusting.

 

Bill, if you want to continue bashing the judge, why not take it to the thread that at least has the judge's name in the topic instead of continuing to derail this thread? http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/667566-judge-rosemarie-aquilina/?do=findComment&comment=7977049

 

[Spy Car]

I really can't believe the amount of vitriol directed towards the judge instead of the defendant. That of all the things discussed in this thread - her words are what civilization rests on. Not the decades long egregious abuse, not the silencing and gaslighting of victims, not the cover-up in multiple large organizations. A judge expressing her thoughts and feelings toward a defendant who plead guilty, had no remorse for his actions, and blamed his victims because "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".

 

Who doesn't have vitriol towards the defendant? 

 

Larry Nasser is a pig who deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

 

But bad people--very bad people--are not a good excuse for us to turn away from the rule of law and to embrace "prison justice" when speaking from the bench.

 

Bill

[vonfirmath]

I haven't been following this case.  Were his victims pre-pubescent?  Because if not, then "pedophile" isn't an accurate term.

 

Yes. One was as young as 8.

[vonfirmath]

Kudos to them.

 

I wonder if there is room for an entirely different gymnastics organization to step up? I'm not fond of USAG and their near monopoly of the sport.

 

I believe there are a few smaller organizations out there?

 

Thank you for quoting this. I missed TechWife's post in the back and forth

[solascriptura]

I've noticed that pediatricians, in two different offices, tell our children to never allow someone to touch them in an area they don't want to be touched and to tell a parent if they don't feel comfortable, even if it's a doctor. I appreciate these doctors reinforcing what I say to my kids.

 

All the doctors have said something along the lines of "I'm only touching you here because I need to check to make sure everything is okay and your mother is right here. Let me know if you want me to stop. Never be afraid to tell your parent if someone touches you in a way you don't like."

 

It didn't stop Nasser from preying on girls as it seems he abused some in the presence of their parents, but I think such conversations can help. Kyle Stephens' testimony about her father truly broke my heart.

Her story is truly heartbreaking.

[shawthorne44]

I'd love to see accessory charges against those who covered his pattootie.

 

and that the judge basically told the girls they could sue him for all he's worth.

 

 

play the victim statements on a loop in his cell.  

 

 

i'd say her law school education was well worth it.

 

 

I recently finished reading the book about Victim#1 in the Sandusky trial.  There was talk about someone that walked into the locker room shower and saw the scum-bucket doing things with a young boy (not Victim#1).  When I read that, I remember thinking that the only acceptable responses are a) Doing your best to bash his head against the shower wall or with something heavy, b) calling 911 c) calling 911, then bashing in the head, or maybe d) running away screaming then calling 911.   Pretending it didn't happen isn't an option.  Accessory charges seem like a good thing, if bashing and 911 didn't happen.  The only reason charges wouldn't be a good thing would be if they kept people from coming forward later.   

[Spy Car]

I don't get this. The judge suggested or implied or wished or whatever that Nassar be...what? To have done to him EXACTLY WHAT HE DID TO THOSE GIRLS!!! The judge suggested that she'd like the criminal be treated like he treated his victims. She didn't just wish some random cruelty. And people are outraged at that? I find that outrage disgusting.

 

Bill, if you want to continue bashing the judge, why not take it to the thread that at least has the judge's name in the topic instead of continuing to derail this thread? http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/667566-judge-rosemarie-aquilina/?do=findComment&comment=7977049

 

Yes, a judge saying she'd like to see that he experience what he did to others is an example of embracing vengeance and revenge, which runs directly contrary to the values of civilization.

 

It is outrageous. I don't wish to live in a society where judges suggest inmates should rape and murder prisoners in the name of justice.

 

That would be a dark path.

 

Bill

[Aura]

Yes. One was as young as 8.

 

Kyle Stephens was 6. SIX!!! When he first exposed himself to her.