Say it ain't so, Joe

[DG_ThenNowForever]

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I tend to get much angrier at the institutions that cover up abuse than I do the abusers.

 

It's super complicated, but I'd imagine pedophiles would rather not be pedophiles. It's a terrible sexual attraction to have and while I get there are issues of attraction and power, there's also a mental disorder. IANAP (psychiatrist), but I'd assume it's harder than telling pedophiles to just stop being attracted to kids.

 

What isn't hard is for institutions to remove those people from bad situations. And, ahem Catholic church, keep them away from kids. It's distressing how often they fail to do so.

 

So my OTT reaction is to burn down institutions. Raping the perpetrators in prison doesn't provide me with much catharsis.

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, Cosmic said:

Do you have a link to the things you thought were over the top? I tried reading what I could find that the judge said, but I haven't run across anything rapey. Without knowing exactly what was said by the judge, it was very obvious that Nassar still doesn't "get it". In the context that he submitted a letter to the court last week sometime where he said that his accusers were just seeking attention, he deserved a stern talking to.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/24/judge-larry-nassar-trial-incredible-quotes-victims-and-their-abuser/1061691001/

Quote

"Our Constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. If it did, I have to say, I might allow what he did to all of these beautiful souls, these young women in their childhood, I would allow some or many people to do to him what he did to others."

 

What this amounts to is "you are a rapist, so if it were legal, I would make you get raped," but the counterfactual here isn't counterfactual at all, because it's the world's worst secret that as a judge in the United States, sentencing someone to prison -- at least gen-pop -- is sentencing someone to rape. If you're against rape, you also have to be against it as the de facto retributive measure it functions as in our country, don't you?

 

And yeah, Nassar has been desperate and pathetic, and should have been made to hear from any victim who wished to speak. I still don't think an American judge should be tiptoeing that close to declaring "you gon get raped." And I know she's not the first nor last judge to be such a moth, but in the wake of everything everyone else had to say, I wish she hadn't tried to get herself over the way she did.

[dfwabel]

Lou Anne Simon resigned as MSU President tonight.

 

https://cabs.msu.edu/news/key-issues/issue-docs/simon-resigns.html

[Cosmic]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/24/judge-larry-nassar-trial-incredible-quotes-victims-and-their-abuser/1061691001/

 

What this amounts to is "you are a rapist, so if it were legal, I would make you get raped," but the counterfactual here isn't counterfactual at all, because it's the world's worst secret that as a judge in the United States, sentencing someone to prison -- at least gen-pop -- is sentencing someone to rape. If you're against rape, you also have to be against it as the de facto retributive measure it functions as in our country, don't you?

 

And yeah, Nassar has been desperate and pathetic, and should have been made to hear from any victim who wished to speak. I still don't think an American judge should be tiptoeing that close to declaring "you gon get raped." And I know she's not the first nor last judge to be such a moth, but in the wake of everything everyone else had to say, I wish she hadn't tried to get herself over the way she did.

I only got about halfway to where you did from that passage, but I agree it's at least somewhat questionable.

 

Personally, I think she identified a defendant whose crimes wouldn't be turned into a left/right issue, and went to town from there. The joys of an elected judiciary.

[Gothamite]

4 hours ago, the admiral said:

I think everyone wants to demonstrate that they're on the right side of the line here, which shouldn't even be at issue

 

If so, it could be because so many people are lining up to be on the wrong side of the line. 

[OnWis97]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

If so, it could be because so many people are lining up to be on the wrong side of the line. 

I think the "line" he's referring to is the "pedophile" line; not the enabler line.  I'd love to have a nickel for everyone thumping their chest about how Nasser can go to hell.  OK.  But as I've said, that's not really going out on a limb.  I don't think anyone's lining up to be on the wrong side of that line.

 

5 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Pretty much the point I've made a few times over the years in this thread.

Was your point about Sandusky or Penn State? I tend to think the latter because I think Sandusky's evil has pretty much been accepted without saying.

 

So, there's definitely been some one-upsmanship about burning Penn State down and peeing on the ashes.  It's a bit hyperbolic.  And there are a lot of people on the wrong side of that line.  When I make the mistake of reading online comments on the Nasser thing, I pretty much get 1) Burn in hell, Larry, 2) Oh the things that'll happen to him in prison, and 3) Penn State fans coming on to defend Penn State.  I am really struggling with what I view (unpopularly away from this board) as a soft punishment, the attitude from folks in the Valley, and the vindication they felt when the NCAA pulled back on its punishments.  But I'm not planning a trip to pee on the ashes.

 

I thought PSU needed the death penalty and if the world was a better place, it would be in the middle of a self-imposed football hiatus right now.  I've said it several times here, but I feel like there's a cultural issue that can't be improved by removing a few bad seeds.  So it brings up the question of what ought to be done with USA Gymnastics and Michigan State.  Both were probably more complicit in what happened than PSU was.  So should then entire MSU athletic department be shut down?  Should USA gymnastics be shut down?  I was outraged that the primary focus during the PSU fiasco was on being fair to the current players.  But they had options.  Someone who has spent their whole life working on this life-sucking sport can no longer compete internationally?  Is there a way that they can compete and a brand new, from scratch organization operates?  As for MSU...I don't know what to think.  I guess if I thought shutting down the entire athletic department would help with the culture of enabling, I'd be all for it.  The PSU situation was clear (or at least I thought it was): It was a football issue.  It was about winning football games and protecting the reputation of the beloved program.  Or maybe not.  Maybe it's simpler; people just don't want to get involved.

 

The attention here is a bit less, certainly at MSU.  This is probably because there is no Paterno-like figure to capture headlines.  But it's starting to look like both organizations were even more corrupt than Penn State.  I'll give MSU fans a little credit.  Anecdotally, I think I see more of them mortified that this went on and fewer defending it to the end.  Of course, this is probably in part because they don't have a Paternoesque legacy at stake.

 

 

 

[BBTV]

8 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Was your point about Sandusky or Penn State? I tend to think the latter because I think Sandusky's evil has pretty much been accepted without saying.

 

Penn State, and the current players, students, and everyone else (delusional as many may be).  It's just a comical contest of who can be more outraged and come up with a harsher penalty.  I agree with death penalty, removing the statue, and pretty much the harshest of penalties, but every time something (that we already knew!) comes out, people get a smile on their face to come here and say "burn it down!!!" and then there's people that are like "hey, I want to be in the cool guy club too!" and come here and be like "hehe yeah, burn it down and kill them all!" (note - I don't recall anyone actually saing "kill them all", just exaggerating to make the point.)

 

Of course everyone hates Sandusky and Nasser and what they did.  Of course everyone wants the enablers to be punished as severely as possible.  Of course everyone (well, most) want the institutions to be punished in a way that sets an example - i.e. death penalty, temporary program suspension, etc.  We get it.

 

Note - as I've said many times before, while I'm from PA, I have no affiliation or feelings toward Penn State.

[BBTV]

I saw a little bit of the judge's sentencing yesterday.  She absolutely seems like someone who's trying to get attention for herself and maybe become a star and get a TV show.  She bragged to him about how she "just signed your death warrant" by giving him the sentence that she did, and prompted him to speak (almost taunting him) during parts of it.  Seemed really unprofessional to me.

[OnWis97]

On 1/25/2018 at 7:36 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

 

 

Of course everyone hates Sandusky and Nasser and what they did.  Of course everyone wants the enablers to be punished as severely as possible.  Of course everyone (well, most) want the institutions to be punished in a way that sets an example - i.e. death penalty, temporary program suspension, etc.  We get it.

I don’t know about this.  Your first “of course” is right.  The second one?  I’m not sure.  The third?  No way.  I feel like very few people really think organizations should pay, beyond getting rid of the enablers.  Away from this board, I didn’t see much interest in punishing Penn State.

[BBTV]

3 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I don’t know about this.  Your first “of course” is right.  The second one?  I’m not sure.  The third?  No way.  I feel like very few people really think organizations should pay, beyond getting rid of the enablers.  Away from this board, I didn’t see much interest in punishing a Penny State.

 

My experience is that only the Penn State community (and not even 100%) is the ones that don't feel that Penn State got off too easy.

[IceCap]

6 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

but every time something (that we already knew!) comes out, people get a smile on their face to come here and say "burn it down!!!" and then there's people that are like "hey, I want to be in the cool guy club too!" and come here and be like "hehe yeah, burn it down and kill them all!" (note - I don't recall anyone actually saing "kill them all", just exaggerating to make the point.)

As someone who’s said “burn it down” I feel the need to say I don’t actually think anything about PSU should be “burnt down.” It’s called hyperbole  

I dare say no one else seriously advocated arson either. 

 

Anyway to your larger point of people wanting to be in “the cool club”? It was G-ddamn institutionalised protection of a sexual predator. If there’s one thing I’m ok with dog-piling on against? It’s institutionalised child rape. Well two things. That and neo-Nazis.  

[The_Admiral]

4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Penn State, and the current players, students, and everyone else (delusional as many may be).  It's just a comical contest of who can be more outraged and come up with a harsher penalty.  I agree with death penalty, removing the statue, and pretty much the harshest of penalties, but every time something (that we already knew!) comes out, people get a smile on their face to come here and say "burn it down!!!" and then there's people that are like "hey, I want to be in the cool guy club too!" and come here and be like "hehe yeah, burn it down and kill them all!" (note - I don't recall anyone actually saing "kill them all", just exaggerating to make the point.)

 

I think I've been consistent through all 140 pages of this thread that the football program should have been shut down for at least a year.

[kroywen]

4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I saw a little bit of the judge's sentencing yesterday.  She absolutely seems like someone who's trying to get attention for herself and maybe become a star and get a TV show.  She bragged to him about how she "just signed your death warrant" by giving him the sentence that she did, and prompted him to speak (almost taunting him) during parts of it.  Seemed really unprofessional to me.

 

Honestly, for all the talk online about how 'great' this judge is, I haven't been impressed at all. She's definitely a grandstander, and said a few things from the bench that were definitely not kosher legally (such as the "I just signed your death warrant" statement and prison rape allusion). Also thought she had a really weird way of speaking and phrasing things (like when she told Aly Raisman "you are the new state of the art").

 

Nassar's lawyers would definitely be able to make the argument that she was not an impartial arbiter, based on many of the statements she made from the bench. I get that she wanted to be a significant voice against sexual assualt, but that wasn't her job as a judge (at least not until handing down the sentence, and even then, you can't give the defense ammunition for an appeal).

 

The fact that an elected judge could preside over a criminal trial is just mindblowing to me though.

[OnWis97]

 

23 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

Honestly, for all the talk online about how 'great' this judge is, I haven't been impressed at all. She's definitely a grandstander, and said a few things from the bench that were definitely not kosher legally (such as the "I just signed your death warrant" statement and prison rape allusion). Also thought she had a really weird way of speaking and phrasing things (like when she told Aly Raisman "you are the new state of the art").

 

Nassar's lawyers would definitely be able to make the argument that she was not an impartial arbiter, based on many of the statements she made from the bench. I get that she wanted to be a significant voice against sexual assualt, but that wasn't her job as a judge (at least not until handing down the sentence, and even then, you can't give the defense ammunition for an appeal).

 

The fact that an elected judge could preside over a criminal trial is just mindblowing to me though.

I'm not a fan of the grandstanding either.  She's saying what a lot of people are thinking, but she's supposed to sit at the bench with a lot less passion.  Her role is not taunt but to be emotionally detached and to be impartial.  The fact that her opinions are popular doesn't make it any better.  It's not professional.

 

(First Bold) I've also wondered whether she's flirting with a mistrial or something.  I don't think Nasser really wants that; he'd probably have to go through the whole process again.  But she knows better than to give them ammunition.  She's human and she has feelings about him and what he did.  But she knows more than anyone that in law, you have to treat everyone fairly regardless of what they did or what they're accused of.  

 

(Second Bold) I never thought of that.  Is she grandstanding for votes?  Electing judges does open us up to this kind of thing.

 

[MJWalker45]

34 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

Honestly, for all the talk online about how 'great' this judge is, I haven't been impressed at all. She's definitely a grandstander, and said a few things from the bench that were definitely not kosher legally (such as the "I just signed your death warrant" statement and prison rape allusion). Also thought she had a really weird way of speaking and phrasing things (like when she told Aly Raisman "you are the new state of the art").

 

Nassar's lawyers would definitely be able to make the argument that she was not an impartial arbiter, based on many of the statements she made from the bench. I get that she wanted to be a significant voice against sexual assualt, but that wasn't her job as a judge (at least not until handing down the sentence, and even then, you can't give the defense ammunition for an appeal).

 

The fact that an elected judge could preside over a criminal trial is just mindblowing to me though.

Aren't most judges elected? In Ohio an elected judge would be handling these types of cases, probably just not on such as large a scale. 

[IceCap]

42 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Aren't most judges elected? In Ohio an elected judge would be handling these types of cases, probably just not on such as large a scale. 

Not in Canada. 

Amercia’s elected judiciary is something that’s always baffled me. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Some people in my circles said there's no way a male judge would have forced Nassar to listen to all of that victim testimony. Maybe that's true; maybe not. But it's good that it happened. And also that she dismissed his request to not listen to it. I take the good with the bad.

[OnWis97]

50 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

Some people in my circles said there's no way a male judge would have forced Nassar to listen to all of that victim testimony. Maybe that's true; maybe not. But it's good that it happened. And also that she dismissed his request to not listen to it. I take the good with the bad.

I agree that it's good that she made him listen.  But I still think was was unprofessional in much of what she said.

 

Would a male judge have done that?  Some would, but maybe a higher proportion of females would.

[DEAD!]

While I think it's a little grandstanding, the judge's actions are nowhere near as unprofessional as a mature adult exploiting and abusing young women.

[Cosmic]

He pled guilty, so I don't think there's as much risk of a mistrial-like thing happening as some of you guys do. He did try to withdraw his plea at one point, so that could be an issue, but...

 

- He's already sentenced to 60 years for child porn.

- No jury would ever let him off if he did get a trial on this.

- Even if he got the most impartial judge in the world, he has a parade of witnesses ready to testify against him.