Judge sets aside rape charges so ex-athlete can "enjoy a college experience" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50934583]You're making some ugly and unfair assumptions right now. My problem is with the disgustingly prevalent trend of [B][U]hostility[/U][/B] towards women making rape claims, not of skepticism towards certain rape claims on a case-by-case basis.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I don't think I phrased it right, I was suggesting that you do want healthy skepticism, but the public can only ever seem to muster extreme hostility for either the victim or the suspect when it comes to crime. I am agreeing the trend is bad, but pointing out that the trend generally holds true for crime because healthy skepticism is difficult at a population level.

[QUOTE=GunFox;50934599]Sorry, I don't think I phrased it right, I was suggesting that you do want healthy skepticism, but the public can only ever seem to muster extreme hostility for either the victim or the suspect when it comes to crime.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's a fair enough point. It definitely goes both ways, and I agree that public crucifixions of either party are inappropriate where evidence doesn't exist to verify claims one way or another.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50934613]Yeah, that's a fair enough point. It definitely goes both ways, and I agree that public crucifixions of either party are inappropriate where evidence doesn't exist to verify claims one way or another.[/QUOTE] Court of public opinion is quick on the draw, unfortunately.

[QUOTE=GunFox;50934619]Court of public opinion is quick on the draw, unfortunately.[/QUOTE] At least in this case, things are pretty clearcut. He molested at least one of those girls while they were unconscious, and admitted to it.

[QUOTE=GunFox;50934564]As opposed to automatically assuming they are telling the truth? Meanwhile the courts have to assume they are lying because they need physical evidence in order to act.[/QUOTE] courts don't have to assume the accuser is lying, that's ridiculous. cases would be inherently biased against the accuser if that was true, and not just concerning rape claims. the only thing they have to assume is that everyone is innocent before proven otherwise.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50934640]courts don't have to assume the accuser is lying, that's ridiculous. cases would be inherently biased against the accuser if that was true, and not just concerning rape claims. the only thing they have to assume is that everyone is innocent before proven otherwise.[/QUOTE] He's not talking about courts, he's talking about the public.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50934640]courts don't have to assume the accuser is lying, that's ridiculous. cases would be inherently biased against the accuser if that was true, and not just concerning rape claims. the only thing they have to assume is that everyone is innocent before proven otherwise.[/QUOTE] Cases are inherently biased against he accuser. The US places the burden of proof on the accuser (for criminal courts, that would always mean the state, not the victim). Testimony is helpful, but physical evidence is necessary.

I am both outraged [I]and[/I] offended!

[QUOTE=Sableye;50934357] never get a job, [/QUOTE] Absolutely false. This town has three registered offenders and all three have jobs.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50934663]He's not talking about courts, he's talking about the public.[/QUOTE] I do mean the courts. I don't mean it quite to the extent that he thinks though. It just means that without physical evidence to corroborate claims, the courts have to assume the accusation is unjustified and dismiss a case.

[QUOTE=GunFox;50934667]Cases are inherently biased against he accuser. The US places the burden of proof on the accuser (for criminal courts, that would always mean the state, not the victim). Testimony is helpful, but physical evidence is necessary.[/QUOTE] yeah but that's still not the same as assuming they're lying. it's like the distinction between 'not guilty' and 'innocent' [editline]23rd August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;50934673]It just means that without physical evidence to corroborate claims, the courts have to assume the accusation is unjustified and dismiss a case.[/QUOTE] yeah i think you know what i mean. i don't know if i'm just arguing semantics, but i think the difference is important

[QUOTE=27X;50934669]Absolutely false. This town has three registered offenders and all three have jobs.[/QUOTE] I work with sex offenders as part of my job. It is extremely difficult for them to find employment that pays the bills. So no, not false. [editline]23rd August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50934674]yeah but that's still not the same as assuming they're lying. it's the distinction between 'not guilty' and 'innocent' [editline]23rd August 2016[/editline] yeah i think you know what i mean. i don't know if i'm just arguing semantics, but i think the difference is important[/QUOTE] Yeah, you are right, it is poorly phrased on my part. Sorry about that.

difficult case on the one hand, there is the moral imperative that he should be punished for committing a crime, but on the other hand, there's the utilitarian viewpoint that throwing him on the registry basically creates a latent criminal, and that giving him probation avoids suffering later on

Tbh, this probably is the most reasonable thing to do. I think I'm still a little not happy about it because of the juxtaposition between this and really tiny victimless crimes that the justice system will happily ruin your life over.

I'm disappointed with this judge's decision. The sex offenders' registry requires some gradation, but this guy was actually caught molesting one of the victims. It's perhaps laudable that one of the victims doesn't want him to be punished, but the fact still remains that, under the influence or not, he still raped somebody. I also find it laughable that they put it down that because he happens to be an athlete, he's somehow supposed to be treated differently to ordinary people. He did community service, I assume, as part of his punishment, so that doesn't count. I can understand the opinion that his life will now be permanently ruined now that he's a convicted sex offender, but again, why should anybody who winds up "committing a mistake" end up getting a free pass because of their age? I'm a very firm believer that you have to live with the consequences of your actions, and for anything to happen otherwise is a slap in the face of the victims. On the flip side, falsely accusing somebody of rape as a means to an end is also extremely scummy, considering that the court of public opinion will permanently stigmatize somebody accused of rape, and might even enact vigilante justice on them in extreme cases. However, the definition of a false accusation itself, barring cases where it was shown that the accuser has admitted to their fabrication, has sometimes been confused by including cases where the victim retracted their statement as being false, or have withdrawn their accusations for other reasons. Lack of admissible evidence has also been used many times as a bias towards false accusation. Many officers also have a bias towards their expectation on how a victim of rape is supposed to behave, or might be unjustly sceptical themselves. Bias due to an officer's personal judgment on a situation can be as problematic as improperly conducted investigations. The part of his defense where he claimed the other victim did nothing to stop him is what rubs me wrong the biggest way in this instance, and the tipping point where I say that he shouldn't have been left off.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50934357]i completely agree with you but at the same time being a registered sex offender is basically a slow death sentence for someone as young as him since he will never get into a college, never get a job, cant live anywhere without informing police and thats the start.[/QUOTE] He should have thought about that before raping someone. Perhaps the (sex offender) system is on the harsh side, but that isn't an excuse to let people get away punishment free

[QUOTE=Psychopath12;50934475]16 is still old enough to understand the repercussions of your actions. Either way you took things out of context, that 2-year mark would be hit in 2018, the guy was 17 when it happened.[/quote] You're right, I messed up. [QUOTE=Psychopath12;50934475]That doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions.[/quote] See my previous post. Mass case law demonstrates that it's actually very important, and I think so too. [QUOTE=Psychopath12;50934475]What about the other victim? Why does only 1 of them get a final say in that? Hell, he only apologized to one of them after the assault and "thought that what he did to the other victim was fine because she did not stop him." That's really dangerous.[/quote] It is, yeah. However, you have to consider that he may have still been drunk. As far as I can tell, that's what his line of thought was during the offense. Being intoxicated can severely affect decision-making and cannot be ignored. [QUOTE=Psychopath12;50934475]This part I am fine with. But the conditions of the probation seem lenient.[/QUOTE] Indeed. I myself would have been fine with a longer probation (6+ years?) and perhaps a year or two of jail sprinkled in. [QUOTE=axelord157;50934471]1.) Age isn't an excuse for sexual assault.[/quote] I could have made a case on the fact that, as someone below the age of consent in Massachusetts, the defense could have argued that he did not understand the ramifications and etc of his actions. That kind of went out the window thanks to my misreading of the article and Mass age of consent being 16, not 18. Whoops! [QUOTE=axelord157;50934471]2.) Being drunk isn't an excuse for getting/performing sexual assualt[/quote]Okay, let's say you and a woman you are about to sleep with are both incredibly wasted. Is this rape? Why or why not? After all, she's drunk, and you yourself say it's no excuse for performing sexual assault. [QUOTE=axelord157;50934471]3.) That would be an unwise decison all around.[/quote]Though unwise it may be, the sad reality is that such a statement is probably one of the reasons why the judge set the perpetrator's sentence so low. [QUOTE=axelord157;50934471]4.) Don't you find it weird how easy a proven rapist is getting a second chance?[/QUOTE] The thing I find weird is the fervor in which you believe this person should be given no second chance at all, that there is absolutely zero possibility that he knows he made a mistake (and not in the "sorry for getting caught" kind of way). That you are so quick to jump to outrage rather than give calm, measured thought to the circumstances and considerations that lead up to this second chance. That, rather than think of this as a person who made a big, bad error in judgement and [B]yelling for the judge to be dismissed for being too soft,[/B] you instead think of the felon as a a monster with no emotions except for the lust to dominate others in the most depraved, disgusting way imaginable. THAT's what I find weird. [QUOTE=axelord157;50934501]Don't you know? You're pushing an agenda right now. What is that agenda? Why are you pushing that agenda, BDA!?[/QUOTE] Ah, okay. You want to be that way, Axe "Gets hard from the death of 3 women" Lord? You too are definitely a culprit of what was my original point: that key information is left out of the OP for the sake of outrage. We need only look to your thread history to find examples. For example, [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1530436]Man shot to death by L.A. County deputy was not a carjacking suspect, officials say[/url]. Clicking through to the sources show very critical pieces of information being left out. Or, how about [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1528246]Black Man Playing 'Pokémon Go' Was Surrounded by Iowa City Officers With Guns Aimed at Him[/url]? Your title and included quotes suggest that he was soloed out because he was black and walking near a bank that was recently robbed. Never mind the fact that he matched the suspect's description very closely (being 6'3" and 290 pounds is not exactly common in the streets of new york) and it was just scant minutes since the call went out, nor the fact that he even said they did the right thing or anything.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;50934851]You're right, I messed up. See my previous post. Mass case law demonstrates that it's actually very important, and I think so too. It is, yeah. However, you have to consider that he may have still been drunk. As far as I can tell, that's what his line of thought was during the offense. Being intoxicated can severely affect decision-making and cannot be ignored. Indeed. I myself would have been fine with a longer probation (6+ years?) and perhaps a year or two of jail sprinkled in. I could have made a case on the fact that, as someone below the age of consent in Massachusetts, the defense could have argued that he did not understand the ramifications and etc of his actions. That kind of went out the window thanks to my misreading of the article and Mass age of consent being 16, not 18. Whoops! Okay, let's say you and a woman you are about to sleep with are both incredibly wasted. Is this rape? Why or why not? After all, she's drunk, and you yourself say it's no excuse for performing sexual assault. Though unwise it may be, the sad reality is that such a statement is probably one of the reasons why the judge set the perpetrator's sentence so low. The thing I find weird is the fervor in which you believe this person should be given no second chance at all, that there is absolutely zero possibility that he knows he made a mistake (and not in the "sorry for getting caught" kind of way). That you are so quick to jump to outrage rather than give calm, measured thought to the circumstances and considerations that lead up to this second chance. That, rather than think of this as a person who made a big, bad error in judgement and [B]yelling for the judge to be dismissed for being too soft,[/B] you instead think of the felon as a a monster with no emotions except for the lust to dominate others in the most depraved, disgusting way imaginable. THAT's what I find weird. Ah, okay. You want to be that way, Axe "Gets hard from the death of 3 women" Lord? You too are definitely a culprit of what was my original point: that key information is left out of the OP for the sake of outrage. We need only look to your thread history to find examples. For example, [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1530436]Man shot to death by L.A. County deputy was not a carjacking suspect, officials say[/url]. Clicking through to the sources show very critical pieces of information being left out. Or, how about [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1528246]Black Man Playing 'Pokémon Go' Was Surrounded by Iowa City Officers With Guns Aimed at Him[/url]? Your title and included quotes suggest that he was soloed out because he was black and walking near a bank that was recently robbed. Never mind the fact that he matched the suspect's description very closely (being 6'3" and 290 pounds is not exactly common in the streets of new york) and it was just scant minutes since the call went out, nor the fact that he even said they did the right thing or anything.[/QUOTE] All I'm seeing there is a bunch of excuses. He was an age where he should know better. Being drunk doesn't excuse his behaviour. Both consenting parties being drunk is a legally gray area. This isn't a case of that, why are you making that argument? The victims didn't consent. Please do everyone a favour and step back and think about your posts. Save your defences for someone who might not be a rapist.

[QUOTE=GunFox;50934564]As opposed to what? The low reports of rape stems from a variety of effectively unavoidable problems. 1.) The only time you could even POSSIBLY obtain physical evidence of sexual assault, would be in the hours immediately following the assault. This requires the victim basically go get sexually assaulted again with a rape kit. It also requires that the victim even realizes the problem within about three days to even have a hope of recovering any viable evidence. 2.) With very few exceptions, sexual assault is one of the few crimes that, barring physical assault, looks identical to perfectly normal human activity in every fashion. Even with a rape kit, you still have to jump the barrier of proving that the sex wasn't consensual. As far as the state is concerned, this is likely the smarter move. A deferred sentence keeps his life from being ruined, which is what happens to sex offenders. He goes from a shitlord who probably made a mistake, to a permanent pariah. His life is over completely. What do depressed people with no options to succeed in life do? They commit crime. Or kill themselves. Pretty sure the courts are there to prevent further tragedy. Meanwhile one of the victims specifically requested that he NOT go to jail. [/QUOTE] Not opposed to anything? I said shit like this happens, not that only exclusively shit like this happens. Regardless of the intent behind the court decision, the fact of the matter is, the media and general public paints it in a light that essentially announces that "rapists can get away with it", regardless of the reasoning that lead up to that conclusion.

Well his name's out there and I imagine people aren't going to be too pleased about seeing him back at college. Anything could happen.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;50934851]You're right, I messed up. See my previous post. Mass case law demonstrates that it's actually very important, and I think so too. It is, yeah. However, you have to consider that he may have still been drunk. As far as I can tell, that's what his line of thought was during the offense. Being intoxicated can severely affect decision-making and cannot be ignored. Indeed. I myself would have been fine with a longer probation (6+ years?) and perhaps a year or two of jail sprinkled in. I could have made a case on the fact that, as someone below the age of consent in Massachusetts, the defense could have argued that he did not understand the ramifications and etc of his actions. That kind of went out the window thanks to my misreading of the article and Mass age of consent being 16, not 18. Whoops! Okay, let's say you and a woman you are about to sleep with are both incredibly wasted. Is this rape? Why or why not? After all, she's drunk, and you yourself say it's no excuse for performing sexual assault. Though unwise it may be, the sad reality is that such a statement is probably one of the reasons why the judge set the perpetrator's sentence so low. The thing I find weird is the fervor in which you believe this person should be given no second chance at all, that there is absolutely zero possibility that he knows he made a mistake (and not in the "sorry for getting caught" kind of way). That you are so quick to jump to outrage rather than give calm, measured thought to the circumstances and considerations that lead up to this second chance. That, rather than think of this as a person who made a big, bad error in judgement and [B]yelling for the judge to be dismissed for being too soft,[/B] you instead think of the felon as a a monster with no emotions except for the lust to dominate others in the most depraved, disgusting way imaginable. THAT's what I find weird. Ah, okay. You want to be that way, Axe "Gets hard from the death of 3 women" Lord? You too are definitely a culprit of what was my original point: that key information is left out of the OP for the sake of outrage. We need only look to your thread history to find examples. For example, [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1530436]Man shot to death by L.A. County deputy was not a carjacking suspect, officials say[/url]. Clicking through to the sources show very critical pieces of information being left out. Or, how about [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1528246]Black Man Playing 'Pokémon Go' Was Surrounded by Iowa City Officers With Guns Aimed at Him[/url]? Your title and included quotes suggest that he was soloed out because he was black and walking near a bank that was recently robbed. Never mind the fact that he matched the suspect's description very closely (being 6'3" and 290 pounds is not exactly common in the streets of new york) and it was just scant minutes since the call went out, nor the fact that he even said they did the right thing or anything.[/QUOTE] You keep taking about cases of both parties brig drunk, or how he was drunk, but seem to be avoiding that the second girl was straight up unconscious.

I think the judge might have done wrong here, but I think there's nuance in issues like this as unpopular as that opinion is. The guy, as far as we can tell, did wrong and deserves some form of sentence for that, but the judge's logic makes sense. This is a mistake that will follow him for the rest of his life so why utterly destroy his future when that'll just turn him into a worse criminal down the line chances are? But then it feels scummy he gets away with it with minimal punishment. I think he should have to suffer jail time, but the term "sexual offender" or the sex offender list need to be changed in some regards to be more useful rather than just as a list of societies most unwanted.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;50934851]You're right, I messed up. See my previous post. Mass case law demonstrates that it's actually very important, and I think so too. It is, yeah. However, you have to consider that he may have still been drunk. As far as I can tell, that's what his line of thought was during the offense. Being intoxicated can severely affect decision-making and cannot be ignored. Indeed. I myself would have been fine with a longer probation (6+ years?) and perhaps a year or two of jail sprinkled in. I could have made a case on the fact that, as someone below the age of consent in Massachusetts, the defense could have argued that he did not understand the ramifications and etc of his actions. That kind of went out the window thanks to my misreading of the article and Mass age of consent being 16, not 18. Whoops! Okay, let's say you and a woman you are about to sleep with are both incredibly wasted. Is this rape? Why or why not? After all, she's drunk, and you yourself say it's no excuse for performing sexual assault. Though unwise it may be, the sad reality is that such a statement is probably one of the reasons why the judge set the perpetrator's sentence so low. The thing I find weird is the fervor in which you believe this person should be given no second chance at all, that there is absolutely zero possibility that he knows he made a mistake (and not in the "sorry for getting caught" kind of way). That you are so quick to jump to outrage rather than give calm, measured thought to the circumstances and considerations that lead up to this second chance. That, rather than think of this as a person who made a big, bad error in judgement and [B]yelling for the judge to be dismissed for being too soft,[/B] you instead think of the felon as a a monster with no emotions except for the lust to dominate others in the most depraved, disgusting way imaginable. THAT's what I find weird. Ah, okay. You want to be that way, Axe "Gets hard from the death of 3 women" Lord? You too are definitely a culprit of what was my original point: that key information is left out of the OP for the sake of outrage. We need only look to your thread history to find examples. For example, [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1530436]Man shot to death by L.A. County deputy was not a carjacking suspect, officials say[/url]. Clicking through to the sources show very critical pieces of information being left out. Or, how about [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1528246]Black Man Playing 'Pokémon Go' Was Surrounded by Iowa City Officers With Guns Aimed at Him[/url]? Your title and included quotes suggest that he was soloed out because he was black and walking near a bank that was recently robbed. Never mind the fact that he matched the suspect's description very closely (being 6'3" and 290 pounds is not exactly common in the streets of new york) and it was just scant minutes since the call went out, nor the fact that he even said they did the right thing or anything.[/QUOTE] You yourself seem to be glossing over the important details like the 2nd victim being actually unconscious. You picked such an awful hill to die on. Take the hypotheticals out of your mouth when we have an actual, tangible case. By the way, I said, "my dick is hard," and was 2 women, thank you very much.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50934319]And people wonder why more people don't report rape or sexual assault. Because shit like this happens, so why bother?[/QUOTE] I think we should not pass judgment until we know the nature of the "assault". He touched one of the girls which his finger, and the girl did not seem to mind. This could be anything from fingering her to just poking her butt. The second one should certainly not destroy an 18 year old life if you ask me. It's not like they where random girls he didn't know either.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50934357]i completely agree with you but at the same time being a registered sex offender is basically a slow death sentence for someone as young as him since he will never get into a college, never get a job, cant live anywhere without informing police and thats the start.[/QUOTE] maybe don't rape someone and you won't be marked as a sex offender? it's quite literally that simple

When people complain about all those stories that seem to be like men are being discriminated against on campus or something, this is why it happens.

[QUOTE=J!NX;50935275]maybe don't rape someone and you won't be marked as a sex offender? it's quite literally that simple[/QUOTE] Rape might be the wrong word here. Rape indicates penetration, (look up the defenition). The judge called it sexual assault consisting of him touching one of the girls with his finger. So he probably didn't rape anybody.

[QUOTE=axelord157;50934471]1.) Age isn't an excuse for sexual assault. 2.) Being drunk isn't an excuse for getting/performing sexual assualt 3.) That would be an unwise decison all around. 4.) Don't you find it weird how easy a proven rapist is getting a second chance?[/QUOTE] i feel like there's some sort of fundamental ignorance of the human mind and how much of a mixing pot of emotions it can be sometimes, specifically when drinking, in this thread. like im not saying he should not be in trouble, i absolutely agree, and i agree that it's a very severe crime and should be handled as such, but people CAN make mistakes. Sure this mistake is a very serious one, but it is totally possible and i can see exactly the thought process this guy might have had. I just wish people treated the subjects of this shit more like humans in these threads, it's always a shitshow.

[QUOTE=taipan;50935237]I think we should not pass judgment until we know the nature of the "assault". He touched one of the girls which his finger, and the girl did not seem to mind. This could be anything from fingering her to just poking her butt. The second one should certainly not destroy an 18 year old life if you ask me. [B]It's not like they where random girls he didn't know either.[/B][/QUOTE] Rape is most commonly commited by someone who knows the victim.

[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50935322]Rape is most commonly commited by someone who knows the victim.[/QUOTE] I understand where you are coming from. [B]Let my explain my view: [/B] The nature of the relationship with the victim can and in my opinion should influence the severity of the punishment. [B]Example:[/B] A guy who plucks a random women off the street and rapes here in the bushes while she is screaming for him to stop. Should receive a way heavier punishment than this guy. This guy seems to have been close to the girls, as they drunkenly fell asleep together on the bed together. At which point he touched her with his finger. The judge [I]"probably rightfully in my opinion"[/I] recognized this grey area and came to the sentence mentioned in the news post. This is further supported by the fact that, one of the girls also asking for the guy not to be thrown in jail. Meanwhile, people in this thread can only seem to see the extremity's of the case: IF > VERDICT == "ANYTHING SEXUAL"( VICTIM == "SCREWED FOR LIFE");