Jump to content

Man admits he raped toddler, yet walks free


Sander

Recommended Posts

 

So this happened. Plea deal, 10 years probation, not forced to register into the sex offenders list. They had all the proof that he did it, and yet, he walks scot-free. I don't generally wish death / suffering onto others, but he raped a 2 year old without any and got away with it, so I really do hope some vigilante happens across his path, because scum like him doesn't deserve to be free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally feel like you can't wish death on someone without being willing to pull the trigger yourself. That said, I'm pretty sure a good number of people would do it and he's not gonna be walking around for very long. What bothers me is that plea deals like this are even possible. That's just funked up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this guy walks free with what amounts to 0 consequences, but guys with an ounce of weed get multiple years behind bars. this is not how the law should operate.

 

i might not be willing to pull the trigger on him, but i would definitely beat the hell out of him on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this guy walks free with what amounts to 0 consequences, but guys with an ounce of weed get multiple years behind bars. this is not how the law should operate

Actually, judges in drug repeated affairs don't actually have a choice on sentencing, due to a little something called Mandatory Minimums. As you might have guessed, these are a set of mandatory minimum sentences for drug related crimes of varying natures. They were implemented during the Regan administration during the massive anti-drug movement in the 80s, and were intentionally harsh as a scare tactic to stop minor drug crimes. Unfortunately, the hype surrounding that movement has dissipated, and so now everyday people who commit such crimes are not threatened by the harsh punishment as they think they can get away with it, only for their entire lives to fall apart.

 

Mandatory Minimums offer extremely harsh sentences, with 0 chance of plea deals, bail, and usually parrol. Many judges in the US are now speaking out against them, since it's completely unfair and leaves no room for circumstance. Currently I believe our Congress is working to remove them, but who knows what they will even accomplish nowadays. It will probable get killed in the senate after some bullshit rider gets slapped on there like every other reasonable piece of legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, I do want to point out that he didn't actually get away Scott free. 10 years probation can be just as bad as 10 years in prison, depending on how strick the probation. Additionally, the fact that a plea deal was struck means that this man at the very least had thought about fighting for a not guilty verdict. Which means he initially thought they didn't actually have enough evidence, or that maybe he really believes he didn't do it. In order to not drag this out, the prosecution let he know that with the evidence on hand he was almost certainly guilty, and if he just pleaded such that he would get a lighter sentence. However I have not investigated this matter further. What did they actually have on this guy? Did they actually have decisive evidence? Was that trial really hopeless? And the biggest question of all: Did he really do it? Think about it. If you were in this situation, fought it out, and were pronounced guilty even if you didn't commit the crime, you would almost certainly get 20+ years in prison MINIMUM. Now the prosecution says this trial is over before it even starts, but if you just plead guilty your life won't be OVER, just RUINED. If you thought you were innocent, what would you do? Would you risk everything? Or would you take the safe path presented towards you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how mandatory minimums aren't a thing for raping a toddler though.

I don't think you know how this works. Mandatory minimums only apply if a person is actually convicted. This guy was not. Maybe prosecution just didn't know if they had enough, maybe it was something else, I don't know.

 

Point is, they did a Plea Bargain, it's a deal, a compromise of sorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, judges in drug repeated affairs don't actually have a choice on sentencing, due to a little something called Mandatory Minimums. As you might have guessed, these are a set of mandatory minimum sentences for drug related crimes of varying natures. They were implemented during the Regan administration during the massive anti-drug movement in the 80s, and were intentionally harsh as a scare tactic to stop minor drug crimes. Unfortunately, the hype surrounding that movement has dissipated, and so now everyday people who commit such crimes are not threatened by the harsh punishment as they think they can get away with it, only for their entire lives to fall apart.

 

Mandatory Minimums offer extremely harsh sentences, with 0 chance of plea deals, bail, and usually parrol. Many judges in the US are now speaking out against them, since it's completely unfair and leaves no room for circumstance. Currently I believe our Congress is working to remove them, but who knows what they will even accomplish nowadays. It will probable get killed in the senate after some bullshit rider gets slapped on there like every other reasonable piece of legislation.

 

this still doesn't sit right with me. but you're right, i don't have all the details, so looking up more on the case would be the best first step, but seeing as most of the convicting evidence is DNA AND witness based, then that's a heavy blow to his credibility then and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you know how this works. Mandatory minimums only apply if a person is actually convicted. This guy was not. Maybe prosecution just didn't know if they had enough, maybe it was something else, I don't know.

Point is, they did a Plea Bargain, it's a deal, a compromise of sorts.

Indeed, however any case that is categorized as a felony to be judged under a Mandatory Minimum must be resolved in court, without possibility of plea bargain. Otherwise judges and prosecutors against the minimums would simply carry out the sentence they feel comfortable with with a plea bargain and minimus wouldn't even be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...