793
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
793 points (97.7% liked)
News
23664 readers
3589 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He's also an old friend.
I don't believe in guilt by association. Asking for leniency for an old friend to a judge, and he didn't get it, doesn't make them monsters or rapists by proxy.
If our culture demands every felon be shunned by their friends and family members going forward, then end the perverse charade and just kill everyone upon a felony conviction.
Masterson did a very bad thing, some friends wrote letters to inform the judge that that isn't all he is and to consider that, not out of malice, but out of compassion.
Man, the internet has absolutely destroyed the concept of nuance. Then again, we only see our "justice," lol, system as a way to turn the screws on bad people... that our society made, btw. Wanton spectator cruelty without the guilt. Not even a hint of attempts at rehabilitation, and just about everyone roots for a parolee's failure to confirm their biases.
Advocating maximum cruelty be inflicted on a perpetrator shouldn't be confused with compassion for the victim. Americans largely ignore that distinction, because it's convenient, easy, and pleasurable to revel in cruelty and call it kindness.
Or... we could accept that Masterson RAPED people, and maybe don't give him any support, regardless of his past actions. We don't need to hold out a hand for the fallen rapist. There are too many people in the world that genuinely need help that wasting even an iota of effort on a rapist is a slap in the face to them, not to mention the people the rapist has harmed. There is no nuance.
Thank you for making my point.
Masterson did RAPE people. Now, do we want to punish him and rehabilitate him, or get our vengeance boner on and beat on him because that hilariously makes our society feel virtuous?
So much for society demonstrating being better than than those that violate its laws. Blood! Blood! More blood! Give us bloooood!
Don't be glib. If it came out that my oldest friend wqs not only a rapist, but also used his fame and religion to silence the victims and avoid prosecution... AND I was involved with an organization with the express purpose of stopping sex abuse... I'd absolutely tell that friend to pound sand.
There were multiple times when I learned that friends of mine were sexually assaulted, some of those times were by people I considered friends. There's zero chance that I'd do anything to "put in a good word" for the rapists I once called friends, because their actions in my company have ZERO baring on how they acted in private.
Tl;Dr: If you're vouching for the upstanding nature of a convicted rapist based on your interactions when he wasn't being a duplicitous rapist... that says more about your ignorance to how terrible that person can be as opposed to the good works you saw from the rapist when they weren't raping. You're also a victim.
Except this isn't about Masterson. This is about Kutcher's support for him. If I have a friend that turns out to be a rapist, that's not a friend. That's someone hiding an important, deal breaking secret. If you've hidden that from me, I'm not going to tell a judge you're an otherwise good person that shouldn't be punished accordingly. If I kept that person as a friend after their rapist nature is revealed, that speaks very poorly on my judgement.
If you really don't believe that these are people that did something wrong, that they should be shunned for the rest of their days by every living being, where's the virtue in even keeping a felon alive? Why don't we just have a door to a firepit in every jury courtroom that opens upon a guilty Verdict? Why pretend to weigh punishment with mercy, but still set them up for failure in every possible way?
Honest question, do we want to be a benevolent society that sees a fallen member, and wants to help them reintegrate after their just punishment, or is mercy as a positive thing in our society as stone dead a concept as greed being a negative thing?
Not writing a letter asking for leniency is not shunning as well as is not vengeance.
I'm not saying that we need to flog the guilty. I'm just saying that we don't need to offer him more help than anyone else would get. Is Kutcher writing letters to every judge involved in a rape case and asking for them to go easy because the perp was a youth pastor? Justice is supposed to be blind. If celebrities, politicians, etc. get special treatment then we aren't working to fix society, we are letting people in power run around doing whatever the fuck they want. Masterson should receive all the help the justice system affords a rapist, but not one bit more, and definitely not because he has celebrity friends writing letters on his behalf.
For just about any other crime I'd tend to agree with the sentiment, but for nearly any other crime I can come up with some hypothetical scenario where that crime is justifiable, where I can comprehend the reasoning behind the act.
I can't come up with any hypothetical where rape or sexual assault is justifiable.
It's never justifiable, agreed, but I disagree that it cannot be understood or that the victimizer deserves special worse punishment or consideration. Before we tested for people on the spectrum, people that legitimately lacked the capacity of impulse control were executed like anyone else. Now courts bicker about how low functioning you have to be for such things.
Some people are born very low functioning and never get diagnosed, or throttle that line, and weren't raised well, etc. Americans in general often refuse to see such nuance in such cases. They prefer to imagine a fair black and white world where every rapist is some evil mastermind when often they aren't in control of themselves any of the time. It's not like our mental healthcare system is robust enough to identify and mitigate those issues for poor kids who need it.
I'm sure there are regular and high functioning rapists, like Weinstein and statutory rapists, but I rarely see a differentiation between those calculated actors and some barely sapient person with sporatic impulse control who really doesn't have the capacity to empathize with their victim or consider the consequences, but squeaked by on the mental competence review. Those are worlds apart imho and should be treated as such.
Im just boggled at the mind at how concerned you are for the mechanics of rapists and how there’s something that makes them rape people and don’t seem to be at all concerned with the effects they have on those they raped.
I see this whole devils advocate thing and like whatever this is internet share your peace, but I just can’t understand how lacking empathy for the people you hurt in any way should lessen the consequences of the impact you cause. Context does not excuse consequences. I’m sure Masterson is sick in the head, you’d have to be to rape someone as maliciously, viciously, and violently as he did. I just hope you’re also out here advocating for more support to the victims who are now also sick from the trauma that was directly caused by this man’s actions.
Sure, let someone who according to you can’t control themselves back on the street and give him a lighter sentence. I’m sure he won’t go out and rape again since his lack of control apparently stops once he’s caught and convicted. We should just wait to see if he does it again and say “ooops, his bad let’s try another 5 years” to his next victim and send her off with hopefully a good ass therapist for the rest of her life since that’s how long the rape is going to affect her.
You talk about society lacking nuance but your nuance seems to extend only to the rapist and his buddies. They were not advocating for him to be rehabilitated. They were asking for him to get less time since “his daughter not having a father” would be an injustice. Sure, he’s been convicted of rape, but the injustice of the law here would be his daughter visiting him in jail where he’s not raping people. Now if Kutcher was like “he’s clearly sick, I hope you find an alternative to prison that helps rehabilitate him so he won’t harm others” I could see your point. That’s not what he said. That’s not what he was asking for. People are angry because it’s enraging to see celebrities and rich people get special treatment. Use each other’s fame to hurt others and escape consequences. Your worry about a lack of nunca is funnily enough so black and white in its arguments, you could say it in and of itself lacks nuance to how complicated the subject and ramifications of rape on a person actually are.
"Internet doesn't understand nuance"
Proceeds to put words in other people's mouths by strawmanning their position
lmao like what are you even talking about?
For rape??? Vengeance. Not some magical rehab for sex offenders
You're the most honest and/or self-aware one of the "string em up" crowd here. Thank you.
You acknowledge where your stance comes from. I respect that, sincerely.
I think through introspection, education, and rehabilitation most criminals can work toward enlightenment and betterment. But sex offenders commit the most heinous of all crimes and deserve no extra consideration. They are blemishes in human evolution and are plagues on decency and humanity. At the absolute very best, they should be locked away from the rest of us
Yeah alright
Well, so I get that asking for leniency for an old buddy sure. However.. the specific crimes he committed and the organization that Ashton works for/runs whatever. That's a bad fucking look. That's a real bad fucking look. Like, that undermines a lot of shit he's done look.
Nobody is saying it makes them monsters or rapists by proxy, it just makes them friends of a rapist who stayed his friend even after it was proven that he raped at least two people, and then asked for him to be treated leniently even though he certainly didn't grant any leniency to the people he raped. And they're free to do that. But disapproving of that isn't guilt by association, that's just them making choices regarding their relationship with a rapist that other people are free to judge and criticize them for.
It doesn't make them rapists by proxy, but it does make them someone who believes the rapist they like should be the exception.
Is it really for an exception? Or just not making it any longer due to additional bad character traits?
My understanding is they look at the range of acceptable punishment, and then use these factors to determine where it should land. Providing a letter explaining his character would serve to put it on the lower end of it. It's not so much an exception as it is just providing evidence for the court to make an informed decision for the range.
He didn't get convicted of rape and being unlikeable. He was convicted of rape. The penalty being assessed is the penalty for rape. Whatever else he may have done, good or bad, he did the rape. He should pay the penalty for the rape that he did. If he collects money for disabled children on Sundays, he shouldn't be punished less, he should pay the penalty for rape. If he's a jerk who gets drunk on weeknights and starts his political opinions with "I'm not racist, but..." he shouldn't be penalized additionally for that. He should be penalized for rape. This thing where we make room for "He's a rapist, but..." is fucking garbage. It reeks of Brock Turner's dad trying to reduce the lifetime of harm his son inflicted on a woman to "10 minutes of action". If a rapist who operates a puppy rescue is less of a rapist than a rapist who does other things we all agree to be unpleasant then it's not about the harm inflicted, it's about how much we all generally like the rapist.
I agree with you in principle. But that isn't how the judicial system works. Usually there's a minimum, which is the actual punishment for the crime. Then there's the maximum which is what they give you if you're a repeat offender or they just generally think you're an extra shitty person.
Given that, someone with otherwise good character is expected to get the minimum, which is the time for the crime without getting extra. In this case that minimum is 30 years.
But yeah, if you want to talk about how shit the judicial system is, I agree. I could go on about plea bargains, penalty ranges, etc being used as tools of oppression.
He's a repeat offender. He was convicted on multiple counts. Strictly speaking, he's not just a rapist, he's a serial rapist.
But I do think we'd agree about plea bargains. They let the guilty off scot free and let the overworked, underfunded judicial system off the hook when it comes to innocent defendants.
They said he was a role model
The occasional slip up and forced rape is just a minor character flaw then
It's not like he just stole a car or something. Rapists deserve the worst punishments we have to offer.