Rape victim rejects judge’s offer: $150K for her, reduced sentence for attacker

https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2019/11/09/rape-victim-rejects-judges-offer-her-reduced-sentence-attacker/

by pseudolus • 7 years ago

26 10 7 years ago

washingtonpost.com

paggle• 7 years ago

Why offer a trade? Why not just add the restitution to the full jail sentence?

deogeo3• 7 years ago

An excessive punishment is just as unfair as one that is too lenient.

algorithm_dk• 7 years ago

A lifetime in prison is the right punishment for rape.

deogeo3• 7 years ago

He empowered her to choose her own justice, her own restitution.

On a related note, I'm reminded of an article that examined the effect choice has on us, and that often, we're happier without it. One of the examples was even, I believe, a study about major medical decisions, that showed patients were happier when doctors decided for them. But I forgot the exact scope of the medical decisions, and can't find the article or study - if anyone else can, I'd be very grateful.

In any case, this article serves as a fine example - the victim is unhappy about being given choice over the punishment.

bllllrrrp• 7 years ago

I think it's easy to see how the "choice" in this situation comes off as a request to "buy forgiveness" on behalf of the perpetrator. The harm that was done is not primarily financial, financial restitution would never "make it right" at an emotional level, and undermines the desire to quarantine individuals that have proven themselves to be a danger to others. The choice would be insulting to many people, and directly opposed to common ideals about justice.

In light of that, calling it "empowerment" comes off as a little tone-deaf, and I doubt the response would be any different if the judge had unilaterally chosen X years + Y dollars, but it later came to light that X+N years and 0 dollars had been an equally valid option.

crb0022• 7 years ago

Fundamental error. Imagine if it was a theft case and the victim was WalMart. Bad bad constitutional violation to delegate judicial power to individuals which include both real people and corporeals.

crb0022• 7 years ago

It would have been constitutional to offer both choices to the defendant, assuming it didn’t violate Timbs v Indiana with the fine exceeding the jurisdictional maximum for the offense.

Rape victim rejects judge’s offer: $150K for her, reduced sentence for attacker

Related Stories