The victim fought back with words of rage. “ I thought there’s no way this is going to trial; there were witnesses, there was dirt in my body, he ran but was caught,” she wrote in a 12-page statement at the sentencing of ____ ____, the former Stanford student convicted of sexually assaulting her. “He’s going to settle, formally apologize, and we will both move on. Instead, I was told he hired a powerful attorney, expert witnesses, private investigators who were going to try and find details about my personal life to use against me.” Full Article
Related posts
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
Wow. I’m pleasantly surprised that this was penned by Debra Saunders. She is an ultra-conservative political columnist. For her to question the registry and advocate a tiered registry is really big.
Is there another Debra J. Saunders that wrote this? There appears to be one that works for the SMART office, who is a different one than the conservative columnist. But, really either of them writing this intelligent piece is a breakthrough.
Punishment. It is being called and recognized as what it is, a life sentence without chance of parole.
Some good points by Debra Saunders. Except for what she says about CASOMB limiting lifetime registration under a tier registry. Not exactly true, as lifetime registration would not just be limited to “kidnappers” and “violent” sex offenders under a tier registry… but also people who just happen to score high on the Static-99R scam (even non-violent, first-time offenders). The real story should be on all the logical fallacies behind the Static 99 tests, the lack of transparency of its data, how it lumps all type of sex offenders into its so-called actuarial model, how its accuracy has proved about 29 percent (i.e. much worse than chance), and the Canadian scam artists (sorry, “developers”) who invented it. Just my 2 cents.
I want everyone to imagine waking up in a hospital and being told by medical personnel that they believe you sexually assaulted or perhaps raped. Then realizing you have no memory of anything sexual happening. Maybe you think its possible you gave consent. Until regardless of what you think is invalidated by test results revealing that your blood alcohol level was 3 times higher than the legal limit. It is sickening that we live in a society where other people under various circumstances are allowed final say in what you are allowed to claim about yourself. At this point I am expected to throw in a sentence or more clarifying the context of the perspective of such an individual as being the automatic victim. Though I will not concede to any biases just because they are common in the United States or elsewhere. It is possible that the person in this unfortunate position could be the instigator rather than someone who had no agency, but we won’t likely ever know.
Instead we place blame on the one who had a blood alcohol level two times the legal limit. The person who still was too drunk to consent. That’s something people forget in cases like this: consent goes both ways.
Both individuals have life sentences. One is public and the other is private. Neither will ever be able to tell what really happened, society has made up its mind and in the end a relatively short experience shared by two people is forever defined in ways which caused and continue to cause great damage for both.