Stanford rapist serving only 3 months

That's up for dispute, but my comment relates to accuracy; it is simply inaccurate to call him a rapist. He wasn't convicted of rape.

That response has always annoyed me. Sentencing isn't about emotional responses


Posted from TSR Mobile

I wonder if you were raped you'd think the same.

This post of yours is just perfectly congruent with the rest of your troll-like posts, "alpha" boy.

Lol...

Rofl, the 'if it were you' argument is so beta and pathetic. Of course you'd be biased for harsh punishment if it happened to you or a family, kys xd

How exactly, is that bias?

My response?

Whether you like it or not, sentencing is about emotional responses. Human suffering is psychological just as much as physical. Cause of psychological distress is considered in sentencing.

For example, if an indivdual pleads guilty towards the end of a trial after the witness has recounted a traumatic experience, this may go against them in their sentencing in contrast to someone who pleads guilty at the start of the trail saving the witness from distress.

To say that emotions are not involved in sentencing is absolute rubbish. If a criminal act causes more severe psychological suffering, this is considered in sentencing.

Also, it's not even about emotion what I was referring to. It was about empathy, you know the ability to put yourself in a other's shoes. Unfortunately some people don't understand the suffering physical and psychological, that an action can cause unless they directly experience it themselves. This often leads to a complacent, off hand attitude. In such cases where an individual is lacking theory of mind, direct experience often helps.

It's not, judges are impartial and there are sentencing guidelines in order to ensure their persona feelings don't get involved.



That's more to do with showing remorse/accepting responsibility for what you've done and judicial expedience.



If two people were raped, all other circumstances were identical and the only variable was the psychological harm that the victims had suffered the sentence would be the same



By saying how would you feel you're trying to create an emotional response, people are rarely objective when things concern them personally




Posted from TSR Mobile

???
I literally just pointed out how. Also, if your brother for example was the rapist, you'd obviously want him to be punished less, as you'd be more aware that he's only human. What's there not to understand?

Who's talking about the judges personal feelings?? We are referring to the judges understanding and awareness of the emotions of the victim, not the emotions of the judge themself...


I've sat in a court room, where a judge explicitly said that they'd consider the fact that the man guilty of ABH pleaded guilty before the witness had to stand. He explicitly said it saved the woman from having the distress of recounting her experience in front of the court room. That doesn't sound like the judge recognising remorse in the perpetrator, more like what I initially said.

If the victim suffered from enduring mental illness from the rape, that probably would be used in court and during sentencing actually. Just like Turners "great potential in life" and swimming talent was used for a more lenient sentence.

But that's the point. It is personal, to imagine what the victim suffered would not create bias. It would create a more accurate understanding of the trauma experienced.

It's a judge who decides on sentencing, so if emotion is going to have an impact on sentencing it'd have to impact the judge.

I'd argue that is remorse to some extent; it's saving someone from further pain.

Suffering mental illness could possibly be a factor in sentencing but that's a result of recognising further harm caused rather than being empathetic.

Using empathy in sentencing would create bias because then you remove a judge's ability to be impartial


Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, but not through the judge experiencing an emotion, but through an understanding of the emotions involved. It's even considered in terms of the defendant, an unprovoked attack is considered worse than when the defendant was provoked physically and verbally.

Well yes remorse probably does come into play for some extent, but you can't deny what was said is also in regards to the emotions of the victim.

That is empathy

Well then instead the only judges should be sociopaths because the vast majority of judges reflect empathy in their verdict, when they often refer to suffering of the victim and family.

In regards to a crime against an individual, I don't see how understanding their trauma causes bias. Contrary it'll help form a more accurate representation of what the victim is going through. I don't think bias applies in that context.