BIllionaire sex offender goes free - justice or injustice?

[howaboutme]

Apparently pedophilia is a permissive act in America for those special few with money and connections.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/9095_jeffreyepsteinbillionairepedophilegoesfree

NEW YORK – Hedge fund mogul Jeffrey Epstein became a free man Wednesday, five years after he was first accused of sexually abusing underage girls. After months of reporting, The Daily Beast’s Conchita Sarnoff reveals exclusive details of the investigation and the legal wrangling that saved him from a long prison term. She reports:

• Palm Beach’s police chief objected to Epstein’s “special treatment” and gave The Daily Beast an exclusive look at his nine-hour deposition about the investigation.

• Earlier versions of the U.S attorney’s charges, including a sealed 53-page indictment, could have landed Epstein in prison for 20 years.

• Victims alleged that Epstein molested underage girls from South America, Europe, and the former Soviet republics, including three 12-year-old girls brought over from France as a birthday gift.

• The victims also alleged trips out of state and abroad on Epstein’s private jets, which would be evidence of sex trafficking—a much more serious federal crime than the state charges Epstein was convicted of.

• Epstein’s attorneys investigated members of the Palm Beach Police Department, while others ordered private investigators to follow and intimidate the victims’ families; one even posed as a police officer.

• Then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told The Daily Beast that he “would have instructed the Justice Department to pursue justice without making a political mess.”

Film director Roman Polanski is not the only convicted pedophile to walk free this month and return to a life of privilege. On Wednesday, hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein completes his one-year house arrest in Palm Beach, which has been even less arduous than Polanski’s time at a Swiss ski chalet.

(continued)

[dmallind]

1. Quite possibly both or neither, but this is not trying to find out

What we'd need to know is actual time served, average and std deviation, for similar crimes and see how unusual his sentence was. Comparing it to maximum possible is only relevant if everybody else gets maximum possible. The rest is salacious raking and outrage-stoking.

[FBaggins]

4. His "sentence" was a joke.

Child rapists don't get to leave jail during the day... nor do they get "house arrest" that involves traveling from house to house (including outside the country).

There's no question that his immense wealth bought him special treatment that others could not gain.

[dmallind]

11. Probably so - but data on sentences for similar offenses is what we need to know for sure NT

[FBaggins]

13. Nope. We don't need "data"

We need common sense.

Sorry.

Rather than demanding that others do the legwork to compile a bunch of data before you're willing to consider whether the punishment fit the crime... you could:

1) Decide for yourself whether you would be satisfied if one of the girls was your daughter/sister.

2) Find a single example of someone else guilty of these kids of crimes who had a similar sentence. No doubt you've heard of people being put away for decades/life for the crime... if you really think there's a chance that this is the norm and those are unusual... then you should have no trouble finding one or two examples of people who got off lighter than this.

[dmallind]

15. I'm "demanding" it of the article writers. It's their job.

They are saying that his wealth got him a light sentence. This is quite probably so, but they do not give us any valid information on which to decide. A better way would have been something like:

The average sentence for this crime for a first time offender is 8 years. Only 2% of those so convicted are allowed out on day release like Mr Epstein, and of those 2% only 10 people got so light a follow on sentence of house arrest. 9 of those 10 people were multimillionaires.

THAT would say what they claim. As for your suggestions

1) Appeal to emotion that has nothing to do with the effect of wealth. Do you think you or I would have a different expectation based on wealth? Then why should it matter here in an article about unfair treatment of the wealthy?

2) That's exactly what the article writers should have done except in reverse - found that there were none or few who did so.

You seem to be under the impression I am in favor of Epstein's light sentence. In fact I have said absolutely nothing about whether I consider it too short or too long or fair or unfair (FWIW I am quite sure it is too lenient and have no problem imagining his money had something to do with it - but that's irrelevant to my point). All I have done in fact is say the article writer did a piss poor job of proving it.

And I am VERY suspicious of the ability of a person to approach this rationally who puts "data" in air quotes as if facts were of no concern.

[FBaggins]

20. Nope.

1) It isn't an appeal to emotion (except to point out that they are real girls)... it's pointing out that you have everything you need to identify whether YOU think the punishment fits the crime. Anyone with two braincells to rub together can tell that it does NOT. If every single child rapist received this same sentence, you could still form your own opinion re: whether it was EVER ok.

2) They reported that the crimes carry a mandatory 20-year sentence. But that's irrelevant because:

New #3) - It's reasonable for an author to assume a little common sense on the part of the reader. If they say that a 10-year old was out partying until 3am in the morning without adult supervision and ask whether her parents were lax in her bedtime... they do not need to provide you with the mean and median betimes for 10-yr old girls.

I have said absolutely nothing about whether I consider it too short or too long or fair or unfair

No... but you've made clear that you don't think that we've been given enough information to judge whether it was justice or not.

We have.

[dmallind]

25. The injustice claimed was leniency due to wealth however, not just leniency

What information do we have to know that the leniency was not simply due to a sympathetic judge or a lousy prosecution or a great defense? W e have none. You can imagine it if you like. You can even take it for granted, but we don't have it.

[FBaggins]

26. "WHY" the injustice occured is a matter for speculation

and couldn't be proven absent evidence specific to that case (i.e., again not data).

THAT the injustice occured is beyond speculation (and is what you replied in error to).

[dmallind]

27. NO - the claim was clearly made that this was due to wealth. That case is not proven NT

[FBaggins]

28. Wrong again.

The article asks whether wealth might be the reason... and then it reports what others (in a position to know) have said about it. It leaves it up to the reader to decide for himself.

The question you replied to, OTOH, was "justice or injustice?"... not "was it because he was rich?"

[Alcibiades]

24. I'm very familiar with this sort of thing

If this had been a non-billionaire who couldn't hire folks such as Ken Starr, he would have been tried in federal court, and then civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person at the end of his sentence, probably for the rest of his life. The number of counts that could have been charged, the sex with girls 14 and under, certainly would have resulted in something like the 20 year sentence alluded to in the article.

[seabeyond]

7. fucking kids, "outrage-stoking". silly people. nt

[dmallind]

10. They are stoking outrage over his sentence, not his crime. NT

[seabeyond]

16. the crime is tied into the outrage of the sentence. if the crime was petty, there would not be the

outrage over the sentence. since the crime is more than petty, the outrage comes at the sentence.

[Selatius]

2. He essentially bought the silence of the victims in an out-of-court settlement.

Had he been a member of the working class, he would not have been able to do this. This should demonstrate that with enough money, justice can be bent.

[Fla_Democrat]

8. Possibly, I'll read up on

Michael Jackson, and get back to you. :smoke:

[meowomon]

3. It's just the life of some kids.

Now THIS guy is a vital part of the economy and such other nonsense. Hell, the other guy makes movies for cryin out loud. They're special and we're not. They're rich and deserve a better life than us. Period.

[Greyhound]

5. K&R. So many examples of the class war going around today. n/t

[howaboutme]

17. Do they care what we think?

We are quickly approaching a time in America when this concept of equal justice for all that our founders stated and which our current political class often touts as the fundamental core philosophy of America, will come to be considered by all as total BS and hypocrisy, and that will be bad news for the USA.

The overclass, of which this individual is a member, already knows that our laws are made with only the serfs in mind, and not for them, just as it was in more ancient times. Actually it has probably always been this way, just not as blatant as it is becoming.

Here is another case of "justice watch" in S Florida of a rich billionaire with a .177 alcohol who drove his Bentley into a Hyundai killing a just graduated engineering student.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/cerabino-dui-in-doubt-polo-moguls-case-takes-771420.html

[OHdem10]

6. Two tier Justice System just as other aspects of Government.

Two tier Health System.

[RadiationTherapy]

9. "Brought over...as a birthday gift." We have no idea of the lives of the mega wealthy.

We think we do, but we do not.

[Octafish]

14. Kubrick warned us.

"Eyes Wide Shut"

[RadiationTherapy]

18. I agree. The metaphor is all about exclusivity and separation.

[howaboutme]

22. Is this an example of too much disposable income?

Why aren't these people paying a 90% marginal tax rate as they did when Eisenhower was President and when our nation's debt was far lower. Instead they use their billions for nefarious activity from trafficking in underage girls, to buying off our Congress, to buying their justice, etc.

The decline in the status of the USA can be directly correlated with the increase in disposable income of the overclass.

[Greyhound]

23. That is one of the most profound truths I've read here in a long time.

And it is no accident. I think if people really "got it" they would be appalled, but they've got their God-Box and relative comfort...

[uncommon]

12. Injustice, obviously. But most sex offenders get off light so clearly few actually care

about justice.

[Dappleganger]

19. Some animals are more equal than others. nt

[chrisa]

21. Anyone want to bet that he was doing the same thing under house arrest?

When you're rich in America, you can't be charged with a crime. Money is the rule of law here. Rape, murder, steal, do whatever you want. The system can't touch you, because you're more powerful than it. What has happened on Wall Street should prove this, to anybody who doubts it.

The rule of law in America is for the middle and lower classes. It's no longer about protecting victims. It's about keeping poor people away from rich people.

(Btw, I wouldn't be surprised if sex trafficking is rampant among certain sociopathic rich crowds. They control the legal system, so there's no reason for them to care).