• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Billionaire Pleads Guilty to Sexual Assault Charge

Exactly how is THIS case an example of that, or is this just a situation if you ignoring facts to push an agenda?

By the looks of the facts in this it seems more of an example of the pitfalls of a legal system where the burden is on the prosecution. Without the mother or daughter testifying against him it seemed the legal case wasn't strong enough to justify anything greater than what he got.

The problem with the legal system is generally the fact the DA is usually the best in the county, however some rich people have enough money to bring in their own attorneys that can give these DA's a run for their money, and of course your average Joe is forced to take the Public Defender because he cant afford an attorney, and generally Public Defenders have such a workload they cannot commit all their time to one case and generally their objective is to plead a man/woman out rather than fight to find them not guilty.

That's the jest of our legal system - at least our criminal system.

The judicial system isn't very fair but the problems exist in the system itself.
 
There are many instances where Libbo judges didn't even do that much. But, have the Libbos nutted up about it?

It's quite sickening that the Libbo outrage over this is just because the dude is rich and not because he molested a little girl. Quite the telling commentary of the Libbos.

Obviously progressives will always be mad when a rich white man doesn't go to jail for life over a parking ticket. However, we were also discussing another case - that whole "affluenza" case where that kid killed 3 of his friends and got off because apparently the kid believed "he was above the law because he was rich" - and ended up going to a psych ward instead of doing prison time.

So the comments here are kinda mashed together between the two cases.

But I agree - progressives generally would love to see the rich "hang" for j-walking.
 
Exactly how is THIS case an example of that, or is this just a situation if you ignoring facts to push an agenda?

By the looks of the facts in this it seems more of an example of the pitfalls of a legal system where the burden is on the prosecution. Without the mother or daughter testifying against him it seemed the legal case wasn't strong enough to justify anything greater than what he got.

From USA Today:

In considering the sentence, Judge Eugene Gasiorkiewicz acknowledged that neither the girl nor her mother wanted a case brought against Johnson. Authorities only became aware of the allegations after the 59-year-old sought counseling at a clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, where he made an undisclosed comment that triggered a mandatory report. Billionaire pleads guilty to sexual assault
 
Obviously progressives will always be mad when a rich white man doesn't go to jail for life over a parking ticket. However, we were also discussing another case - that whole "affluenza" case where that kid killed 3 of his friends and got off because apparently the kid believed "he was above the law because he was rich" - and ended up going to a psych ward instead of doing prison time.

So the comments here are kinda mashed together between the two cases.

But I agree - progressives generally would love to see the rich "hang" for j-walking.

The only reason the Libbos got all bent about the "affluenza" kid, as you pointed out, is because he's white and rich. If a non-rich kid, of any race, had killed someone while DUI the excuses would have been coming out of the woodwork.
 
Exactly how is THIS case an example of that, or is this just a situation if you ignoring facts to push an agenda?

By the looks of the facts in this it seems more of an example of the pitfalls of a legal system where the burden is on the prosecution. Without the mother or daughter testifying against him it seemed the legal case wasn't strong enough to justify anything greater than what he got.

Obviously the prosecution had enough for a conviction.

As an aside - what "agenda" do you think I'm pushing? That wealthy people get treated differently than non-wealthy people by the legal system? I'll let you in on a little secret, man: that's not an agenda, it's reality.
 
Yet another example on a long list of them that shows that there are 2 distinct legal systems: one for the rich & one for everyone else.

nice rant but the fact remains-a poor guy charged with the same thing and uncooperative victim, is not going to get any more for what is essentially a minor offense. 4 months when a year is the max is pretty stiff given that in most states MI assault or DUI gets you a few days max
 
nice rant but the fact remains-a poor guy charged with the same thing and uncooperative victim, is not going to get any more for what is essentially a minor offense. 4 months when a year is the max is pretty stiff given that in most states MI assault or DUI gets you a few days max

Wasn't a rant.
 
you seem to think he got off light for the crime he actually was convicted of. He did not

Can you show me a case with the same charge & conviction with an average Joe? Yes? I'll concede that you're right.
 
From USA Today:

In considering the sentence, Judge Eugene Gasiorkiewicz acknowledged that neither the girl nor her mother wanted a case brought against Johnson. Authorities only became aware of the allegations after the 59-year-old sought counseling at a clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, where he made an undisclosed comment that triggered a mandatory report. Billionaire pleads guilty to sexual assault

He pled guilty to the misdemeanor, not the felony. Even if he had gotten the 1 year maximum (not sure why he didn't) which would undoubtably have still been looked at as exceptionally light punishment.

Without the mother or daughter testifying the DA seemed to believe he couldn't have gotten a conviction based on the felony, so it appears a deal was made to drop it to a misdemeanor and then the scumbag would plead guilty to that...which lead to the significantly low sentence.

-editing out because I misread the intent of the post-
 
Last edited:
Can you show me a case with the same charge & conviction with an average Joe? Yes? I'll concede that you're right.

how many such cases actually are subjected to a google search? I'd have to know a defendant's name to pull them up on the court system I have access to. I am just going on 30 years of being some type of prosecutor/LEO. its a misdemeanor. I earned over 150 MI convictions at what point of my career-DUIs, assault, theft, Carry a concealed weapon other than a firearm, menacing, simple possession of certain narcotics. NO ONE got more than 10-15 days on a first offense. four months with a 6 thousand dollar fine was generally for 3-4th repeat offense for say DUI or assault
 
Obviously the prosecution had enough for a conviction.

And you base this on your extensive knowledge of the case? Because every actual article on the case suggests they DIDN'T have enough to convict at the felony level without the mother and daughter, and the DA apparently didn't feel that way either given the fact they cut a deal to get a guilty plead to a lower penalty.

As an aside - what "agenda" do you think I'm pushing?

An agenda aimed at attacking the wealthy in a general sense, so much so that you take a situation where there's no evidence what so ever that wealth had anything to do with it and dishonestly presented it as an indictment of the wealthy in our society.
 
He pled guilty to the misdemeanor, NOT the felony. Even if he had gotten the 1 year maximum (not sure why he didn't) which would undoubtably have still been looked at as exceptionally light punishment.

Without the mother or daughter testifying the DA seemed to believe he couldn't have gotten a conviction based on the felony, so it appears a deal was made to drop it to a misdemeanor and then the scumbag would plead guilty to that...which lead to the significantly low sentence.

Showing he plead guilty to the Misdemeanor, where the highest penalty he could've suffered was one year, is hardly any counter what so ever to my comment....so what exactly was the point you were trying to make since you didn't bother to actually vocalize any kind of intelligent argument and instead just posted a link?

Wow, Zyphlin, where did this come from?

I posted it what I did because I thought you would find it interesting. I wasn't trying to counter what you were saying at all.
 
Can you show me a case with the same charge & conviction with an average Joe? Yes? I'll concede that you're right.

You're the one that made the claim this is an example of the wealthy being treated differently in the league system. So please, provide the evidence that backs up your assertion that this had to do with his wealth and thus is such an example.
 
Wow, Zyphlin, where did this come from?

From a misunderstanding as to your point :) Without anything but the quoted story I had no real way of knowing what you were trying to say or do. Obviously I guess wrong as to your intent. My apologies.
 
The sad thing is, from the sounds of what he did, I'd love to see this guy get significantly more than this. And I'd love to know why the mom and the daughter won't testify. But the sad realities is sometimes in our legal system people do horrible things and get away with less than they probably should because of the protections we have built into the system. Much like the Westboro people and the first amendment, sometimes we have to take this kind of bad with the good as it comes to our rights under the legal system.

If you think the guy deserves a stronger punishment then he got, I understand. I feel the same way. But from the information available the culprit isn't his wealth, it's the way our legal system works.
 
indictment of the wealthy in our society.

Which needs to happen on a much larger & grander scale.

Why?

Because they are the power players I.e. aristocracy in this thing we call life.
 
that is a normal sentence for fourth degree sexual assault. for example, in ohio the maximum for DUI is 6 months and the average sentence for a first time offender is THREE Days. So getting one third of the maximum sentence is actually a pretty stiff sentence for a first time offender

I don't think so, it was, or they were vying for a felony charge, but since the victims didn't wish to cooperate, the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor.
 
Which needs to happen on a much larger & grander scale.

Why?

Because they are the power players I.e. aristocracy in this thing we call life.

Are you suggesting that people who can be considered rich be deprived of their constitutional rights?
 
Are you suggesting that people who can be considered rich be deprived of their constitutional rights?

No, not at all. What I'm suggesting is that they too get their balls nailed to the wall like the rest of us when we **** up. Money used as a shield should have 0 standing in the legal system. The merits of any case should be determined by the written law not by how many zeroes one has in their bank account.

Problems with money, which extend into the political parties, particularly within the right, need to be fixed. Example: people against abortion & social welfare & minimum wage increases & unions but say little to nothing about businesses packing up their entire operation and going overseas I.e. taking their jobs to 3rd world countries so they can pay their new employees slave wages. That is quite the convoluted belief system, which is in desperate need of adjustment. Granted, on the left the remedy is "let's throw more money at it and see what happens" instead of addressing the real problem: insanely rich people ****ing over the working class in America just so they can become even richer.

So, on one hand we have a dominant political party that condones that while the other curiously ignores it while spending more-and-more taxpayer money to compensate for their inability to keep jobs in America because Big Business has them by the balls too.
 
No, not at all. What I'm suggesting is that they too get their balls nailed to the wall like the rest of us when we **** up. Money used as a shield should have 0 standing in the legal system. The merits of any case should be determined by the written law not by how many zeroes one has in their bank account.

Problems with money, which extend into the political parties, particularly within the right, need to be fixed. Example: people against abortion & social welfare & minimum wage increases & unions but say little to nothing about businesses packing up their entire operation and going overseas I.e. taking their jobs to 3rd world countries so they can pay their new employees slave wages. That is quite the convoluted belief system, which is in desperate need of adjustment. Granted, on the left the remedy is "let's throw more money at it and see what happens" instead of addressing the real problem: insanely rich people ****ing over the working class in America just so they can become even richer.

So, on one hand we have a dominant political party that condones that while the other curiously ignores it while spending more-and-more taxpayer money to compensate for their inability to keep jobs in America because Big Business has them by the balls too.

There are plenty of examples where non-rich folks have received lighter sentences than this. No blustering about that.
 
That was one of the most horrible - ridiculous cases on injustice I have ever seen. That kid should have got at least 10-years.

I don't see how believing "you're above the law because you have money" is an actual defense.

The most ridiculous or ironic thing about this case is that the taxpayers will be paying for 75% of his "treatment."
It's Texas, they're always bragging about their state coffers.
 
The sad thing is, from the sounds of what he did, I'd love to see this guy get significantly more than this. And I'd love to know why the mom and the daughter won't testify. But the sad realities is sometimes in our legal system people do horrible things and get away with less than they probably should because of the protections we have built into the system. Much like the Westboro people and the first amendment, sometimes we have to take this kind of bad with the good as it comes to our rights under the legal system.

If you think the guy deserves a stronger punishment then he got, I understand. I feel the same way. But from the information available the culprit isn't his wealth, it's the way our legal system works.

@ least one member is placing part of the blame on the children themselves, e.g., lying about their age, 12 year olds playing with other things besides dolls, etc, etc, etc..

But that's typical from a defense attorney's standpoint or argument, blame the victims.
 
It's Texas, they're always bragging about their state coffers.

Nice drive by snarky. I guess the fact that this was Wisconsin won't convince you that your comment was as inappropriate as it is. Lame.
 
Back
Top Bottom