• 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!

One Percenter Convicted Of Raping Infant Child Dodges Jail.

And since we decided to make this thread a partisan bitchfest, I'll suggest she is a liberal judge who made a conservative decision.

I'm not sure which conservatives think it's a good idea to let incestuous pedophiles run loose. Which ones are they?
 
The fact he is a scumbag was NOT ignored. The fact the Judge said such a piss ignorant thing was NOT ignored. The fact this guy wasn't one of the 47% Willard referred to but from an extremely wealthy family was NOT ignored. The fact his is listed as the owner of record of a 1.8 million dollar home and lists his other residence as a home in the more exclusive part of Rehobeth Beach was NOT ignored.

What is also a fact is you wish for his family connections and wealth to be ignored and are constantly casting about for straws to grasp... :2wave:

Not ignored by who exactly?
 
Do they run stories about people on welfare who have done similar things getting probation?

Do they have to? The justice system is made in such a way that "justice" is dependent on the kind of lawyer you can afford. You can afford Jimmy Cochran? Free you go. You can't a lawyer? Plea bargain is the best option in many cases. So why would the news need to do stories on people most likely to go to jail?
 
How is this story even out in the media? If this was just a regular schlub who molested his daughter, the identity of the father wouldn't be released because through him we could know who his daughter was and so bring shame or something down on her but because the liberal media saw this guy as being connected to a very rich family then that information was more important to get out than was the idea of protecting the identity of the little girl who was raped.
 
How is this story even out in the media? If this was just a regular schlub who molested his daughter, the identity of the father wouldn't be released because through him we could know who his daughter was and so bring shame or something down on her but because the liberal media saw this guy as being connected to a very rich family then that information was more important to get out than was the idea of protecting the identity of the little girl who was raped.

A second, more lenient, justice system for the rich is a matter of public interest.
 
Am I the only one that when I read the thread title I thought this was about a Hell's Angel?
 
A second, more lenient, justice system for the rich is a matter of public interest.

Shouldn't blind justice also be available to regular people, so why bother with Rape Shield laws which severely impede blind justice being applied to men who are accused of a sexual crime? Isn't it also in the public interest to have fair trials?
 
Shouldn't blind justice also be available to regular people, so why bother with Rape Shield laws which severely impede blind justice being applied to men who are accused of a sexual crime? Isn't it also in the public interest to have fair trials?

The trial has been over for some time. This was just a sentencing hearing.
 
Wait...

A man confesses to raping his three-year-old daughter for years, until as a five-year-old the child was able to express to her mother that she didn't want daddy touching her like that again... whereupon the man is found guilty and the judge, fearing he would "not do well in prison", turns the guy back out into the street to look for more three-year-old girls...

...and the crux of debate in this freaking thread is a partisan hackfest about "one percenters" and "liberal judges"??? Are you people ****ing kidding me??? :shock:
 
Wait...

A man confesses to raping his three-year-old daughter for years, until as a five-year-old the child was able to express to her mother that she didn't want daddy touching her like that again... whereupon the man is found guilty and the judge, fearing he would "not do well in prison", turns the guy back out into the street to look for more three-year-old girls...

...and the crux of debate in this freaking thread is a partisan hackfest about "one percenters" and "liberal judges"??? Are you people ****ing kidding me??? :shock:

Without the discussion on liberal judges and one percenters, what other purpose would this thread have on a debate forum? I highly doubt you're going to get many people posting here saying what he did was no big deal.
 
Do they have to? The justice system is made in such a way that "justice" is dependent on the kind of lawyer you can afford. You can afford Jimmy Cochran? Free you go. You can't a lawyer? Plea bargain is the best option in many cases. So why would the news need to do stories on people most likely to go to jail?

Do they have to? That's a strange question.

The courts are full of cases where poor people who have committed crimes have been given probation. Those crimes include child abuse, spousal abuse, and any number of other crimes.

I realize these class envy stories are food for the masses, but it doesn't make them any more legitimate.
 
I'm not sure which conservatives think it's a good idea to let incestuous pedophiles run loose. Which ones are they?

The ones who believe rich people are above all criticism and legal ramifications for their actions. If you guys get to say liberals love letting pedophiles go, I get to do the same about you.
 
The ones who believe rich people are above all criticism and legal ramifications for their actions. If you guys get to say liberals love letting pedophiles go, I get to do the same about you.

The judge is a Liberal judge. That is based in fact.

But I missed which conservatives you mention advocate freeing incestuous pedophiles. Can you name 5?
 
If the state is going to imprison people and strip of them all their rights, then yes, they have to consider how someone will do under their care. Getting all emotional over the crime doesn't somehow change that fact.
 
The judge is a Liberal judge. That is based in fact.

But I missed which conservatives you mention advocate freeing incestuous pedophiles. Can you name 5?

Has anyone even asked Beau Biden who signed off on this? And what Beau knows?
 
Has anyone even asked Beau Biden who signed off on this? And what Beau knows?
They have asked...but he is being rather tight lipped about it.
 
The judge is a Liberal judge. That is based in fact.

But I missed which conservatives you mention advocate freeing incestuous pedophiles. Can you name 5?

Please detail which liberal belief this supposed liberal judge used to make this judgement please.

I ask for this because liberals believe baby rapists should go directly to jail. Letting a baby rapist off doesn't jive with any liberal view I'm aware of. In fact, liberals tend to believe the law should be equally applicable to all, regardless of race, sex, religion or wealth.
 
Please detail which liberal belief this supposed liberal judge used to make this judgement please.

I ask for this because liberals believe baby rapists should go directly to jail. Letting a baby rapist off doesn't jive with any liberal view I'm aware of. In fact, liberals tend to believe the law should be equally applicable to all, regardless of race, sex, religion or wealth.

She was appointed by Ruth Ann Minner, who was the Liberal governor of Maryland.

Also, if you Google her record, you will see it is historically Liberal.
 
She was appointed by Ruth Ann Minner, who was the Liberal governor of Maryland.

Also, if you Google her record, you will see it is historically Liberal.

That's nice...

So what does that have to do with her verdict? That's what I'm asking you. What does being a Liberal have anything to do with her decision?
 
That's nice...

So what does that have to do with her verdict? That's what I'm asking you. What does being a Liberal have anything to do with her decision?

She didn't ask me my opinion on her decision.

She's a Liberal judge. That's all I can tell you. You have to ask her why she protected the guy. Maybe Beau Biden told her to?
 
She didn't ask me my opinion on her decision.

She's a Liberal judge. That's all I can tell you. You have to ask her why she protected the guy. Maybe Beau Biden told her to?

She's also white!

Judge-Jan-Jurden.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom