Kyle Stephens, the first victim to testify against former USA gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, had once considered the man a friend. Larry was close with her parents, she told the court during Nassar’s sentencing hearing, and the two families had often spent time together on weekends. When Stephens was six years old, Nassar exposed himself to her in a dark boiler room.
I commend this judge!
I hope she sits in judgement of the sexual predator Donald Trump as well.
The judges comments on her view of what she’d like to see were beyond the pale and indicative of the corrosion of justice. She is supposed to be impartial, not an ‘advocate’ of anything but impartiality, regardless of the depravity of the crime.
I would like to hear your views if it was a child of yours that was thus abused…or a familly member that blew there brains out because of what occured…how “beyond the pale ?” would your comment be…?
Ever consider that this construction of “impartiality” to which you’re so attached could be part of the problem?
Why should a human be emotionally “neutral” with regard to life-destroying violence?
Why do we generally act as if strong feeling is necessarily an enemy of good clear thinking? The science is clear: biologically/neurologically, thinking is rooted in moving, sensing and feeling, and can never be separated from these.
The fantasy of “objectivity,” “neutrality,” and “impartiality” is just that: a fantasy. A mental and male supremacist fantasy of a world untroubled by overwhelming, messy feelings, ruled by the “clean” linear logic of dissociated cognition…
Look where living out that fantasy has taken us! Millions and millions of Nassers, “humans” so dissociated from their bodies, hearts and souls that they require the charge of extreme violence/domination just to feel alive for a moment. And then blithely tell themselves that their victims wanted it, deserved it, liked it…
F_ _ _ that delusional “impartiality”! We’re ready for a return of True Justice now. And the male supremacists aren’t going to be able to stop it. Because, contrary to their fantasies about themselves, they’re not the boss of the evolution of consciousness. They’re not in charge.
They’re not even in control. Gasp!
Where did I state anyone should be emotionally neutral with regard to violence? There is a difference between having strong emotions… and making the choice to let them rule your thinking.
Feelings are the enemy of clear thinking on objective matters. Are you actually arguing you make better decisions when ruled by emotions instead of applying logic to them?
I’d obviously have very strong feelings but this would not make it right to act on them. Of course the family members will have strong emotions but they are not the only ones in society.
And don’t you find it odd how in this case, the attitudes of the left have become indistinguishable from the right wing and their vengence-and-violence concept of justice? So is Sr. Helen Prejean now “persona non-grata” among women on the left?
Your comments are scary. It is very disturbing that you purport to know the workings of Nasser’s mind and claim that there are “millions and millions” of them (all men of course).
The pedophilia and sexual disorders of Nasser are a mental illness. Mental illness do not constitute “free will” decisions (“free will” itself being a dubious concept anyway). While we must protect the public people with dangerous disorders such as Nasser through legally ordered confinement, we should always seek to rehabilitate such people whenever possible through proper treatments.
Apparently, iyalisa believes that men “require the charge of extreme violence/domination just to feel alive for a moment”. I guess that is proof that I’m not a real man. I’m content to read a book.
The more I think about the way this crime by a sexual pervert is being used by iyalisa, and others, to attack heterosexual men broadly, the more disgusting it is. Why didn’t the left use the very similar Jerry Sandusky crime and scandal to more broadly attack gay men? Or, the statistical predominance of violent street crime by black men used to attack black men broadly? Of course, to do this would properly be called racial bigotry and in the former case, homophobia. What do we call the broad attacks on men by women precipitated by the Nasser case? Something very ugly is happening here.
You are, beyond any question, correct.
The sentence should be vacated on appeal, the judge should be removed from the bench, and the proceedings begun de novo.
Witnesses testify; lawyers argue; commentators opine; judges do not talk like this.
It is mind boggling to read.
It’s interesting to me to witness yours and Yunzer’s comments suggesting that men are “put upon” and unjustly accused of violence towards women. So that - in your views - men are now the victims because women have decided to speak up. I would recommend - in the interest of truth and evidence - you both to research the percentages of women raping and molesting men; and those of men raping and molesting women. Further, it would be illuminating to see if there is a gender difference in the numbers of restraining orders issued. Also, you might look into gender differences in the numbers of shelters communities set up to protect women from men; and men from women. Since you both view “objectivity” as essential to “justice” (based on truth), can we assume you will both approach this issue with the objectivity you so value?
Yunzer - If you are indeed as interested in objectivity and truth as you imply, then such values may compel you to examine the bases of your own indignation (self scrutiny) and do a “reality check” via research studies relating to gender differences in matters of violence, domination, molestation, sexual abuse, torture, stalking. Populations to investigate may include: the population at large, the military, schools/education and the prison population. On the other hand, perhaps, your own opinion devoid of substantiating evidence is all that you require as a “sufficient standard” for truth and justice.
You can also use such sweeping pseudo-statistical analysis to demonstrate that black people are more violent and dangerous too. Care to go there?
Why hasn’t Garrison Keillor been arrested yet?
iyalisa is not orchestrating this, nor are women like her. It is pent up anger and resentment that is being channelled into a political movement, for someone else’s benefit, with some negative consequences. iyalisa’s comment is a symptom, not the cause. Judge Rosemarie Aquilina’s statement is another symptom, but she is in a position to influence the attitudes of millions of women. Some women are applauding her rhetoric. However, the Huffington Post (known to be pro-feminism) denounced it. It is not yet clear what the cultural impact of this political shift will be. It is still fluid and still unfolding. Yes, it is very concerning.
So you have determined that your statement represents me and my views based on the fact that I said I do not require violence or domination to feel alive for the moment, and because I said I am content to read a book? It seems like quite a leap. Can you explain how you got from the comment I wrote to the comment you wrote?
I was disturbed by some elements of the recent drama in this case. ¿ How best to put it into words?
Judge Aquilina rejected that Larry Nasser has “accepted responsibility for what he has done.” How would she know? What would constitute “accepting responsibility”? She should have just “This court shall impose responsibility and judgment for the crimes you have committed…” and left acceptance to the future, perhaps between Nasser and the prison chaplain.
Likewise, Nasser’s statements were a waste of time. I see two statements he could have made. 1. He could have said that “On consultation with my lawyer and spiritual adviser, I understand that the community I have injured are not willing to hear any of my statements or sentiments of contrition. Therefore, I will hold them and bide with them until a future time.” 2. He could have said that "On consultation with my lawyer I understand that I will receive, in effect, a sentence of life in prison. Therefore it costs me nothing, when you hand down a sentence of X years, to answer you “Please, sir, can I have a little more?”
Back in the Bush years prisoners arrested in the War on Terror were sometimes ‘renditioned’ to places like Syria to be interrogated under torture. As the judge remarks, there is an 8th Amendment prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment”, but how many people here would like to see Larry Nasser renditioned to a place where he could be tortured for his crimes?
The feeling of justice not yet done is so strong that we are now seeing a witchhunt and a purge of everyone at U of MI and USA Gymnastics who should have known what Larry Nasser was doing, and had done nothing to stop it. Based more on principles of witchhunt than on evidence.