Poll: Woman cuts man's penis with boxcutter - gets no jail time

[the December King]

Yes, it seems reasonable to paint me as defending this woman for simply sticking with facts.

I also want to point out that the coverage wasn't even particularly sensationalist. People here added things like her cutting "off" his dick, and until it was revised the topic didn't mention that she faced house arrest, let alone probation and anger management. In fact, you know where I got all my information? From those "sensationalist" journalists.

That's the problem here. It wasn't the journalists that were the problem. It was a bunch of people who either didn't read or misrepresented the articles in question getting butthurt because of perceived "reverse sexism" without stopping to make any consideration for the fact.

Or as it's better known in gaming circles, "ethics in journalism."

She did capture and torture someone under the alleged accusation of them being a pedophile, right? I still personally doubt that a man in the same position would have gotten off as lightly, anger management or no. Do you think it was a fair punishment, then?

EDIT: Nevermind, I just read your post about 3 up from here. I gather you think the sentencing in Indiana is non-gender biased, but really shitty. Fair enough.

 

[Lightknight]

"Vela later told police she became suspicious after smoking marijuana, and may have ingested other drugs before the attack..."

"...may have ingested other drugs before the attack..."

"...may have..."

From what I can gather from those two particular words, she basically admitted that she was so fucked up at the time, she literally can't remember the specifics of what she did to HERSELF, let alone her victim.

Being under the influence of something doesn't make you not responsible for your actions. There is significant precedence for this regarding substances like Alcohol and other drugs. You consuming the drugs is you assuming the responsibility. Not a legitimate temporary insanity plea.

She committed a crime, became judge jury and executioner. Personally, I don't think rapists and child molestors get punished harshly enough. I'd even like to see additional punishments be made possible in the event of overwhelming evidence rather than just proof beyond a reasonable doubt (like blatant video evidence and DNA). But that belief aside, we live in a country where people are innocent before proven guilty. This should have been decided by the courts.

Sorry, you don't get to hold someone captive and mutilate them for hours without going to prison. This should have been a slam dunk and they both should be in prison if found guilty.

 

[Something Amyss]

She did capture and torture someone under the alleged accusation of them being a pedophile, right?

What does this change about my factual claims?

I still personally doubt that a man in the same position would have gotten off as lightly, anger management or no.

Then do some freaking research and prove it. Not The Bees mentioned an incident where her stepfather got off with six months house arrest after assaulting her with a gun, holding her at gunpoint, and needing to be talked out of shooting her by the police. I just posted another story about a man who got a year of probation (not even house arrest, from what I can find) after pleading to four counts of battery.

People immediately cry "oh boo hoo, poor men" without evidence because they're looking for a reason to claim men are victimised here. The problem is that doesn't appear to be, you know, true. A few minutes of research might even confirm that, so why spend time "feeling" like you're the victim here?

Do you think it was a fair punishment, then?

Fair in which sense? Do I feel it was a fair sentence in respect to the crime, or in respect to the State of Indiana's obviously low standards? Or some other standard of fairness I haven't thought of?

Let me ask a followup question: is it "fair" to whine about gender bias, discrimination, or "fairness" when one cannot be bothered to look into the actual background of the case, other cases, or even legal precedent? Is it "fair" to complain about "fairness" with no actual basis on which to measure it?

"Fairness" seems to be a very, very one-sided thing in this thread.

By extension, nobody should care about this because of something worse that has happened.

So, are we going with the Gaza Defense?

 

[the December King]

She did capture and torture someone under the alleged accusation of them being a pedophile, right?

What does this change about my factual claims?

I still personally doubt that a man in the same position would have gotten off as lightly, anger management or no.

Then do some freaking research and prove it. Not The Bees mentioned an incident where her stepfather got off with six months house arrest after assaulting her with a gun, holding her at gunpoint, and needing to be talked out of shooting her by the police. I just posted another story about a man who got a year of probation (not even house arrest, from what I can find) after pleading to four counts of battery.

People immediately cry "oh boo hoo, poor men" without evidence because they're looking for a reason to claim men are victimised here. The problem is that doesn't appear to be, you know, true. A few minutes of research might even confirm that, so why spend time "feeling" like you're the victim here?

Do you think it was a fair punishment, then?

Fair in which sense? Do I feel it was a fair sentence in respect to the crime, or in respect to the State of Indiana's obviously low standards? Or some other standard of fairness I haven't thought of?

Let me ask a followup question: is it "fair" to whine about gender bias, discrimination, or "fairness" when one cannot be bothered to look into the actual background of the case, other cases, or even legal precedent? Is it "fair" to complain about "fairness" with no actual basis on which to measure it?

"Fairness" seems to be a very, very one-sided thing in this thread.

Ummm, Zachary? I wasn't arguing with you. I wasn't trying to set you up in a logic trap, or catch you in a lie. I genuinely wanted to know what you thought.

Thanks for the mountain of scorn, though. You seem ready to pen me in as a GGer, so I had better just let you have your 'victory' and walk away.

 

[Saltyk]

Absolutely horrible. The woman deserves jail time and the alleged crime she was punishing should be investigated and possibly prosecuted. However, that likely won't happen as the entire thing has been horribly tainted at this point. So congratulations, lady, you are a horrible person and the alleged perpetrator can go and do it again and harm someone else assuming he actually did anything in the first place.

Man, I'd hate to see The View get a hold of this story.

"Vela later told police she became suspicious after smoking marijuana, and may have ingested other drugs before the attack..."

If anybody still thinks her actions were reasonable after reading this, then those people can leave now and not come back, please.

Yeah, it does sound like she wasn't in her right mind. If you're under the influence...well...I think a few years in prison would be the right course of action. Only a few because I'm fundamentally against extremely long prison sentences

Really depends on the crime. I'm fine giving murderers life or the death penalty depending on the circumstances (serial killers get no sympathy from me) and I think there are other crimes that deserve long sentences. I'm generally okay with most of the reasonable sentences I've heard. However, most drug related crimes certainly don't deserve life sentences or even years.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ummm, Zachary? I wasn't arguing with you.

Didn't say you were.

I wasn't trying to set you up in a logic trap, or catch you in a lie.

Didn't say you were.

I genuinely wanted to know what you thought.

Sweet. Then why didn't you clarify?

Thanks for the mountain of scorn, though. You seem ready to pen me in as a GGer, so I had better just let you have your 'victory' and walk away.

Except I didn't peg you as a GGer. It's fairly obvious you're looking for an out now that you've been challenged. And, I guess, if you're going to be this dishonest, I don't want to talk to you anyway.

 

[the December King]

Ummm, Zachary? I wasn't arguing with you.

Didn't say you were.

I wasn't trying to set you up in a logic trap, or catch you in a lie.

Didn't say you were.

I genuinely wanted to know what you thought.

Sweet. Then why didn't you clarify?

Thanks for the mountain of scorn, though. You seem ready to pen me in as a GGer, so I had better just let you have your 'victory' and walk away.

Except I didn't peg you as a GGer. It's fairly obvious you're looking for an out now that you've been challenged. And, I guess, if you're going to be this dishonest, I don't want to talk to you anyway.

You kinda did, though, didn't you? Your series of 'observations' have been laced with references to GamerGate. I didn't want an out, I genuinely wanted to know what you thought. And you're still being confrontational.

I'll try one more time. Do you think the punishment fit the crime? Your opinion. Not 'facts', not stats, just what you thought of the whole thing, after looking into it, which you appear to have done, to some extent.

 

[Something Amyss]

You kinda did, though, didn't you? Your series of 'observations' have been laced with references to GamerGate.

You mean that one instance. Which had nothing to do with you.

I didn't want an out, I genuinely wanted to know what you thought. And you're still being confrontational.

No, you're being offended.

And honestly, this is a problem with you. You have said as such before, that you "feel" offended when topics of equity come up because you "feel" like you're automatically painted as the bad guy in such scenarios. This is why I don't normally engage you, because it's impossible to approach you without you "feeling" offended.

And it's not just me, because you've made general comments to the same end. You start from a place of umbrage and work back. I don't like that, and I don't waste my time with it most of the time.

I'll try one more time. Do you think the punishment fit the crime? Your opinion. Not 'facts', not stats, just what you thought of the whole thing, after looking into it, which you appear to have done, to some extent.

But you can't separate the facts from the case. You can't separate these things. This is an absurd contradiction. It's like asking me to define "fruit" without using vowels. And you still haven't clarified. Fits the crime in what sense? By Indiana's standards? By moral standards? By God's standards? By Batman's standards? Because you spoke about it being unfair in that you "felt" a man would not get similar treatment. This does not appear to be true. By the standards of the state of Indiana, it seems "fair." By the standards of US Justice, wherein diminished capacity is also supposed to be into play, it could be considered fair.

Or are you asking if this "feels" right, the same sort of emotional appeal that leads to the sensationalism you complained about before? Because I have a "feeling" that's what you mean, even though it's incongruous to your arguments that a man wouldn't get off like this.

And to be frank, I don't care. I have no interest in emotional appeals. What struck me about this thread was that people were crying "the poor men get treated so horribly this is so unfair!" even though that's not, you know...true. It looks more like, from a real-world perspective, that they simply offer plea bargains to a lot of violent offenders which are quite lenient. But apparently, the facts don't "feel" right, so they don't get factored in. If you can't engage on an intellectual level, I am simply not interested. And since you either cannot or will not do something so simple as investigate to test your "feelings" on the matter, I imagine this conversation is going to end very soon.

But honestly, if you don't like it when the media sensationalises things, maybe you shouldn't sensationalise things, either.

EDIT: To reiterate, there is an actual truth claim here: is this woman being treated differently because she's a woman? People are claiming she is, that this is sexist or unfair or feminism in action based upon this idea that a man would not get off so lightly. So we can evaluate this. I'm aware of multiple instances of similar levels of probation for violent, even repeat offenders who were men, or even who targeted women. As such, this claim appears to be false. I could not find a case with absolute parity (man cuts at a woman's vagina over pedophilia suspicions), so I will admit to a certain degree of doubt, but it seems improbable. If this was a case of feminists getting their way or an unfair bias, we would expect to see cases with women getting probation and house arrest and men not. We do not see this.

That more than half the thread seems to be about a form of sexism that appears to not exist speaks to the interest in honesty that's going on here. People just want to complain about how a man doing the same thing would be treated worse, even if it's false.

 

[Saltyk]

But you can't separate the facts from the case. You can't separate these things. This is an absurd contradiction. It's like asking me to define "fruit" without using vowels. And you still haven't clarified. Fits the crime in what sense? By Indiana's standards? By moral standards? By God's standards? By Batman's standards?

I hesitate to speak for someone else (really, I almost didn't, hence I hesitated), but I imagine he means by your personal standards, or in your opinion. As in, in this case, do you personally think it is justified etc. etc.

You really shouldn't have bothered. Should have listened to that voice that told you not to.

 

[wAriot]

It doesn't really matter if she was acting on a suspicion or if she was completely convinced that he had committed the crime. Vigilantism in a democracy doesn't make any sense. She should have gone to the police.

Or as it's better known in gaming circles, "ethics in journalism."

Do you really, REALLY have to do this in every thread?

EDIT:

Being under the influence of something doesn't make you not responsible for your actions.

I could make a very derailing post about this quote, but I don't want this discussion to be even more off-topic than it already is.

 

[the December King]

... It looks more like, from a real-world perspective, that they simply offer plea bargains to a lot of violent offenders which are quite lenient.

... I'll assume that this is what you really "feel" about this situation, and leave the analysis of myself aside.

But apparently, the facts don't "feel" right, so they don't get factored in. If you can't engage on an intellectual level, I am simply not interested. And since you either cannot or will not do something so simple as investigate to test your "feelings" on the matter, I imagine this conversation is going to end very soon.

Alrighty then.

Ahem.

According to Indiana Battery Laws, it looks like this could qualifiy as a Class B Misdemeanour Battery. Which can carry a sentence of one 180 days in jail, and a small fine. Since the penis wasn't removed, and the attacked is likely to make a (more or less) full recovery (supposition on my part), then this would be the minimum sentence. I guess a plea bargain could potentially reduce the sentence, with judiciary provisions or stipulations of some kind...

But I still think that intent to harm with a weapon should count for more- Aggravated Assault, it seems, as defined. The penalties for Assault vary greatly, but the difference seems to be the use of a weapon (?). Assault with a Dangerous Weapon does indeed carry the potential for imprisonment, loss of license and ability to own firearms or other weapons, anger management classes, fines, probation, and parole... huh. And it's determined on a case by case basis of arbitration. So I guess, according to the Law in Indiana, this was a just sentence.

I would have thought that assault with a deadly weapon would carry a more stringent group of enforced penalties than the random case by case 'grab-bag' as I understand it.

 

[Maze1125]

I don't know how often those of you with your foreskins would rub one out, but I feel like it would almost have to be less than me during my prime.

Almost certainly, yes.
The reason for that is because of the desensitisation of the penis.
The lower sensitivity means that each time feels less satisfying, which means circumcised men tend to masturbate more often, in a subconscious attempt to make up the lack of satisfaction.

In the exact same way that the studies show that fatter people tend to have less sensitive taste-buds and so each thing they eat is less tasty, leading them to eat more to make up the brain's "satisfaction" quota.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

10 months plus a little probation? That's it? For kidnapping/imprisoning and torturing a person? That's fucked up.

Also, is somebody else going to take care of her two year old? Somebody that fucked up shouldn't be allowed to have a houseplant, much less a tiny human.

 

[Something Amyss]

Do you really, REALLY have to do this in every thread?

Evidently not, since I don't.

Did yo9u really have to make such a false claim?

 

[Gorrath]

I would have thought that assault with a deadly weapon would carry a more stringent group of enforced penalties than the random case by case 'grab-bag' as I understand it.

It's worth noting that the great variance you might see here has to do with how nebulous "assault with a deadly weapon" can be. Something as understandable as clubbing a home intruder with a frying pan can get you charged with that. It's nice to know that there's plenty of discretion allowed a judge to differentiate between, "Kid hits kid with stick" and "Person guns down person with shotgun."

According to what I could find "Deadly weapon" in Indiana includes anything that could be used to cause "serious bodily harm." That leaves almost anything on the table.

 

[the December King]

I would have thought that assault with a deadly weapon would carry a more stringent group of enforced penalties than the random case by case 'grab-bag' as I understand it.

It's worth noting that the great variance you might see here has to do with how nebulous "assault with a deadly weapon" can be. Something as understandable as clubbing a home intruder with a frying pan can get you charged with that. It's nice to know that there's plenty of discretion allowed a judge to differentiate between, "Kid hits kid with stick" and "Person guns down person with shotgun."

According to what I could find "Deadly weapon" in Indiana includes anything that could be used to cause "serious bodily harm." That leaves almost anything on the table.

Yeah, I noticed that, too! It was remarkably nebulous- are we missing some more stringent guide somewhere? Or is it really up to the judge at the time? I suppose it does rest on a case by case, but as you say, someone could be killed with just about anything, with intent and all... I mean, they seem deliberately obscure.

 

[Gorrath]

I would have thought that assault with a deadly weapon would carry a more stringent group of enforced penalties than the random case by case 'grab-bag' as I understand it.

It's worth noting that the great variance you might see here has to do with how nebulous "assault with a deadly weapon" can be. Something as understandable as clubbing a home intruder with a frying pan can get you charged with that. It's nice to know that there's plenty of discretion allowed a judge to differentiate between, "Kid hits kid with stick" and "Person guns down person with shotgun."

According to what I could find "Deadly weapon" in Indiana includes anything that could be used to cause "serious bodily harm." That leaves almost anything on the table.

Yeah, I noticed that, too! It was remarkably nebulous- are we missing some more stringent guide somewhere? Or is it really up to the judge at the time? I suppose it does rest on a case by case, but as you say, someone could be killed with just about anything, with intent and all... I mean, they seem deliberately obscure.

I don't think we're missing anything really. Let's say we have a home invasion where a person clubs an intruder to death with a frying pan. The prosecutor's office might step in and charge the person with murder but then plea bargain it out to assault with a deadly weapon due to the circumstances. A judge then will have the power to give the person a slap on the wrist due to the reduced charge. In this case the nebulous nature of "deadly weapon" includes the frying pan because of how it was used, whether it was designed to be a weapon or not and the loose nature of the possible sentences is good because it lets the judge not hammer someone for just defending their home. I think it's all pretty reasonable really.

 

[wAriot]

Do you really, REALLY have to do this in every thread?

Evidently not, since I don't.

Did yo9u really have to make such a false claim?

I worded that wrong, I didn't mean you personally, it was a more general "you". I'm just tired of seeing GG-related posts in every thread.

 

[the December King]

I would have thought that assault with a deadly weapon would carry a more stringent group of enforced penalties than the random case by case 'grab-bag' as I understand it.

It's worth noting that the great variance you might see here has to do with how nebulous "assault with a deadly weapon" can be. Something as understandable as clubbing a home intruder with a frying pan can get you charged with that. It's nice to know that there's plenty of discretion allowed a judge to differentiate between, "Kid hits kid with stick" and "Person guns down person with shotgun."

According to what I could find "Deadly weapon" in Indiana includes anything that could be used to cause "serious bodily harm." That leaves almost anything on the table.

Yeah, I noticed that, too! It was remarkably nebulous- are we missing some more stringent guide somewhere? Or is it really up to the judge at the time? I suppose it does rest on a case by case, but as you say, someone could be killed with just about anything, with intent and all... I mean, they seem deliberately obscure.

I don't think we're missing anything really. Let's say we have a home invasion where a person clubs an intruder to death with a frying pan. The prosecutor's office might step in and charge the person with murder but then plea bargain it out to assault with a deadly weapon due to the circumstances. A judge then will have the power to give the person a slap on the wrist due to the reduced charge. In this case the nebulous nature of "deadly weapon" includes the frying pan because of how it was used, whether it was designed to be a weapon or not and the loose nature of the possible sentences is good because it lets the judge not hammer someone for just defending their home. I think it's all pretty reasonable really.

Aaah, that actually makes sense, when you explain it like that. If the fact is, is that someone has been assaulted, then the charges will be a reflection of the circumstances put forward by the defendant and the plaintif, taking on different aspects of essentially the same act, both set to put the respective parties in the most favorable position.