The Brock Turner case is completely unrelated to the topic of this thread.
Both are related to out-of-control feminists imposing unjust results on a situation.
Brock Turner was convicted of committing rape; a serious crime. I mostly agree with Neptune on this case.
Do you think the judge should have ignored the law when passing sentence, and should have been forced out of office for deciding to follow the law?
Then imagine how you would feel if the guy who raped you was given a light sentence because the judge thought he had opportunity.
If I didn't like it, my problem would be with the law that the judge followed, not with the judge for following the law.
Judicial Independence is an interesting issue... when judges make a decision that outrages the public, should they be shielded. This is a difficult question, on either side bad things are likely to happen.
How about when the judge is following the law and the public is outraged because they wanted the judge to ignore the law?
As far as the punishment that this criminal should have been given, I agree with Neptune.
So you don't think our legal system should be lenient towards first-time offenders?
That's certainly a valid point of view I guess. But I'd think it would be a lot fairer to try to change the law rather than to punish judges for following the law.
If we did crack down harder on first-time offenders, minority communities would probably be hit the hardest.
But this has nothing to do with Junot Diaz, a man who has never been convicted and is being accused of things that are likely not even crimes.
But it does have to do with out of control feminists perpetrating injustices.