News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
While I would tend to agree, if I'm reading this correctly, they sent the letters for the sentencing... meaning he was already convicted of rape and they were pleading for leniency for an old rapist buddy, like within the last few months. That is a really bad look no matter how you slice it.
He's also an old friend.
I don't believe in guilt by association. Asking for leniency for an old friend to a judge, and he didn't get it, doesn't make them monsters or rapists by proxy.
If our culture demands every felon be shunned by their friends and family members going forward, then end the perverse charade and just kill everyone upon a felony conviction.
Masterson did a very bad thing, some friends wrote letters to inform the judge that that isn't all he is and to consider that, not out of malice, but out of compassion.
Man, the internet has absolutely destroyed the concept of nuance. Then again, we only see our "justice," lol, system as a way to turn the screws on bad people... that our society made, btw. Wanton spectator cruelty without the guilt. Not even a hint of attempts at rehabilitation, and just about everyone roots for a parolee's failure to confirm their biases.
Advocating maximum cruelty be inflicted on a perpetrator shouldn't be confused with compassion for the victim. Americans largely ignore that distinction, because it's convenient, easy, and pleasurable to revel in cruelty and call it kindness.
Or... we could accept that Masterson RAPED people, and maybe don't give him any support, regardless of his past actions. We don't need to hold out a hand for the fallen rapist. There are too many people in the world that genuinely need help that wasting even an iota of effort on a rapist is a slap in the face to them, not to mention the people the rapist has harmed. There is no nuance.
Thank you for making my point.
Masterson did RAPE people. Now, do we want to punish him and rehabilitate him, or get our vengeance boner on and beat on him because that hilariously makes our society feel virtuous?
So much for society demonstrating being better than than those that violate its laws. Blood! Blood! More blood! Give us bloooood!
Don't be glib. If it came out that my oldest friend wqs not only a rapist, but also used his fame and religion to silence the victims and avoid prosecution... AND I was involved with an organization with the express purpose of stopping sex abuse... I'd absolutely tell that friend to pound sand.
There were multiple times when I learned that friends of mine were sexually assaulted, some of those times were by people I considered friends. There's zero chance that I'd do anything to "put in a good word" for the rapists I once called friends, because their actions in my company have ZERO baring on how they acted in private.
Tl;Dr: If you're vouching for the upstanding nature of a convicted rapist based on your interactions when he wasn't being a duplicitous rapist... that says more about your ignorance to how terrible that person can be as opposed to the good works you saw from the rapist when they weren't raping. You're also a victim.
Except this isn't about Masterson. This is about Kutcher's support for him. If I have a friend that turns out to be a rapist, that's not a friend. That's someone hiding an important, deal breaking secret. If you've hidden that from me, I'm not going to tell a judge you're an otherwise good person that shouldn't be punished accordingly. If I kept that person as a friend after their rapist nature is revealed, that speaks very poorly on my judgement.
I'm not saying that we need to flog the guilty. I'm just saying that we don't need to offer him more help than anyone else would get. Is Kutcher writing letters to every judge involved in a rape case and asking for them to go easy because the perp was a youth pastor? Justice is supposed to be blind. If celebrities, politicians, etc. get special treatment then we aren't working to fix society, we are letting people in power run around doing whatever the fuck they want. Masterson should receive all the help the justice system affords a rapist, but not one bit more, and definitely not because he has celebrity friends writing letters on his behalf.
For just about any other crime I'd tend to agree with the sentiment, but for nearly any other crime I can come up with some hypothetical scenario where that crime is justifiable, where I can comprehend the reasoning behind the act.
I can't come up with any hypothetical where rape or sexual assault is justifiable.
"Internet doesn't understand nuance"
Proceeds to put words in other people's mouths by strawmanning their position
lmao like what are you even talking about?
For rape??? Vengeance. Not some magical rehab for sex offenders
You're the most honest and/or self-aware one of the "string em up" crowd here. Thank you.
You acknowledge where your stance comes from. I respect that, sincerely.
I think through introspection, education, and rehabilitation most criminals can work toward enlightenment and betterment. But sex offenders commit the most heinous of all crimes and deserve no extra consideration. They are blemishes in human evolution and are plagues on decency and humanity. At the absolute very best, they should be locked away from the rest of us
Yeah alright
Well, so I get that asking for leniency for an old buddy sure. However.. the specific crimes he committed and the organization that Ashton works for/runs whatever. That's a bad fucking look. That's a real bad fucking look. Like, that undermines a lot of shit he's done look.
It doesn't make them rapists by proxy, but it does make them someone who believes the rapist they like should be the exception.
Is it really for an exception? Or just not making it any longer due to additional bad character traits?
My understanding is they look at the range of acceptable punishment, and then use these factors to determine where it should land. Providing a letter explaining his character would serve to put it on the lower end of it. It's not so much an exception as it is just providing evidence for the court to make an informed decision for the range.
He didn't get convicted of rape and being unlikeable. He was convicted of rape. The penalty being assessed is the penalty for rape. Whatever else he may have done, good or bad, he did the rape. He should pay the penalty for the rape that he did. If he collects money for disabled children on Sundays, he shouldn't be punished less, he should pay the penalty for rape. If he's a jerk who gets drunk on weeknights and starts his political opinions with "I'm not racist, but..." he shouldn't be penalized additionally for that. He should be penalized for rape. This thing where we make room for "He's a rapist, but..." is fucking garbage. It reeks of Brock Turner's dad trying to reduce the lifetime of harm his son inflicted on a woman to "10 minutes of action". If a rapist who operates a puppy rescue is less of a rapist than a rapist who does other things we all agree to be unpleasant then it's not about the harm inflicted, it's about how much we all generally like the rapist.
I agree with you in principle. But that isn't how the judicial system works. Usually there's a minimum, which is the actual punishment for the crime. Then there's the maximum which is what they give you if you're a repeat offender or they just generally think you're an extra shitty person.
Given that, someone with otherwise good character is expected to get the minimum, which is the time for the crime without getting extra. In this case that minimum is 30 years.
But yeah, if you want to talk about how shit the judicial system is, I agree. I could go on about plea bargains, penalty ranges, etc being used as tools of oppression.
He's a repeat offender. He was convicted on multiple counts. Strictly speaking, he's not just a rapist, he's a serial rapist.
But I do think we'd agree about plea bargains. They let the guilty off scot free and let the overworked, underfunded judicial system off the hook when it comes to innocent defendants.
Nobody is saying it makes them monsters or rapists by proxy, it just makes them friends of a rapist who stayed his friend even after it was proven that he raped at least two people, and then asked for him to be treated leniently even though he certainly didn't grant any leniency to the people he raped. And they're free to do that. But disapproving of that isn't guilt by association, that's just them making choices regarding their relationship with a rapist that other people are free to judge and criticize them for.
They said he was a role model
It's not like he just stole a car or something. Rapists deserve the worst punishments we have to offer.
The letters are typically asked for before conviction as a just-in-case. He's still asking for leniency for his rapist buddy I just thought I'd clarify that little bit.
Several of the letters make mention of his conviction. Someone posted them above.