Opinion: Congrats to the Trib on their Pulitzer Prize

[eddified]

Yeah the general authorities attended the university of Utah by and large (my cousin who went there won't let me forget it  -- I attended the Y). 

[The Folk Prophet]

11 hours ago, yjacket said:

Got ya.  I definitely agree with what you are saying; I do think it is semantics.

It's a strange thing to me. I don't know when, exactly, that it became such an important thing to categorically state "rape is a crime of violence" like there was some important social message or something therein. Like if we deal with the violence then it goes away? I just find the point made so repeatedly odd. And it's just what people say (like you did) because...it's what you say. But rape is also, for example, a crime of selfishness. But you don't see that mantra repeated. And yet it strikes me that if you were trying to correct a character flaw that contributed to rape that selfishness would be much higher on the list than violent tendencies. So, yeah. Just weird to me. Which is the only reason I said anything.

Edited April 15, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

36 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's a strange thing to me. I don't know when, exactly, that it became such an important thing to categorically state "rape is a crime of violence" like there was some important social message or something therein. Like if we deal with the violence then it goes away? I just find the point made so repeatedly odd. And it's just what people say (like you did) because...it's what you say. But rape is also, for example, a crime of selfishness. But you don't see that mantra repeated. And yet it strikes me that if you were trying to correct a character flaw that contributed to rape that selfishness would be much higher on the list than violent tendencies. So, yeah. Just weird to me. Which is the only reason I said anything.

Frankly (and this is one post where a "trigger warning" may actually be appropriate, since I know we have some sex assault victims here)--

I think sex assault victims have a need to put some kind of meaning into the tragedy they have experienced.  So they start emphasizing these narratives where the perpetrator was making a calculated effort to exert control over the victim; and the victim's recovery entails re-asserting her own identity and independence.

If that works therapeutically, OK.  But the rapists I've dealt with professionally almost uniformly attribute their behavior to two factors, neither of which fit the therapeutically-preferred narrative.  Offender explanations typically boil down to "I wanted sex, and she was there."  I can see why victims don't like that paradigm, since in a way it makes their suffering horrifically meaningless.  But when we're talking about why rape happens, how to prevent it, and how to rehabilitate offenders--frankly, we need to be taking our cues primarily from the perps, not the victims.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

36 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's a strange thing to me.....

I understand.  I guess the only reason I drew it out was to make the distinction that violence by it's very nature leaves physical evidence.  The left claims that there is a "rape culture" on college campuses.  That may be the case, but if it is the case then their should be quite a bit of women on campuses walking around that have physical evidence of rape-bruises etc.  But as far as I know, that is definitely not the case.  

What you do have is a very pervasive "hook-up" culture where people get drunk, do drugs and have sex, and then in some cases afterwards the woman claims she was taken advantage of or raped. IMO these false claims of rape do more harm to the actual seriousness and notion rape.  I have sympathy for the "date rape drug" victims.  But again, people need to take responsibility for their actions.  While you can't control if someone slips it into your drink-you can control your environment (don't drink alcohol from strangers, don't leave your drinks alone, double date until you are ready to be very serious with someone).  And this is my big beef in these instances, how do you prove it?  "I didn't have anything and the next thing I knew I woke up next to John" and John will say "well she got a little tipsy".  It turns into a he said, she said and unless there is some actual physical proof vs. words if I were on a jury I couldn't convict. 

But in today's society, pointing out the obvious such as take responsibility for your actions, turns into a "you're blaming the victim!!" meltdown. No, just that a lot of crimes that happen are crimes of opportunity-like JAG said, "she was there, I wanted sex". If you are aware of your surroundings, then you will be much more able to detect when you are in a bad situation.  And many times an entire crime will be avoided. 

Edited April 15, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

10 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Many of the higher ups didn't go to BYU!

Right, though I was making a bigger point about how strict the BYU honor codes are or are not. Many people who haven't gone there (like me) don't know how the rules are applied. 

[Guest]

On 4/14/2017 at 11:38 AM, MormonGator said:

Same here. I have no problem applying the death penalty to rapists. I know it's a controversial view but like everyone else who has a conscience I have zero sympathy for rapists. 

Yeah, I've never heard anything so controversial in my life.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yeah, I've never heard anything so controversial in my life.

You want to know controversial? 

Pineapples do not belong on a pizza. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Right, though I was making a bigger point about how strict the BYU honor codes are or are not. Many people who haven't gone there (like me) don't know how the rules are applied. 

Basically, live the principles of the Gospel, including those outlined in For the Strength of Youth.

As far as the law is concerned, yes, violation of a law can get you kicked out of school.  But which laws?  Everytime we EVER sign any paper or form stating whether you've ever been convicted of a crime (including misdemeanors) I've always seen the phrase "Except for minor traffic violations".  To me this means that minor traffic violations in our society (including the honor code office at BYU) doesn't look at traffic violations as breaking the law.  It is merely an activity with a penalty like paying the IRS because you didn't carry health insurance.  (Oooh.  Bad example).

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You want to know controversial? 

Pineapples do not belong on a pizza. 

BLASPHEMY!!!

BSF, you might want to see the movie "Mobsters and Mormons".

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

BLASPHEMY!!!

I feel a vendetta coming on! 

[Just_A_Guy]

40 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yeah, I've never heard anything so controversial in my life.

You spoke too soon:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5180903-155/complaints-mount-against-utah-judge-who

(Personal note:  I was screened for the jury on this case, but wasn't selected.)

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

(Personal note:  I was screened for the jury on this case, but wasn't selected.)

Well duh!!

After all, what do YOU know about the law?

 

(Totally playing @Just_A_Guy! Happy Easter!!!) 

[Just_A_Guy]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Well duh!!

After all, what do YOU know about the law?

 

(Totally playing @Just_A_Guy! Happy Easter!!!) 

It was pretty funny, actually.  I knew the judge, knew the defense attorney, had (unsuccessfully) interviewed for a job with the prosecutor, and work in child welfare court.  I flat-out told them that my wife and I had a running bet about who would try to get me disqualified first.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You spoke too soon:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5180903-155/complaints-mount-against-utah-judge-who

(Personal note:  I was screened for the jury on this case, but wasn't selected.)

I have to wonder what his being a former Mormon bishop has to do with the trial.  But I guess that's just the Tribune at work.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just now, Carborendum said:

I have to wonder what his being a former Mormon bishop has to do with the trial.  But I guess that's just the Tribune at work.

At sentencing, the defense can bring up all the good you've done, character letters, etc.  My understanding is that this guy had over fifty glowing letters in his support.  So I daresay it came up; though I suspect Judge Low was more moved by the sheer magnitude of the material than by the ecclesiastical office.

[Guest]

Quote

A good place to start is by applauding the Salt Lake Tribune and Ms. Barney for their openness and courage in shedding light on these issues.

Uh-huh.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

At sentencing, the defense can bring up all the good you've done, character letters, etc.  My understanding is that this guy had over fifty glowing letters in his support.  So I daresay it came up; though I suspect Judge Low was more moved by the sheer magnitude of the material than by the ecclesiastical office.

I was referring to the headline more than the proceedings.

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It was pretty funny, actually.  I knew the judge, knew the defense attorney, had (unsuccessfully) interviewed for a job with the prosecutor, and work in child welfare court.  I flat-out told them that my wife and I had a running bet about who would try to get me disqualified first.

JAG-Let's say that you have no clue who the judge or attorneys involved are. Would they let a active member of the bar sit on a jury? I have no idea, just asking. 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

JAG-Let's say that you have no clue who the judge or attorneys involved are. Would they let a active member of the bar sit on a jury? I have no idea, just asking. 

In theory, sure.  But it gets complicated if the juror knows the attorneys and you open yourself up to accusations of bias (you can see how they are crucifying this judge for saying something that should be pretty mundane--that people are messy, and those who are generally good can still do horrific things); and I think attorneys on both sides prefer to be able to "educate" jurors from the ground up about things like physical evidence, the vagaries of trauma and how it affects witness testimony, etc.  They didn't like that I had been to several conferences on child abuse in the past couple of months.

[Maureen]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I have to wonder what his being a former Mormon bishop has to do with the trial.  But I guess that's just the Tribune at work.

He was a Mormon Bishop while sexually assaulting young girls.

The Deseret News also mentions that he was a former bishop.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865677894/Backlash-after-Provo-judge-refers-to-convicted-rapist-as-a-good-man.html

M.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Maureen

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Maureen said:

He was a Mormon Bishop while sexually assaulting young girls.

The Deseret News also mentions that he was a former bishop.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865677894/Backlash-after-Provo-judge-refers-to-convicted-rapist-as-a-good-man.html

M.

Notice the difference.  One is a headline.  The other is "another fact among many" in the article.

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

JAG-Let's say that you have no clue who the judge or attorneys involved are. Would they let a active member of the bar sit on a jury? I have no idea, just asking. 

Here in Australia, legal practitioners are on the list of people who are excluded by law from sitting on a jury. I suspect it might be the same in your home country.

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, Maureen said:

He was a Mormon Bishop while sexually assaulting young girls.

The Deseret News also mentions that he was a former bishop.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865677894/Backlash-after-Provo-judge-refers-to-convicted-rapist-as-a-good-man.html

M.

I wonder if many other people noticed what could be a spelling error in this article, or perhaps it was accurately reported, but the person who said it may have been mistaken. The article says 

"People have said he's perpetrating rape culture," Yim said. "People have called for him to be removed from office and sanctioned for his conduct."

Vocabulary.com says

Be careful not to confuse perpetuate with perpetrate. Although they differ in spelling by only one letter, they differ greatly in meaning. If you perpetuate something, you help it last. Perpetrate, on the other hand, means to commit a criminal act. Needless to say, you wouldn't want to perpetuate the acts of perpetrators!

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/perpetuate

 

 

 

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I have to wonder what his being a former Mormon bishop has to do with the trial.  But I guess that's just the Tribune at work.

 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Notice the difference.  One is a headline.  The other is "another fact among many" in the article.

Your first comment said nothing about "his being a former Mormon bishop" mentioned in the headline. If that makes a difference to you, you should have made that clear. But the fact of him being a former bishop is mentioned in both articles.

M. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Here in Australia, legal practitioners are on the list of people who are excluded by law from sitting on a jury. I suspect it might be the same in your home country.

Sadly, no.  I asked.

[askandanswer]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sadly, no.  I asked.

I was replying more to Gator who I think comes from England, which has many similarities to the Australian legal system.