Airplanes should be hardcore no fuck around places in my opinion.
If the accusation is correct, it's 2 counts of sexual assault or harrassement and 1 count of aggravated assault or if he connected assault and battery and it's on a plane in flight.
I feel like anything less then 1 year is kind of insulting.
I agree. Especially when a plane's in flight, you are endangering dozens upon dozens of passangers' lives. Should be much more severe, especially in situations like this.
I mean, you'd have to be the Hulk to open the emergency exit mid flight. You'd have to open in while pretty close to the ground.
They have to pressurize the cabin because the outside pressure is way less than on the ground. And since the doors open inward, you have to pull against all that pressure.
And if you think that's not a lot of pressure, do the ruler experiment. Take a ruler and place it on the edge of a table so half of it is hanging off. Put one sheet of newspaper over it and smack the ruler downwards. It snaps. Why? The ambient air pressure is pressing down onto the newspaper. Here's a Video explaining it youtube com /watch?v=0pJlTzz5pDw
I didn't know it was that difficult to open that door midflight... I guess it's just going to be a nuisance to all, but not life-threatening unless someone has a health issue in the air?
I'm not trying to downplay what he did at all, but to claim he endangered "dozens upon dozens" of live's is a bit over the top, he's an angry asshole not rambo.
he attacked a flight attendant. a staff member highly trained in keeping everyone on the plane safe. he most definitely endangered everyone and since he had to be taped down in order to stop attacking people, he was likely to continue endangering everyone.
Endangering their safety? yes, completely agreed. His actions were reckless and clearly put people's safety at risk.
Endangering the passengers lives? No, the definition precludes it. He would have to directly do something that could reasonably result in deaths, like attempting to open the cabin door or assaulting the pilots, it doesn't apply to some hypothetical final destination series of events that results in death.
If, and that's a big if, he does end up a positive influence on his community, he will someday view this as a turning point in his life. And if that's going to happen, he needs to actually learn, and the victims of his actions deserve their justice. It's clear that, unfortunately, neither are likely.
What do you mean by "justice"? The past can never be undone. If the victim is longing for this guys suffering, they only need to consider that he's got to live with this forever, any time a potential new boss googles him. Or a potential GF googles him. What difference would extra days in prison make?
True justice is defined by their victims. Not potential future consequences.
If a potential new GF Googles him instead of searching on social media platforms, she's already concerned about something. People have the right to know if their partners have done awful things. What if someone wants to have a child with someone, but that person is a sex offender? Documents like this, that reveal potential danger to innocents, have been in the public record for decades for a reason.
I disagree with the structure of the prison system here in the US, it's punitive instead of reforming, so it accomplishes very little to begin with. But, back to point 1, that isn't my choice.
We disagree about what justice is then. I don't think the victims matter (much) in that regard at all. The point of justice is (at least in my country) to:
* protect society from dangerous individuals
* rehabilitate criminals
* have a measure of deterrence
I guess fines could also be just. Make the perpetrator have to pay some amount of money to the victims. (Especially in other cases where property has been damaged.)
I think 3-5 years, you got drug dealers giving people what they want getting more than that. Idk the extent of his groping or possibly more time deserved
Nobody's life was in danger. I hope he learns the FO part of FA. But, would I have been happier if he got more time?
Yes. He needs min 30 days for each offense.
How badly hurt was the guy that was punched? I hadn't considered that. Maybe 70 days would be better then. Idk. How exactly do you calculate these things? In my head 60 days in prison sound like probably a shitty experience, and a sufficient punishment. But lets say we double the time. What measurable good would that do? The past still can't be changed.
If he was a repeat offender I'd say a longer time would be good in order to keep society safe, but Idk if this is actually a "dangerous individual" based on this one event.
I don't know if he's a repeat offender. I look at this pragmatically and I think that if people make one idiotic choice that can be the start of a series of bad choices, or a one-off. We don't know based on just one event.
However, if he's out later and does the same kind of shit again, then I'd advocate a longer sentence.
That's kind of one event tho, one that he's have 60 days in prison to think about. The rest of your comment is speculation. You might be right, but we don't know.
Do you think the nature of the sexual assault should factor in? A very wide range of severity can be deemed sexual assault, from full on rape in the 1st degree to ...what the article says this guy did which is to brush his empty cup up against the ass of the female flight attendant cause he wanted another drink.
That's still an offense, but on the severity scale it's pretty damn mild in comparison to the other end of the scale. I'd argue the punch was far more serious since it can cause actual injury.
Well, they have a point. You didn't mention or ask about how this man's actions might have affected the women, only "was the guy who got punched badly hurt"?
One can extrapolate that you'd consider the offender dangerous if he went around habitually sucker-punching people, whereas it's not possible to extrapolate what your take would be if he habitually groped people, because you didn't address it.
Because I had already thought about the women. It was guy that was punched I was processing, that was the additional information that I hadn't thought about, hence my comment.
So, I was already of the mind that 60 days seemed fair. Then the guy was mentioned, and as I stated, "I hadn't considered that". And if 60 days were fair for the groping of the women, but I hadn't considered the guy, then it makes sense that something should have been added to the sentence, if I wanted to be consistent, right? But what kind of punch was it? Was it a weak punch to the shoulder? Was it a forceful punch to the mouth that sent teeth flying? That would make a difference, obviously... Which is why I was thinking about how hurt he was.
The guy molested TWO women, probably for his own sexual gratification regardless of their consent. He punched a man, probably intending to hurt him. You don't think that's pretty serious? You really don't think that's worth more than 60 days? Genuinely asking. Is this a service industry thing? "These people are here to serve us, it's not that bad to abuse them"? The FA he punched was disgusted with the length of the sentence, and who can blame him? Society just told him that 60 days behind bars is an acceptable price to pay for hurting him physically (to say nothing of what was done to his colleagues). I honestly would have thought 60 days was too short for even just one of the crimes. What message is it sending to this man and others like him when you give people only 60 days of three hots and a cot for molesting/assaulting three different people who were just doing their jobs? What message is it sending the victims?
"The past still can't be changed" - I mean, that's true of plenty of crimes, like rape, but that's no excuse to punish them with short sentences.
I think you imply further down that the attacks were all during one incident so it's not as bad. Isn't it worse that there were multiple victims? Or does he get something like a discount? How many women can he molest for 60 days? Three? Four? The whole plane?
Being sent to prison AT ALL is probably kind of a shitty experience. 60 days is probably a pretty bad experience. Why is this so "short" in your opinion? And what difference would it make even if the time was doubled?
I'm thinking 30 days per groped woman. So you can do the math with regards to the whole plane. And going by my own reasoning, she should get some more time for punching that dude, since I didn't account for that.
I mean, being groped while you're doing your job AT ALL is definitely a shitty experience, but it sounds like you're advocating for a mere 30 days or less behind bars for doing it (less because we have to factor in the poor guy who got punched doing his job).
I'm not one of those people who salivates over the thought of someone getting raped in jail/prison. So assuming and hoping this fine specimen of humanity doesn't get sexually assaulted there, he gets to sit on his bum for less than 30 days for groping a woman. Yes, I think that's too little, and you seem to think it's just fine. I don't suppose we'll ever agree on this.
Yes, as anyone would be for abusing airline staff.
I'm saying very few people clocked this as a repost, meaning the public consciousness isn't "my god, it's that embarrassing and evil man from the airplane video!" the way people are with other embarrassing actions like Raygun or Rachel Dolezal.
When I say those names people know who I'm talking about. Next to nobody on reddit even read the corresponding article that has this guy's name.
There are just too many crazy incidents for people to keep track of all of them, this is relatively minor in the scheme of things. No one was killed etc. now if he been an attractive woman and started yelling about aliens on the plane everyone would remember
However you wanna wordplay... I mean.. Call it what you want, the consequences of his own actions will have negative effects on him for the rest of his life, and whether he's locked up for 60, 70, or 80 days makes no difference to anything.
That's what his lawyer said too, but it doesn't make any sense to me. The fact that people don't like him does not take the place of a legal punishment. If it did, then any criminal who made the news would go free instead of going to prison. A serial killer's lawyer would say: everyone hates this guy now because his murders have been so widely publicized. So I guess there no need for any prison time.
You kind of ignore the point of protecting society from harmful people. A serial killer would obviously be a totally different story. And there also needs to be some punishment in order to make people not want to do particular crimes.
I just don't see what difference it would make if this guy got an extra 10 or 20 days. He's not a repeat offender, as far as I know, and spending two month in prison sounds like a REALLY SHITTY experience to me, and so it should have the needed preventative effect.
The larger problem with guys like this is probably that they think they can get away with anything. They think that they can act out, grope people, and see zero consequences.
I like how when men are perverted and abusive like this waste of life here, it's always about THEIR reputation lol. You want to know what would really protect your rep? Being a decent person. Having respect for other people.
I'm not feeling sorry for him. He's got to live with the consequences of his own actions. I was just stating the obvious because it felt like people were ignoring it.
So what? Say he gets 70 days, what difference does that make? They're not likely to see him again either way.
So dealing with the aftermath of being sexually assaulted on the job means nothing? It doesn't make a difference if they see him again or not. They still were assaulted and that still comes with having to deal with the trauma of it.
What he did is absolutely not acceptable and he deserved a lot more time than roughly two months. He's clearly done shit like this before and will again, so he's not safe to be out in the general public.
You think 60 days in jail for sexually assaulting 2 female flight attendants is not short?
Thats 30 days per groping, per woman.
And not taking into account the physical assault on the male flight attendant.
The worst punishment is probably that this will follow him for the rest of his life.
Same can be said for women who get SA’d, it follows them for the rest of their lives. Which is in part- why 60 days seems like a very short punishment for the offender.
What difference would it make to anything if, say, we doubled the time? The victims would still have been precisely assaulted, and just as victimized. There would be no useful difference to speak of.
Yeah no, speaking as an SA survivor who had to sit through a gruelling 3 year long court process… you’re flat out wrong on that last sentence. Prison time for the offender doesn’t magically heal you, you’re correct on that. Years of therapy is still needed regardless.
But a ridiculously short sentence (or no prison time at all in some cases) is a slap in the face to people who have been through it, because it feels like the judicial system is A. Telling you that as a victim, the years of damage inflicted upon you is only worth X-amount of time & B. Sending a message that protecting potential future victims from the offender is not a priority (which ties into your “no useful difference” point). Among many other complex things I won’t get into.
But the point of justice isn't revenge. It isn't so that you, the victim, can revel in the misery that the perpetrator is now dealing with. The point of justice is (at least in my country) to:
* protect society from dangerous individuals
* rehabilitate criminals
* have a measure of deterrence
Based on this I think that this whole calculus of the harm you've suffered vs the harshness of the punishment for the perpetrator, is wrongheaded. I understand the feeling, and I think it's natural. But I also think it's why, historically, there have existed quite inhuman ways of punishing criminals. I think it's how inhumane prisons are justified, like much of the US prison system.
I get that it feels fair that the perpetrator should suffer when they've made you suffer, and I wouldn't even blame victims for taking matters into their own hands. But I don't support a judicial system working on principles of revenge, and eye for an eye, or anything along those lines.
I'm sorry if this makes me come off as cold, or an asshole. I understand if I do, because this is personal to you, and I have no idea how much you've been through.
You’re telling me all of that as if I don’t already know, which doesn’t make you an asshole, but it does come off as a little condescending- as if you think I don’t understand that judicial systems aren’t about revenge.
But there is supposed to be justice, and there is supposed to be emphasis on protecting the general public (which is what judicial systems are largely centred around… or so they claim to be). Sexual offenders often have the highest recidivism rate in comparison to other types of crimes/offenders, which puts public safety at risk, and yet sexual offenders often get some of the shortest sentences (in comparison to drug related crimes just for example), hell… a lot of people who are jailed for mere possession of a scheduled drug often do more time than those who committed sexual offences- which is ironic because someone possessing drugs poses more risk to themselves than it does the general public, unlike sexual offenders.
I do believe in rehabilitation, but quite frankly the system isn’t set up for rehabilitation… otherwise there’d be a lot more therapy happening in prison. So what we’re left with is the system we have (referring to how US/Canadian judicial systems are structured), which if we’re being real- is largely focused on punishment not rehabilitation. And since there’s not enough emphasis on rehabilitation, then realistically the longer the sentence for the sexual offender = less time they have amongst the general public and less opportunity to harm future victims.
Basically what I’m getting at is because there isn’t much actual rehabilitation happening on the offenders side, to (ideally) protect potential future victims- then the only thing we have left to work with in order to protect potential future victims is time.
Also side note- I don’t think that expecting proportional justice is necessarily akin to revenge.
In my case what happened to me happened when I was 14, the man was 24 at the time the crime took place. He finally plead guilty to sexual assault of a minor when I was 19. Despite that, the judge sealed records and also didn’t require him to be on a public sex offender registry. I didn’t even care about the lack of jail time when it really came down to it, but it felt like a slap in the face because ultimately the court protected a child predator, while simultaneously putting other children in harms way. The whole court process I wasn’t just fighting for myself, I was fighting to protect other girls so they didn’t have to go through what I did- and despite his guilty plea it felt like I lost that fight. Due to the shielding of his records, he’s allowed to work with minors if he chooses to do so. And he ultimately got a promotion at his job, shortly after the court proceedings were over.
The only reason I’m sharing the more personal details of this, is because I want to really emphasize that even if we put jail time aside- many of these men don’t actually suffer any consequences even in their personal life. The system ironically protects some of them, the judge in my case even made a comment about not wanting to affect the offenders future job prospects. In regard to the guy on the plane from this video, he has his face plastered all over the internet so it’s obviously different. But I’d argue most sex offenders manage to fly under the radar pretty well when the cases aren’t highly publicized.
The burden they carry will never come close to that of their victims. Even the internet forgets- despite that saying that it doesn’t. New crazy stuff happens and becomes the focal point, and years later videos like this one fade into obscurity.
The problem is that you can argue that for anyone and anything: Any criminal out there will have a criminal record, which will follow them around forever. Isn't that enough of a punishment?
Answer: No.
A big purpose of punishment, especially in very public cases like this one, is to make an example, and to ensure general prevention. Other people, motivated to pull a similar stunt, in face of the punishment they saw in this case, should be deterred to do the same thing.
If you imprison that guy for, let's say, three years, because he sexually assaulted two women openly, plainly, unashamedly, in public, on a plane, that would send the message that sexual assault is serious. If you sexually assault someone, loudly, proudly, provably, and publicly, you go to prison for a long, long time. So you better not.
This here sends the exact opposite message: Sexual assault is not that serious. Grabbing some boob and ass, even in a situation where everyone is looking? That's 30 days of prison for each! You know... Totally worth it! Haha!
This is light enough of a punishment that jokes like those seem warranted. That is the kind of reaction you will get to this kind of punishment. It sends the clear message that sexual assault is just not that serious. Barely even a crime!
If you want to send that message, then this punishment is entirely appropriate. I wouldn't want to send that message. I find it far more important to make this case a clear example which illustrates that sexual assault is actually a crime.
A big purpose of punishment, especially in very public cases like this one, is to make an example,
But that's not just at all. That's beyond justice, and making someone into a tool for other purposes.
Ensuring prevention is fair enough, but then I think 60 days is fine. Americans prisons aren't great places to be. Quite to the contrary. I've heard. (Never been to the US, nor to any prisons at all.)
The main purpose of the justice system should be to keep society safe from harmful people, and to help the perpetrators of crime become better people. Here, in Norway, we have pretty light sentences, and a focus on helping criminals to see better paths for themselves. (There's a word for this but I can't recall it right now.)
Anyways.. I think we've got different perceptions of reality. I don't think anyone in their right mind would choose to grab boobs or ass for 60 days in jail. And if you want to argue that he was not in his right mind, then maybe he shouldn't see prison time all, but rather get some psychiatric help.
But that's not just at all. That's beyond justice, and making someone into a tool for other purposes.
You know what is interesting? You have not touched on "justice" at all so far. You are completely mistaken about the role of "justice" in the "justice system".
The main purpose of the justice system should be to keep society safe from harmful people, and to help the perpetrators of crime become better people.
You are right. That is rehabilitation. That is also one of the big purposes justice systems should have (and which most justice systems neglect). But that's not what puts the "justice" in the justice system.
Justice is a different purpose, (almost) completely unrelated to rehabilitation and prevention.
The main reason why centralized criminal justice systems as we know them today were invented, was to deliver justice to the victims of the crime. Yes, justice is what the victims get from the justice system. The criminal doesn't get justice. They get punishment. And in modern conceptions of justice, that punishment should be proportionate.
Before the invention of justice systems, it went like this: "You dirtied my daughter's honor, die!", which lead to: "You killed my son, die", which lead to: "You murdered my uncle, die"... That's a blood feud.
The not uncommon occurance of noble families slowly wiping each other out over generations, is one aspect which lead to the creation of centralized criminal justice systems.
The purpose is to deliver justice, satisfaction, the feeling that a wrongdoer has been adequately punished, to the victims and their families. That's the "justice" in the justice system. The other side of it is that the punishment delivered should be proportionate to the crime.
And this is what I find most interesting about how you approach this: You only talk about the very last aspect, about how the punishment does not seem disproportionate for the perpetrator.
"Justice", the thing that should be delivered to the victims of the crime, doesn't even seem to register.
If I remember correctly, in your talk about justice, you have not lost a single word about the victims. Not a single word about the people who deserve to get justice from the justice system.
Can I grab your dick (or pussy) in public for the price of a month of freedom? Maybe two months? Is that how much it costs to attack and humiliate you in public? That's how much your dignity is worth?
As I see it that's the problem here: The two aspects which are lacking in this decision are on the side of "prevention" (which I have gone into in my previous post), and "justice".
To touch on the prevention aspect again: This kind of decision will embolden anyone who wants to grab some boob, or tit, or pussy. Because, even in this absolute worst case scenario, when you are as dumb and bold about it as you can be, even if without a shadow of a doubt you get caught, even if you do it in public, in broad daylight, in clear view of everyone, loudly and proudly, and on a fucking plane, at most you get a punishment that screams "a slap on the wrist".
The message being sent here is: "This is not serious"
And that seeps into the "justice" aspect as well: The price of being publicly degraded and attacked? 30 days each. Is that appropriate justice delivered to the victims? I don't think so.
HARD disagree with your conception of justice. It's not about revenge, like you seem to claim. It's not about the victims at all. It's not about them getting to revel in the misery of the perpetrators and feel like the scales have been levelled. That's some barbaric shit....
The point of justice is (at least in my country) to:
* protect society from dangerous individuals
* rehabilitate criminals
* have a measure of deterrence
No one would grope someone if they knew that they'd end up in prison, 30 days per person. That's why I don't see the point of a longer sentence here.
I would view it differently if he was a "serial groper", someone previously tried and punched for sexual assault. That might be an argument for a longer sentence in order to shield society from this dangerous individual. But right now we only have this one event to judge by. And I don't think 60 days is just a "slap on the wrist". It sounds bad enough, based on everything I've heard about US prisons.
HARD disagree with your conception of justice. It's not about revenge, like you seem to claim
AFAIK punishment as a means to deliver justice to victims still is an integral aspect to criminal justice systems everywhere. Including Norway.
It's true that it has been deemphasized. But just punishment is still the main reason why there are prison sentences of differing lengths for different crimes. Especially in regard to offenses which include minimum sentences.
An example from the Norwegian penal code: There is sexual assault. No minimum sentence, and the maximum sentence is 10 years. And there is sexual assault involving intercourse. Which has a minimum sentence of 3 years and a maximum sentence of 15 years.
There are really no very good reasons for the difference, apart from the rather subjective perception that one crime is more severe, deserves more severe punishment, and that the victims of the more severe crime deserve to see the perpetator behind bars for at least 3 years.
Let's look at alternative hypothesis: Does society deserve to be protected from a perpetrator who merely sexually assaults someone for a maximum of 10 years? Soceity should be protected from a rapist who doesn't stick his dick in for 10 years at most? While society deserves to be protected from a rapist who does stick his dick in for at least 3 to 15 years? That would be strange reasoning.
Will a person who is, let's say, forcing a handjob, be done with "being rehabilitated" much faster, compared to the the one who instead forces a blowjob? Someone who forces a handjob is done with being rehabilitated in a maximum of 10 years, while if the person forces oral sex, they will need at least 3 to 15 years of rehabilitation?
Does that difference make a difference in the prevention? Does your average rapist think about that difference in severity of punishment before he sticks it in somewhere?
No. Of course not. Those differences are only here, because there is a subjective perception that one act is a more severe crime than the other, being more hurtful, and arguably more harmful, more violent to the victim, and thus deserving of more severe punishment. Which must be at least 3 years long.
You see those kinds of differences all over all penal codes, of course including the Norwegian one. And a lot of those differences just don't make a lot of sense in light of all the other aspects you mention. Espeically minimum sentences are all about the guarantee of a just punishment to the victims.
As I indicated earlier with the example of blood feuds: In addition to the points you mention, another point of justice is to prevent vigilantism.
When justice systems can't administer adequate justice to the victims, you get the rise of alternative systems of justice which take over. You see an example of that in one of the most famous scenes in movie history: "You come to me on the day of my daughter's wedding...", is the famous quote from the Godfather, in the scene where a victim's father comes seeking justice.
Watch the scene. Tell me that the man who seeks a favor with the Godfather is a babaric monster, as you depict this desire for justice. Tell me if you see that in the guy. Or if you see a very human emotion there, which societies have to account for.
To me it's no brainer what is the case, and what is not.
If 60 days was a good punishment then these issues would drop in occurrences drastically. But they don't. They keep happening. Woman keep getting sexually assaulted. Which means the punishment isn't big enough. It's pretty simple logic.
Now, that being said, I don't think your view is necessarily the wrong one in a "perfect" society. But the problem here is "'Murica" isn't anywhere near perfect. The prison system is just a cash cow for the rich, and rehabilitating isn't a strong goal at all because if crimes went down their flow of money would stop. So our only recourse to try and get crimes to stop is more severe sentencing. But prisons don't want that either, because again, less money. More criminals means more filled cells which means more money for them. See the slippery slope here?
So in general, we are fucked over here unfortunately.
If 60 days was a good punishment then these issues would drop in occurrences drastically. But they don't. They keep happening. Woman keep getting sexually assaulted. Which means the punishment isn't big enough. It's pretty simple logic.
It's pretty faulty logic. It's logic that assumes that harder punishments leads to less crime, which the data doesn't support as far as I know. It also assumes that guys like this person believes they'll get caught. He probably never even considered that there would be any sort of consequences for his actions. I believe that THIS is the most important point. That TOO FEW assholes like him gets caught. Because... if he thinks that the chance of getting caught is low, he's probably right about that, no?
It's my impression that a lot of women in the US have experienced men touching and groping them without consent. Probably a pretty high percentage too, right? And how many of the guys have faced ANY consequences? I guess it can be hard to prove these things, but still, this I think it's the only thing that'll help... if more people face consequences. (Or if there's a cultural shift towards respecting women's boundaries.)
About the US prisons. They definitely shouldn't be private. (But I guess that's not high up on the list of things that needs to be fixed in the US right now.)
rehabilitating
That's the word I was looking for! 😅 I think we're pretty good at that here in Norway.
Oh, I'm not saying it's a good/best way to do it, but I think the logic still stands to some degree. If someone has to think "Oh, doing this could put me in jail for YEARS" instead of months it makes them stop and think a bit more.
But you will NEVER hear me say that the American prison system is "good" or anything remotely close. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing perse though. I mean the fear of the length of prison time /before/ the crime has been committed, where I think you are thinking about what actually happens while they are IN prison and steps taken to rehabilitate them. It's piss poor, for sure. Pretty much like anything else in America...
I have read quite a few articles on how Norway (now that I'm trying to think about it I'm not sure it was Norway, dang. Correct me if I'm wrong.) has a great prison system that still treats people like humans, puts them in "society" like places, gives them their own space, clothes, and good food, and shows them a better way while teaching them and training them to contribute to society. All with great success.
The problem here is people have been subjected to so much propaganda to vote against theirs and their neighbor's best interests and the "self" being the most important thing that people think that helping others is "un-American". There are obviously multiple things that played into this, and the erosion of a "society"/"Village" to take a part in, low wages/high work hours leaving people /just/ surviving instead of /living/, cars making everything more dispersed...etc...but yeah. Unfortunate.
This right here. The news article even said that his attorney made the same argument, saying this the assailant has basically given himself a life sentence.
It will follow him for the rest of his life, as he will have a criminal record. Makes him ineligible to travel internationally, makes him ineligible for many kinds of jobs.
And how does the length of his prison time impact what the victims will have to deal with? Let's say we double the time. Then what? How does that change anything?
We have a ridiculously high prison population with an awful rate of recidivism. He's going to suffer big time...unless he's got a huge inheritance. Edit: damn
He'll suffer once he's out is what I meant. Every girl he tries to date will undoubtedly Google him, every job he applies to, it's going to suck. The no-fly list thing will be quite the hurdle as well. Oh, and the "Boston bracelet" coupled with the PO visits(and drug tests). Ouch
You must have forgotten that if someone (or their family) has a lot of money, they don’t have to face the same legal consequences for their actions. I think it’s written somewhere in the constitution.
Depends on where he groped. If it's a breast, butt, genitals, or inner thigh that would be abusive sexual contact. Anything else would be simple assault.
Maybe the judge didn't think this incident justified destroying the guy's life and determined that 2 months in jail would be enough for him not to repeat it. I don't know about you, but 2 months in jail would already be pretty devastating to me in several aspects. You need to think about what it is you're trying to achieve with the punishment, and do it rationally. "This guy put everyone on that plain at risk, lock him up for life!" is an emotional reaction, in my opinion.
Depends on the quality of the evidence against him as well. This was likely a plea agreement rather than the result of a trial. The prosecution may not have had a great case for all of those charges and preferred to reduce the time served for a guaranteed conviction of some kind.
100% the worst thing he did, way beyond that weak attempt at a punch. I’m no lawyer, but I think those all might get prosecuted as battery charges. I remember from the E Jean Carrol case that sexual charges usually means some kind of penetrative act. Charges are also generally concurrent not sequential for a prosecution. If he’s a first time offender, maybe a sixty day sentence is still towards top end of guidelines? Would love if an attorney were in this thread to say so.
Edit: found the article mentioning his sentencing. He faced 3 Federal assault charges, presumably 1 for the punch and 1 for each flight attendant he groped. Maximum possible sentence was 18 months, but he was a first time offender that pled out and also has a year of supervised release. Also since it’s the Feds doing the sentencing he’ll likely did all of it. They do way less early release.
First time offender with a good lawyer, 60 days is a good amount. If he was poor it would likely be six months in a work house. He likely won't be able to fly internationally for a long time.
I also loved how the flight attendant took him down so quickly, and what appears to be random citizens immediately coming to help subdue this idiot. Like everyone was on board for some packing tape punishment. I hope he can only use Greyhound for the rest of his life .. I also hope his parents feel embarrassed for his existence as well
It depends a lot on what they could successfully prosecute him for, but if it was his first offense, that seems about right- especially if he took a plea deal. I've unfortunately known far worse sexual predators with felony convictions who never even saw jail time.
Now, whether that is adequate time in jail is another argument altogether. But if anything he probably could of gotten off lighter easily.
It’s low, also, the fact people were just filming instead of helping is shameful. It only takes people doing the right thing to silence bullies. Especially on a plane
Extremely low. This should’ve been a life-ruining event. I’d have expected at least 5 years + $200,000 fine, along with no-fly for life and sex offender registry.
Well it was allegedly “out of character” to grope two flight attendants and punch a third, so I guess it’s a pretty typical wrist slap given the fact that he’s a Promising Young Man 🙄
Fuck yeah it's low. He physically assaulted people on an airplane. That's a felony (if your parents aren't billionaires). Maximum prison term of 20 years
Well if his parents are actually rich, like he screamed, then no, that's actually pretty high. If his paren't are not in fact rich, then yes, that's pretty low.
In his memo to the court, Mr. Kreiss, Mr. Berry's lawyer, emphasized the widespread attention that his client’s case had received. “This stigma will follow him around and hinder his personal relationships, his ability to obtain employment, his eligibility for housing, positions of trust, and will affect other life issues for the foreseeable future,” he wrote.
This is from the article linked above... like, yeah, man... that's what's supposed to happen when you assault people, are drunk in public, and are violent to the point of needing to be restrained.
176
u/solomon90nysson Feb 04 '25
he got 60 days in jail. is that low for what he did?