How will the logistics of this work? Are there fast-food restaurants that would accept a privileged Karen with anger management issues as a member of their team? After all, they have a business with tight margins to run, and this sounds like a huge liability.
Judge Timothy Gilligan gave her the choice of a 90-day jail sentence or a 30-day sentence on top of 60 days working in a fast food job.
After watching the video of her assault, I think she got it too easy.
If Judge Gilligan believes that the trauma of being assaulted at work by a customer lasts only 90 days, perhaps she should try working in a fast food job, too.
I think the idea here is to force them to develop some sort of empathy for what people who work in fast food have to deal with on a day to day basis and learn from it (which should reduce recidivism) as well as some punishment, hence the 30 day jail sentence and 60 days working in the job (or just 90 days in jail).
I’m personally in favour of this. A jail sentence is purely punishment, whereas this feels like a combination of punishment and rehabilitation which is rare but tends to provide better outcomes (this tends to be contentious so I won’t provide links, but please do look it up if you get the chance).
Yes, I totally agree, but a few months isn’t enough.
I’m of the belief that the consequences of a crime should never be shorter than the effect it had on the victim.
Someone who’s been assaulted at their place of work may develop ongoing trauma beyond a few months. It’s unfair to the victim if they have to suffer longer than the instigator.
I don’t see it as revenge justice, but more like siding with victims.
You can’t “rehabilitate” an abuser by having them work 60 or 90 days as a fast food worker. It could be part of a broader, long-term strategy to turn a horrible person into a normal one, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happened here.
If anyone reading this lives near there, you should find out where she works, go there to eat, and just be the worst.
“Can I get a glass of hot water? Before you serve it to me, let it cool down to room temperature first. I just need to know that it was once hot. Also, I’m in a hurry, but if it’s not right, I will send it back.”
Also be sure to snap your fingers at her because service workers love that.
The problem really isn't the choice to get divorced, it's stuff like child support and alimony crossed with a court system very biased towards giving those to women when they probably shouldn't be
Divorce has or had become a "no fault" leave and make money system. I see literally zero reason to get married the way things are now. All loss and no gain.
I think you might have a fair point. I have a different opinion though.
If men are treated unfairly, although I don't take sides on this exact issue, that's a separate thing that should be fixed. Doesn't mean to abolish no fault divorce. In theory. I don't know enough to decisively argue how practical that theory is.
Right-wing commentators like Steven Crowder and Matt Walsh have ramped up complaints in recent months that it is too easy for people — specifically women — to get divorces. All states currently have some version of a no-fault divorce law, but Republicans in Texas and Nebraska list the dissolution or restriction of no-fault divorce in their state party political platforms.
In Louisiana earlier this year, state GOP members debated officially backing the dissolution of no-fault divorce, but no decision was made.
So we have the Democratic Party protecting and even expanding women’s rights in the states they control while the GOP has already dismantled reproductive rights and are now angling to repeal no-fault divorce.
Yet millions of people will say “Both sides” as they either not vote, vote Republican, or vote 3rd party while agreeing that no-fault divorce should be allowed…
Without even reading that article, I’m going to guess that no fault divorce is something that benefits women. I’m basing this solely on the fact that conservatives don’t like women much- as most of their policy seems to be designed to hurt them in some way.
It's also classic "XYZ behavior that most people agree is not a preferable outcome is against our preferences, but instead of creating a safe and protective society that prevents people from ending up in bad situations in the first place we'll instead legislate the preference directly."
See: abortion, war on drugs, the entire carceral system, etc.
initial reports weren’t all that far off (22 dead vs 18, 3 locations vs 2) but yes most of this is because there’s not that much to report other than sheer number of fatalities and the fatalism people have toward mass shootings in this country. there are only so many novel things you can say when we have a minimum of one or two double-digit death toll mass shootings a year.
Woke up to this news, here in Maine, and they’ve closed down most of our school districts while the manhunt is under way. I’m locked and loaded at my house.
I might have this wrong, but my understanding is that his plea deal only covers state prosecution, but not federal. It is possible the feds could prosecute him, but I haven’t seen nor heard if there is a side-deal to keep that from happening. Surely his lawyers would have tried to secure that, but did they succeed?
Has he been charged at federal level yet? Would imagine that federal prosecutors prefer to negotiate deals separately, but who knows what strategic arrangements go on behind the scenes.
Even if this won’t touch the federal case, it would be worth his while, purely because state prisons are far gnarlier than federal. He’s still likely to get some credit for having eventually cooperated at state level.
cnn.com
Newest