Danny Masterson ( Hyde from that 70s show ) charged with rape of three women

jj880

Previous convictions or lack of them are already taken into account. I think people who behave themselves or do good work for others get their rewards from those around them. Their community. Its called being a good person. I dont think that should extend into the court room in the form of letters from any big shots you can round up when facing charges such as rape. I find it repulsive to be honest.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121096216#Comment_121096216

Christ no. Good or bad works don't have any impact on whether the person is guilty of the crime they're accused of. No amount of good behaviour can make the rape not have happened. If it happened then that's a question of guilt for that crime.

Sentencing is the only time extraneous facts could be considered, if they should be considered at all.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121096234#Comment_121096234

The probation process is very much separate to the sentencing one.

Well it isn't really, Judges will often defer sentencing until they read a probation report or a report from a medical professional.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121096108#Comment_121096108

Mitigating factors are part and parcel of sentencing so I wouldn’t like them to be removed- but character references are I think a hangover from the days when priests and bank managers were seen as pillars of the community, along with doctors and teachers- a very outdated system likely introduced to help people with little education to help support them to achieve smaller sentences for their crimes (a complete guess on my part but probably reasonably accurate- happy to be corrected here)

I think there’s a place still for character references on certain crimes but it’s limited. Maybe a once off theft, a serious traffic offence etc - whilst serious, a persons overall character could be taken into account to enable the judge to establish likelihood of reoffending etc - but then again, there are assessments carried out anyway for things like suitability for community service etc so these assessments would cover “risks” so maybe character references are redundant even for these crimes

I would have thought that for a sex related crimes any mitigation could be taken from the evidence presented (I won’t go into detail here but it should be reasonably straightforward to assess severity and impact on a scale of seriousness and sentence accordingly) - I certainly don’t think a character reference should be used in sex crime related cases- there are many “pillars of the community” who have raped- objective and clear guidelines to sentencing for such crimes is what’s needed here

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121096108#Comment_121096108

They're always redundant anyway. Look at Kutcher and Kunis's letters

"He's a good father" - He wasn't on trial for being a bad father

"He helped me stay off drugs" - Not on trial for selling drugs

"He's been a great friend over the last 25 years" - Not on trial for not being a good friend

"Him being jailed for a long time will hurt his family" - Pretty much every criminal, everywhere, in the history of the world, has had a family

If someone is guilty, how great they are to other people is irrelevant.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121096252#Comment_121096252

Whether a crime actually happened or not though is what is ascertained by a trial.

I am not saying 'X person was a good boy generally, therefore his crime of rape is negated by that'

I am saying that character witnesses lead to a greater understanding of the person on trial and IMO have their place at that stage.

Once the person has actually been convicted and has the crimes attributed to them, aka, they are now 'a rapist' then I don't see why their character should come into it at all. As you said, no amount of good behaviour can make the rape not have happened. We are only actually in agreement it happened and the person is guilty of the crime once the trial has taken place.

Overheal

The due process of sentencing hearings and character witnesses isn’t really the issue as I see it the issue is the content of their letters here which seemed tailored to gaslight the findings of the trial, foremost by calling into doubt that Masterson could have possibly been a serial date-rape-drugger by fixating on claims that he was just so steadfastly anti-drug etc. And then from there making claims about his character that are not supported by their own record of public and contemporaneous statements, some of which not only directly contradict their written statements to the judge but even call into question the proclivities of Kutcher.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121096289#Comment_121096289

Ture but if a criminal record can be considered in sentencing, then it's equally true to say they're not on trial for previous crimes. If they consider previous behaviour including the the bad stuff then it makes sense to consider the other stuff too.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121096339#Comment_121096339

Ah, but then you're into the possibility of allowing the 'pillar of the community' away with a crime because it was really out of character for them, rather than just considers the evidence.

I remember when the clerical sex abuse scandal was emerging in the 90s. You'd hear about someone accused and people thought very poorly of them. Then someone form my local monastery was accused and everyone jumped to the assumption that he couldn't have done it and the accusers were only out for money because our local monk was such a great guy.

Just the facts relevant to the case need to be considered in reaching the guilty/not guilty verdict.

TokTik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121096252#Comment_121096252

Isn’t justice supposed to be blind? It shouldn’t matter what you’re character is like if you committed the crime, you should do the time based on the level of the offence, not what your priest, neighbour, best friend thinks of you.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098619#Comment_121098619

So, should it also ignore previous convictions? When considering sentencing, should they just consider the crime at hand and ignore any previous criminal history?

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098682#Comment_121098682

No and no. Im a bit lost on how being found guilty previously is linked to allowing character references.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098734#Comment_121098734

The US legal system has been around the block

If you wanted to write the judge and say (under penalty of perjury), 'I've known Danny Masterson for years and hes a remorseless POS, etc.' thats fair game as well.

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098756#Comment_121098756

I know its allowed now. We're debating changes for the future? Or maybe Ive got the wrong end of the discussion here

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098779#Comment_121098779

IMHO doesn't seem like a compelling case reason to overthrow 50+ years of law. There isn't any evidence to show it changed the outcome of sentencing. Having sentenced Masterson to 30 years to life, it would appear the judge was not swayed by their contents.

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098805#Comment_121098805

Isnt that speculation though. Cant be said for sure 1 way or the other. Lets assume it doesn't change sentencing like you said. In that case it would appear its only function is to heap misery on victims. Get rid of it or at least dont allow it for crimes such as rape and murder.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098866#Comment_121098866

I don't feel it's speculation, given the judge settled on the maximum allowable sentence.

Write your Congressman and see if they want to put their name on a repeal of the law.. I don't think you're thinking about all the possible reasons it exists.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098734#Comment_121098734

That post was in response to the poster saying "Isn’t justice supposed to be blind? It shouldn’t matter what you’re character is like if you committed the crime, you should do the time based on the level of the offence...".

That's why I asked if it's just about the level of the offence, and justice is blind, should they ignore other factors like previous convictions as well as character references and just sentence based on the crime at hand. Looking for previous convictions is about getting a broader view of the person ahead of sentencing. Naturally a broader view should include the good and the bad of the person.

I don't know what I think about character references, so I'm looking for a consistent argument.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098866#Comment_121098866

I don't agree it heaps mystery on the victim. How does someone telling their experien e of how DM kept them away from drugs harm the victim?

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098877#Comment_121098877

So you're agreeing with me that it doesn't change sentencing?

Ok I think you edited as you realised you're agreeing with me. In that case then yes there has to be more reasons it exists. What are they?

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098896#Comment_121098896

Didnt 1 of the victims lose it a few days ago when reading Kutchers letter? I think maybe she would beg to differ.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098938#Comment_121098938

I don't know. I can't see why they should ignore evidence in case it upsets the victim.

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098890#Comment_121098890

I saw the quoted post. I just don't see the link. You are trying to make 1 depend on the other. In my opinion they dont. Previous convictions shows enough character. No need for references.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098877#Comment_121098877

I think there's room for subtlety in the judgement without it actually changing the outcome. For example, it could have moved the needle but the needle still settled in the highest sentence bracket. It could have moved the needle from "30 years maximum sentence, and I'd give him 50 if I could", to "I'd give him 40 years if I could so the sentence stays at the 30 year maximum". Numbers are made up, obviously.

If character references are ignored, then what's the point of them? If some judges consider them and others don't, then that's unequal justice. I'd imagine they have minor enough impact, but if judges actually ignored them, there would be a problem.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098952#Comment_121098952

Yeah OK. I think you're missing the point then. If they're looking to get a rounded view of the person, previous convictions only give one perspective.

It would be fair enough of they didn't look for a rounded view and ignored previous convictions and character references. But if they want a rounded view then they need to ask if anyone has anything good to say about the person too.

osarusan

I wouldn't consider previous convictions and character references to be opposites of each other. Maybe victim impact statements are somwhat in that category.

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098948#Comment_121098948

https://nypost.com/2023/09/09/danny-masterson-victim-slams-ashton-kutcher-and-mila-kunis-insulting-apology-video-for-supporting-rapist/

My hope is that they learn radical accountability and the importance of self-education to learn when to keep their privilege in check—especially Ashton, who claims to work with victims of sex crimes. And as to Mila, I can only think of ‘Times Up.’” she added.

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121098980#Comment_121098980

Missing the point or just not agreeing. No need to flog it further I think. Its ok to not agree on it.

Overheal

If Topher broke his silence:

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121096216#Comment_121096216

I find it odd that you find it odd tbh.

The trial is about determining guilt. The only resolved outcomes are guilty or not-guilty. All that matter is whether they did it. If they did it, no amount of previous good character traits changes their guilt. Similarly if somebody didn't do it, no about of previous bad/criminal behaviour changes the that fact.

Sentencing is the only time that it can fairly or relevant to consider those things.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121096198#Comment_121096198

Previous convictions are determined to be fact based on opinion. I'm not equating the two obviously, but lets not pretend opinion has no place in law.

Victim impact statements are opinion and used in sentencing all the time. Character references can also be used negatively, etc.