Ghislaine Maxwell

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bob001

There were multiple crimes with multiple victims committed as part of a conspiracy over a period of years. And who are you to say that teenage girls weren't traumatized?

I feel sure many were seriously traumatised. By the same token, some are capable of sleeping with men for money and think nothing of it, especially of they are mixing with the wealthy and influential.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Vixen

You think the death penalty is proportionate?

Why don't you answer the question you're asked, rather than responding with an unrelated one?


To remind you, you said:

Originally Posted by Vixen

No being funny but 35 years for procuring prostitutes for the purpose of sex seems a bit harsh to me. OK, so several were between the ages of 14 to 17 but they all seem to have gone along to Epstein's mansion willingly and returned time and again for the $200 per session pay out. Yes, it is a heinous crime to procure underage persons for prostitution but is it really on a par with murder in terms of sentencing?

How is 35 years on a par with the death sentence? To remind you, again, 35 years is the maximum, as is the death sentence. Please don't equivocate the maximum for one crime with the usual sentence for another, nor the maximum sentence for one crime in one country with that for a different crime in a different country.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Why don't you answer the question you're asked, rather than responding with an unrelated one?


To remind you, you said:



How is 35 years on a par with the death sentence? To remind you, again, 35 years is the maximum, as is the death sentence. Please don't equivocate the maximum for one crime with the usual sentence for another, nor the maximum sentence for one crime in one country with that for a different crime in a different country.

Whatevs.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I feel sure many were seriously traumatised.

Pretty much everyone feels sure about this. Hence the widespread approval of her life sentence. What's weird is you feeling sure that Gislaine Maxwell seriously traumatized many children, but don't like the sentence she's received.

What's doubly weird is that you think her sentence should be more lenient because maybe some of her victims escaped relatively unscathed. Like, she should get some kind of reward for failing to seriously traumatize all of her victims. Your position is morally perverse.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Pretty much everyone feels sure about this. Hence the widespread approval of her life sentence. What's weird is you feeling sure that Gislaine Maxwell seriously traumatized many children, but don't like the sentence she's received.

What's doubly weird is that you think her sentence should be more lenient because maybe some of her victims escaped relatively unscathed. Like, she should get some kind of reward for failing to seriously traumatize all of her victims. Your position is morally perverse.

I did not say the sentence should be lenient. Here in Europe it is considered twelve years is enough for murder, with parole after 2/3rds.

Just trying to get it into perspective. The way they hurt a criminal here is by awarding their victim compensation from them.

[JoeMorgue]

Maxwell ran a rape ring.

What ******* "perspective" do you think we need to keep?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

How is 35 years on a par with the death sentence? To remind you, again, 35 years is the maximum, as is the death sentence. Please don't equivocate the maximum for one crime with the usual sentence for another, nor the maximum sentence for one crime in one country with that for a different crime in a different country.

Here are some numbers.

https://bflawmd.com/average-maximum-...common-crimes/
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-a...ntencing-rates

To me it seems accurate to claim that 35 years is on par with a murder sentence. No, it's not identical but I don't think the phrase "on par" requires exactly identical. And 35 years for a murder doesn't appear to be "the usual sentence". In fact for the state I happened to find data for at the link above it's greater than the maximum for 2nd degree murder.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Maxwell ran a rape ring.

What ******* "perspective" do you think we need to keep?

Europe is better. Europe produced her; Europe knows best how to deal with her. The American Child Rape Impresario, Jeffrey Epstein, should get a quintessentially American outcome: death in solitary confinement under suspicious circumstances. But the European Child Rape Impresario should get a European outcome: 12 years in a country club for wayward socialites, parole after 8, and maybe pay some reparations.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Pretty much everyone feels sure about this. Hence the widespread approval of her life sentence. What's weird is you feeling sure that Gislaine Maxwell seriously traumatized many children, but don't like the sentence she's received.

What's doubly weird is that you think her sentence should be more lenient because maybe some of her victims escaped relatively unscathed. Like, she should get some kind of reward for failing to seriously traumatize all of her victims. Your position is morally perverse.

Hold on.

How did we get widespread approval of a life sentence “she’s received” before she was even tried?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Hold on.

How did we get widespread approval of a life sentence “she’s received” before she was even tried?

I, uh, was speaking hypothetically. Yeah. That's the ticket.

Actually I botched my timeline in a fit of inexcusable carelessness. Sorry 'bout that!

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Pretty much everyone feels sure about this. Hence the widespread approval of her life sentence. What's weird is you feeling sure that Gislaine Maxwell seriously traumatized many children, but don't like the sentence she's received.
....

Let's just note that she hasn't received any sentence. She hasn't been convicted of anything. But the charges keep piling up.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Let's just note that she hasn't received any sentence. She hasn't been convicted of anything. But the charges keep piling up.

Ninja'd.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Hold on.

How did we get widespread approval of a life sentence “she’s received” before she was even tried?

Because theprestige is a time traveller from the future, he's secretly John Titor!

Hey, Mr Prestige, have you found that IBM 5100 you're looking for yet?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Because theprestige is a time traveller from the future, he's secretly John Titor!

Hey, Mr Prestige, have you found that IBM 5100 you're looking for yet?

I wioll haven finded it yestermorrow.

[theprestige]

Actually this explains Epstein's death. He was actually murdered somewhere else, in the future, and then they backtimed his body. Their goal was to avoid exposure as his co-conspirators, by erasing the whole timeline where he lived to go to trial, and ratted them out in a plea bargain.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Europe is better. Europe produced her; Europe knows best how to deal with her. The American Child Rape Impresario, Jeffrey Epstein, should get a quintessentially American outcome: death in solitary confinement under suspicious circumstances. But the European Child Rape Impresario should get a European outcome: 12 years in a country club for wayward socialites, parole after 8, and maybe pay some reparations.

It is probably true that someone used to a sheltered life would find prison far tougher than someone used to the rough and ready. Just being locked up for one day would be torture alone. In the UK so called 'white-collar' criminals are more likely to be sent to a soft open prison. They are also a target for other prisoners. Especially if they were once a policeman or something hated by the criminal classes. Maxwell would be seen as a 'nonce' and would need heavy protection.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I did not say the sentence should be lenient. Here in Europe it is considered twelve years is enough for murder, with parole after 2/3rds.

Just trying to get it into perspective. The way they hurt a criminal here is by awarding their victim compensation from them.

And as I've already explained, you don't actually understand the sentencing structures/guidelines "here in Europe" properly in any case... quite apart from it being irrelevant to compare apples from one country with oranges from another.


(As just one hint: a murder sentence of "life, with a minimum of 12 years" - which you've misunderstood to be "a 12-year sentence" - does not mean that the person is out on parole after 2/3 of those 12 years. It doesn't even mean that the person is first considered for parole after 2/3 of those 12 years. It means that the person is first considered for parole after 12 years. And even when the person does get parole - which might be after 12 years of imprisonment, or might be after 16 years, or might be after 40 years - their life sentence means that they are closely monitored and evaluated for the remainder of their life on Earth; if the monitoring authorities determine that the person has gone back to posing a risk to the public, the person can be returned to prison, irrespective of whether they actually commit any further offences.)

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And as I've already explained, you don't actually understand the sentencing structures/guidelines "here in Europe" properly in any case... quite apart from it being irrelevant to compare apples from one country with oranges from another.


(As just one hint: a murder sentence of "life, with a minimum of 12 years" - which you've misunderstood to be "a 12-year sentence" - does not mean that the person is out on parole after 2/3 of those 12 years. It doesn't even mean that the person is first considered for parole after 2/3 of those 12 years. It means that the person is first considered for parole after 12 years. And even when the person does get parole - which might be after 12 years of imprisonment, or might be after 16 years, or might be after 40 years - their life sentence means that they are closely monitored and evaluated for the remainder of their life on Earth; if the monitoring authorities determine that the person has gone back to posing a risk to the public, the person can be returned to prison, irrespective of whether they actually commit any further offences.)

We have similar sentencing here, for example, Scott Watson, who was found guilty of double murder in 1999 (he didn't do it, but that is another story - link to thread if anyone is interested) and was sentenced to life with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. That takes it to 2016, but five years later, he's still in jail, having been refused parole three times because he maintains his innocence.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is probably true that someone used to a sheltered life would find prison far tougher than someone used to the rough and ready. Just being locked up for one day would be torture alone. In the UK so called 'white-collar' criminals are more likely to be sent to a soft open prison. They are also a target for other prisoners. Especially if they were once a policeman or something hated by the criminal classes. Maxwell would be seen as a 'nonce' and would need heavy protection.

Someone make this nonsense stop. Please.

The term "white-collar criminals" refers solely and exclusively to the type of crime for which the person has been convicted and sentenced. It does not refer to the demographic status of the person who committed the crime. A person attracts the label "white-collar criminal" only on account of that person having committed a "white-collar crime". Not the other way round.


So-called "white-collar crimes" are loosely defined as crimes which involve no physical violence, no threatening or sexual behaviour, no intimidation etc. So, for example, credit card fraud is a white-collar crime; while bank robbery is not.

And it almost goes without saying that those who are convicted of white-collar crimes are typically housed in less restrictive, less secure conditions than those who've been convicted of those crimes which are not white-collar in their nature. I would hope that it wouldn't be difficult to understand why that should be the case.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

We have similar sentencing here, for example, Scott Watson, who was found guilty of double murder in 1999 (he didn't do it, but that is another story) and was sentenced to life with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. That takes it to 2016, but five years later, he's still in jail, having been refused parole three times because he maintains his innocence.

Yes. And indeed, this is one of those more-than-unfortunate Catch-22 problems: those criminals who believe they've been wrongfully convicted will (almost by definition) a) protest their innocence, and b) find it effectively impossible to accept that they did wrong. And that, in turn, means that it will be much more difficult - in some instances impossible - for them to get released from prison, even after the minimum determinate sentence of imprisonment has been reached.

There are a few sad examples of people who have refused to "come to terms" with their crimes, which has directly resulted in them being repeatedly denied parole long after their minimum prison sentence has been exceeded - but then ultimately they've been exonerated on appeal.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And as I've already explained, you don't actually understand the sentencing structures/guidelines "here in Europe" properly in any case... quite apart from it being irrelevant to compare apples from one country with oranges from another.


(As just one hint: a murder sentence of "life, with a minimum of 12 years" - which you've misunderstood to be "a 12-year sentence" - does not mean that the person is out on parole after 2/3 of those 12 years. It doesn't even mean that the person is first considered for parole after 2/3 of those 12 years. It means that the person is first considered for parole after 12 years. And even when the person does get parole - which might be after 12 years of imprisonment, or might be after 16 years, or might be after 40 years - their life sentence means that they are closely monitored and evaluated for the remainder of their life on Earth; if the monitoring authorities determine that the person has gone back to posing a risk to the public, the person can be returned to prison, irrespective of whether they actually commit any further offences.)

I was referring to mainland EUROPE (Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany), NOT the UK which has a different system of law anyway.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Yes. And indeed, this is one of those more-than-unfortunate Catch-22 problems: those criminals who believe they've been wrongfully convicted will (almost by definition) a) protest their innocence, and b) find it effectively impossible to accept that they did wrong. And that, in turn, means that it will be much more difficult - in some instances impossible - for them to get released from prison, even after the minimum determinate sentence of imprisonment has been reached.

There are a few sad examples of people who have refused to "come to terms" with their crimes, which has directly resulted in them being repeatedly denied parole long after their minimum prison sentence has been exceeded - but then ultimately they've been exonerated on appeal.

In Finland - which is the same inquisitorial/tribunal-style criminal justice system as Germany - it is an enshrined right for a criminal to be released after two thirds. You saw with Christian Brückner's case (McCann prosecutors), the state had to go to court to stop his release 2/3 of the way through. Likewise, Norway had to do this with Brevik after his time was up (just 12 years, but they have managed to keep him banged up).

They idea of 'showing remorse' is pretty much old hat even in the UK. Good behaviour is enough and you are out on parole.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I was referring to mainland EUROPE (Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany), NOT the UK which has a different system of law anyway.

Firstly, you simply referred to "here in Europe" - as opposed to the USA. If you'd meant "mainland Europe" (or, even more specifically, your own special definition of mainland Europe, headed by Finland Sweden and Norway... ), you should have made that clear up-front.


And secondly, Wikipedia seems to be under the impression that in Germany, for example, the mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment, with a minimum incarceration period of 15 years before any parole application can be made. It further notes that the "usual" minimum incarceration period is 18 years, with the more serious cases requiring 23 years inside before parole can be applied for:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...0(%C2%A7%20211).


So, y'know.....

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Someone make this nonsense stop. Please.

The term "white-collar criminals" refers solely and exclusively to the type of crime for which the person has been convicted and sentenced. It does not refer to the demographic status of the person who committed the crime. A person attracts the label "white-collar criminal" only on account of that person having committed a "white-collar crime". Not the other way round.


So-called "white-collar crimes" are loosely defined as crimes which involve no physical violence, no threatening or sexual behaviour, no intimidation etc. So, for example, credit card fraud is a white-collar crime; while bank robbery is not.

And it almost goes without saying that those who are convicted of white-collar crimes are typically housed in less restrictive, less secure conditions than those who've been convicted of those crimes which are not white-collar in their nature. I would hope that it wouldn't be difficult to understand why that should be the case.

No, many of these 'white-collar' criminals (Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken, etc) have committed serious crimes. You can't just brush it off as 'credit card fraud'. This was serious corruption. Compare and contrast to some burglar making off with a flat screen tv.

And it is true, 'white collar' criminals are often middle-class or even upper class.

Ghislaine Maxwell procured teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. Many of them returned time and again for the money, when they could easily have desisted or gone to the police. They even recruited their friends to join in. However, of course, these girls are rightly protected by law. There was a time when being 'talent spotted' was considered flattering. Naomi Campbell was approached by a model talent spotter in the street. So, when Maxwell approached young women in public places inviting them to join the Les Wexnar (_sp?) and Epstein's various 'model agencies', many of them would have jumped at the chance, likewise going to celebrity packed parties int he hope of bagging a rich guy. Let's face it, Trump met Melania through his model/escort agency. Whilst it is damaging for young teenage girls to be procured as prostitutes, for many it was a quite voluntarily particapation. Becuase they were underage, this is the only reason it is illegal, not that they were necessarily harmed. There is quite fine line here between prostitution and trophy 'footballers wives and girlfriends' (WAG's): for him, a rich handsome athlete on £30,000 per week and her a plastic bimbo with the whole works - boob jobs, botox, hair extensions - whose only ambition is to marry a rich guy who can provide her with a luxurious home, exotic holidays, jewels, clothes, no need to work, cleaning ladies, nannies, etc. This is what many of the girls procured by Maxwell (and Guiffre, let it be said) were attracted by: they had overseas university courses paid for by Epstein in return for 'massage' sessions, holidays on his Caribbean island, Texas ranch and wild parties with famous politicians, rock stars, films stars and top scientists. So to equate it with the crimes of the lower classes or murder is ridiculous. Sure, it is rightly illegal to run prostitution rings, but let's keep perspective.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Firstly, you simply referred to "here in Europe" - as opposed to the USA. If you'd meant "mainland Europe" (or, even more specifically, your own special definition of mainland Europe, headed by Finland Sweden and Norway... ), you should have made that clear up-front.


And secondly, Wikipedia seems to be under the impression that in Germany, for example, the mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment, with a minimum incarceration period of 15 years before any parole application can be made. It further notes that the "usual" minimum incarceration period is 18 years, with the more serious cases requiring 23 years inside before parole can be applied for:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...0(%C2%A7%20211).


So, y'know.....

Did you miss this excerpt out?

Quote:

The penalty for Totschlag (intentional homicide, otherwise) is five to fifteen years in prison and in especially grave cases life imprisonment (minimum sentence 15 years). Life sentences for Totschlag are rare as such an offence would typically qualify as Mord (§ 211).

ibid

IOW 'especially grave' is vanishingly rare.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

No, many of these 'white-collar' criminals (Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken, etc) have committed serious crimes. You can't just brush it off as 'credit card fraud'. This was serious corruption. Compare and contrast to some burglar making off with a flat screen tv.

And it is true, 'white collar' criminals are often middle-class or even upper class.

Ghislaine Maxwell procured teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. Many of them returned time and again for the money, when they could easily have desisted or gone to the police. They even recruited their friends to join in. However, of course, these girls are rightly protected by law. There was a time when being 'talent spotted' was considered flattering. Naomi Campbell was approached by a model talent spotter in the street. So, when Maxwell approached young women in public places inviting them to join the Les Wexnar (_sp?) and Epstein's various 'model agencies', many of them would have jumped at the chance, likewise going to celebrity packed parties int he hope of bagging a rich guy. Let's face it, Trump met Melania through his model/escort agency. Whilst it is damaging for young teenage girls to be procured as prostitutes, for many it was a quite voluntarily particapation. Becuase they were underage, this is the only reason it is illegal, not that they were necessarily harmed. There is quite fine line here between prostitution and trophy 'footballers wives and girlfriends' (WAG's): for him, a rich handsome athlete on £30,000 per week and her a plastic bimbo with the whole works - boob jobs, botox, hair extensions - whose only ambition is to marry a rich guy who can provide her with a luxurious home, exotic holidays, jewels, clothes, no need to work, cleaning ladies, nannies, etc. This is what many of the girls procured by Maxwell (and Guiffre, let it be said) were attracted by: they had overseas university courses paid for by Epstein in return for 'massage' sessions, holidays on his Caribbean island, Texas ranch and wild parties with famous politicians, rock stars, films stars and top scientists. So to equate it with the crimes of the lower classes or murder is ridiculous. Sure, it is rightly illegal to run prostitution rings, but let's keep perspective.

I'll try again:

If a society aristocrat is convicted of (say) murdering his wife, I can give you a 100% assurance that

a) this does not count as an instance of a "white-collar crime" (and nor is the perpetrator a "white-collar criminal"), and

2) the perpetrator will be being sent to exactly the same type of medium-high-security prison as (and might end up sharing his cell with) an illiterate sheet-metal worker who was convicted of murdering his own wife.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is probably true that someone used to a sheltered life would find prison far tougher than someone used to the rough and ready. Just being locked up for one day would be torture alone. In the UK so called 'white-collar' criminals are more likely to be sent to a soft open prison. They are also a target for other prisoners. Especially if they were once a policeman or something hated by the criminal classes. Maxwell would be seen as a 'nonce' and would need heavy protection.

What has white collar crimes got to do with this case? Her crimes were not “white collar’ crimes.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Here are some numbers.

https://bflawmd.com/average-maximum-...common-crimes/
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-a...ntencing-rates

To me it seems accurate to claim that 35 years is on par with a murder sentence. No, it's not identical but I don't think the phrase "on par" requires exactly identical. And 35 years for a murder doesn't appear to be "the usual sentence". In fact for the state I happened to find data for at the link above it's greater than the maximum for 2nd degree murder.

It's accurate to say that, internationally speaking, an effective prison sentence of 15-20 years or longer is the equivalent of life imprisonment or the death penalty.

Note that this is the effective prison sentence, not the notional one where people are sentenced to X years in prison yet are released after having served only half of that.

[JoeMorgue]

What is being argued? Yes courts aren't psychic so don't know how long anyone is going to live. We get it.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Did you miss this excerpt out?


ibid

IOW 'especially grave' is vanishingly rare.

You've not read - and/or understood - it properly.

"Totschlag" is the equivalent to "manslaughter".

And, as the article points out (but which you further misunderstand). the reason why it's rare for a conviction for "totschlag" (manslaughter) to carry a life sentence is because if the crime was that grave, it would usually qualify as murder ("mord").


I suggest you read it through again, perhaps.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

It's accurate to say that, internationally speaking, an effective prison sentence of 15-20 years or longer is the equivalent of life imprisonment or the death penalty.

That needs some explanation before I would agree it's accurate. It would appear to be the exact opposite of accurate.

Are you trying to say that those sentences would be the "analog" rather than the "equivalent"? Is this a correct paraphrase of what you are trying to say: In Europe a person would face 15-20 years for a crime that would get life or death in the US?

[Vixen]

Erratum: I was wrong about Breivik: he received a 21-year sentence. However, this is not standard (bear in mind he killed 77 people, most of them young people and injured a further 300).

(Puts Maxwell's possible 35-year sentence into perspective, eh?)

Quote:

The maximum determinate penalty (civilian penal code) is 21 years' imprisonment, but only a small percentage of prisoners serve more than 14 years. Prisoners will typically get unsupervised parole for weekends after serving a third of their sentence (a maximum of 7 years) and can receive early release after serving two thirds of their sentence (a maximum of 14 years). In 2008, to fulfill its requirements under the Rome Statute, Norway created a new maximal penalty of 30 years for crimes against humanity.[1]

Wiki

What I was thinking of is that Norway has to apply for a renewal of Breivik;s sentencing every so often, or he'd be out on parole at the 14-year 'maximum' mark.

Quote:

The indeterminate penalty (civilian penal code), called "preventive detention" (Norwegian: forvaring), is set at up to 21 years' imprisonment, with no eligibility for parole for a time period not exceeding 14 years. If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the detention can be extended by five years at a time. Renewal of the detention every five years can in theory result in actual life imprisonment. Preventive detention is used when the prisoner is deemed a danger to society and there is a great chance of them committing violent crimes in the future.[2] However, after the minimum time period has elapsed, the offender can petition for parole once every year, and this may be granted if it is determined that they are no longer a danger to society.

ibid

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Darat

What has white collar crimes got to do with this case? Her crimes were not “white collar’ crimes.

She is not that different from Cynthia Payne, who was considered middle-class and was out of prison in four months.

Quote:

Payne first came to national attention in 1978 when police raided her home while a sex party was in progress. Men paid with luncheon vouchers to dress up in lingerie and be spanked by young women.[4] Police found 53 men at her residence, in varying levels of undress, which included "a peer of the realm, an MP, a number of solicitors and company directors and several vicars". A cartoon in the press at the time, according to Sarah Baxter in The Sunday Times, "showed a vicar in bed with a prostitute, confronted by a policeman. 'I demand to see my solicitor,' said the vicar, 'who is in the next bedroom.'"[5]

When the case came to trial in 1980, Payne was sentenced to 18 months in prison, reduced to a fine and six months on appeal.[6] She served four months in Holloway prison.[4]

Wiki

Why aren't Maxwell's johns being prosecuted? They were the ones demanding teenage girls at the parties and presumably demanding and paying for them?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Vixen

She is not that different from Cynthia Payne, who was considered middle-class and was out of prison in four months.

She was out of prison in four months not because of her class, but she was facilitating prostitution between consenting adults. That's a fairly minor crime, compared to sex trafficking children.

Your sense of proportion is wildly inhuman.

Quote:

Why aren't Maxwell's johns being prosecuted?

Probably because she hasn't implicated any johns yet.

Quote:

They were the ones demanding teenage girls at the parties and presumably demanding and paying for them?

And they should be prosecuted, too. But that has nothing to do with prosecuting Maxwell for her own involvement in child sex trafficking.

Why are you so opposed to prosecuting Maxwell for child sex trafficking?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by theprestige

She was out of prison in four months not because of her class, but she was facilitating prostitution between consenting adults. That's a fairly minor crime, compared to sex trafficking children.

Your sense of proportion is wildly inhuman.


Probably because she hasn't implicated any johns yet.


And they should be prosecuted, too. But that has nothing to do with prosecuting Maxwell for her own involvement in child sex trafficking.

Why are you so opposed to prosecuting Maxwell for child sex trafficking?

No one is opposing prosecuting Maxwell.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Samson

No one is opposing prosecuting Maxwell.

Thank you, Samson.

'Child Sex Trafficking' sounds very grand and very serious.

Yet, the underage girls were between 14 - 17, so hardly 'children' except per age of consent law.

Yes, prosecute her for her crimes but let's not carried away!

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Thank you, Samson.

'Child Sex Trafficking' sounds very grand and very serious.

Yet, the underage girls were between 14 - 17, so hardly 'children' except per age of consent law.

Yes, prosecute her for her crimes but let's not carried away!

There is a propensity on this sub forum for piling on to anyone who sees a nuance in alleged offending and thus be subtly accused of complicity.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Erratum: I was wrong about Breivik: he received a 21-year sentence. However, this is not standard (bear in mind he killed 77 people, most of them young people and injured a further 300).

(Puts Maxwell's possible 35-year sentence into perspective, eh?)

Yep, it sure does, but not in the way you are thinking

It shows that Norway's criminal sentencing is wholly inadequate to deal with a crime of that magnitude. Breivik should have got life with no possibility of parole.... ever!

I generally oppose the death sentence, but I would have no problem with its use for such an individual.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Vixen

'Child Sex Trafficking' sounds very grand and very serious.

It is.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Yet, the underage girls were between 14 - 17, so hardly 'children' except per age of consent law.

Reprehensible - you're stating a position that amounts to apologism for statutory rape... even if that is not what you meant

Originally Posted by Vixen

Yes, prosecute her for her crimes but let's not carried away!

Prosecute her, and if found guilty, sentence her to very, very long time in jail.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Vixen

She is not that different from Cynthia Payne, who was considered middle-class and was out of prison in four months.
…snip…

What has this got to do with the non-white collar crimes that Maxwell is on trial for?