Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[Jeff Lebowski]

This story has exploded in the last two days. A former bishop is guilty of of sexual abuse of minors. The judge allows the perp to be released before sentencing. And during sentencing, it sounds like he feels sorry for the bishop. The victim did not take it kindly:

http://klewtv.com/news/nation-world/...d-sex-offender

Yesterday, a FB friend in Arizona railed against the judge. And now today, I'm seeing the story picked up nationally, and even in the UK. Crazy.

I want to give some benefit of the doubt to the judge, since the press has only published the offending snippet during sentencing. I hope there's some context we are missing. Still, it doesn't come across well for the judge.

This is blowing up in my FB feed. Outrage porn.

[CardiacCoug]

This is blowing up in my FB feed. Outrage porn.

Sure but the judge is out of line, shouldn't be praising a convicted rapist in front of the victims and their families.

But yeah this is a crazy world we live in when the judge will be punished way out of proportion to this lapse in judgment. Too bad he can't get a quiet proportional reprimand instead.

[LVAllen]

Sure but the judge is out of line, shouldn't be praising a convicted rapist in front of the victims and their families.

But yeah this is a crazy world we live in when the judge will be punished way out of proportion to this lapse in judgment. Too bad he can't get a quiet proportional reprimand instead.

Why? Should the judge not consider all the evidence in front of him? Or should he just take the PSI at face value and sentence the defendant to life plus cancer?

A lawyer friend of mine was convicted a few years ago. I was at his sentencing. The judge basically did the opposite, saying that on the one hand, there were numerous people willing to talk about his decency, but then he reads the PSI, and the defendant was an awful, no good, very bad person. Who then had the book thrown at him.

[MartyFunkhouser]

This is blowing up in my FB feed. Outrage porn.

Outrage porn is so great for you. It allows you to dismiss everything even if someone is raising a legitimate issue.

I like Judge Low. I don't have a problem with him as a judge, but he absolutely screwed up with these comments. I would still vote for his retention, but he is in the wrong here.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

Outrage porn is so great for you. It allows you to dismiss everything even if someone is raising a legitimate issue.

Win-win! It is also great for you. Allows you to join the chorus of an angry mob with about 15 seconds of typing and a click on the submit button. Everybody in your FB feed can then see what an ethical and caring person you are.

[creekster]

Win-win! It is also great for you. Allows you to join the chorus of an angry mob with about 15 seconds of typing and a click on the submit button. Everybody in your FB feed can then see what an ethical and caring person you are.

Exactly.

Thanks, Scott!!

[MartyFunkhouser]

Win-win! It is also great for you. Allows you to join the chorus of an angry mob with about 15 seconds of typing and a click on the submit button. Everybody in your FB feed can then see what an ethical and caring person you are.

Yeah, not going to do that. We were once friends, you can attest that I never used Facebook as outrage porn or to virtue signal.

So you interested in discussing Judge Low's comments at all?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah, not going to do that. We were once friends, you can attest that I never used Facebook as outrage porn or to virtue signal.

So you interested in discussing Judge Low's comments at all?

Let me help you out here, funk. Noting that something is a target of outrage porn in no way signifies any sympathy or agreement with the target. On the contrary, the more outrageous and indefensible the act, the more ripe it is for outrage porn. I was just noting that my feed is full of people expressing outrage. Like this:

outrageporn.jpg

I haven't followed the case much so I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah, not going to do that. We were once friends, you can attest that I never used Facebook as outrage porn or to virtue signal.

So you interested in discussing Judge Low's comments at all?

Hey, did you unfriend me? Because I most certainly did not unfriend you.

[YOhio]

[old_gregg]

Hey, did you unfriend me? Because I most certainly did not unfriend you.

he unfriended me

[UVACoug]

I have a very close family member that was convicted of a pretty heinous crime (although it was nothing close to what apparently happened here), so I am a little sensitive to this topic. I think the Judge's choice of words was not good at all. I think it is fair to recognize that a convicted felon has done some good things in his life, but like the prosecutor (who was of course grandstanding) said, you have to also say that the good deeds do not in any way excuse the crime. The last thing a judge should be doing is declaring whether a criminal is a "good person" or a "bad person." That's not his place. But part of the sentencing process includes the judge reviewing character statements from others in the community, so it is not surprising that the judge may have been moved by some of them.

I recognize why the victim would be upset by that and do not blame her for any action she wants to take against the judge. The outrage on social media and from "journalists" is (consistent with contemporary norms) quite a bit overblown. It's not like the judge gave him a light sentence. Poor choice of words that hopefully the judge will learn from, but nothing worthy of sanctions.

In general, I think we would all be better off not worrying about whether someone is a "good person" or "bad person." People are people. They do good and bad things. And some may have a propensity to do more good or bad than others. But what is the point of even trying to figure out whether a person is inherently good or bad?

[Green Monstah]

The judge gave a great object lesson that good people can perform terrible acts.

[Non Sequitur]

That is totally messed up, and if the molester/rapist hadn't once been a judge of Israel, there is no way the judge goes out of his way to give the guy such a gushing testimonial. My guess is that the judge thought it was his priesthood duty to protect the Church's image, so he felt compelled to minimize the enormity of the crimes.

[creekster]

That is totally messed up, and if the molester/rapist hadn't once been a judge of Israel, there is no way the judge goes out of his way to give the guy such a gushing testimonial. My guess is that the judge thought it was his priesthood duty to protect the Church's image, so he felt compelled to minimize the enormity of the crimes.

Was the judge LDS? I missed that.