469
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2025
469 points (98.8% liked)
politics
31107 readers
2051 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't know, it seems pretty fair to me to say that if you prevent justice from being done for an act committed against someone else then you deserve to have that act directed at you, at least in general terms. That sort of consequential thinking is one of the first things we teach our kids. Why should the answer change just because the subject matter does? It seems pretty reasonable to assume that this lawyer did not genuinely believe Cuomo was innocent. Perhaps "deserve" isn't quite the right word but I think "fuck around and find out" certainly applies, and when you summarize that phrase it expresses pretty much the same sentiment as the word deserving.
So every public defender deserves to be shot then?
I don't think I would phrase it that way but if you make a career out of knowingly getting murderers off the hook then yeah, you deserve bad things. There's lots of people who deserve things, both good and bad, that never get those things. Being deserving of something is not a guarantee that you will get it.
But how do you know they’re a murderer until it’s proven in a fair trial?
The job of a defender is to hold the judicial system to a high standard, to ensure the prosecution does its job properly and to provide a counterweight on the scales of justice.
If a criminal walks free, it's not the fault of the defender, but of the prosecution if they failed to find convincing evidence of his guilt.
Coversely, if an innocent person does get convicted, the defender failed to effectively refute the evidence.
Of course, this idealism doesn't hold if the system is fucked by crooked courts, biased judges and competent, committed counsel being unaffordable to poor people, but that also doesn't mean the defender is to blame for playing their part well.
I see where you're coming from but can't say I agree with your conclusion. She had much more information and time to make her judgments about Cuomo than a typical woman has before they have to make a judgement call on people who could be dangerous. She's also very well paid, it's not as if Cuomo wouldn't have representation if she refused him. Despite this I really dont believe that sexual harassment/assualt can serve as some sort of punishment or some catalyst that sparks rehabilitation, or even positive change. I also don't believe physical or mental forms of violence can achieve those aims so maybe that's part of it.
You definitely shouldn't be teaching children "eye for an eye" or that turnabout is fair play. It's good to teach that actions have consequences, but it's not okay to tell them that rapists deserve to get raped, that's fucked up.
That sort of teaching is incredibly common whether you think it should be or not. If you have kids I'm sure you've done it yourself many times. "You ate Timmy's candy so now you have to give your candy to Timmy" is not fundamentally different from what I said above.
That's quite a bit different of an example. What you just said is actions have consequences. If you steal something, your punishment is a monetary penalty. That would be equivalent to, "you raped someone, you pay a fine and go to jail". If your example had little Timmy stealing candy from the perp, that would be more in line with the initial compare.
The examples don't hold up the best compared to something like rape because there is an exchange of items vs a physical action. A better comparison would be little Timmy got bit by little Sally so now Timmy gets to bite her back. Rational people don't teach their kids to bite back instead teaching them to get an adult to handle Sally.
All this to say there's also self defense which is notably different from retaliation.