A Crime of Opportunity

[ccharles000]

Three years ago in B.C., Canada, a woman woke up in the bed of the man in the image to the left. She was bleeding and bruised, and though she remembered going out for a night on town, she didn’t remember how she got in this bed, or what had happened to her. Medical examinations determined that a man had vaginally penetrated her, and also found sedatives in her system.

The man’s name is Fernando Manuel Alves, and he pleaded guilty to sexual assault in the rape of this woman. He was initially charged with sexually assaulting three other women, and administering a noxious substance, though those charges were eventually dropped.

Despite pleading guilty, though, to the rape of a woman who has described since feeling the loss of both her will to live and ability to feel safe, Alves is not going to spend a single day in jail. No, instead, he received a 9 month conditional sentence, and placement on the sex offender registry.

Why, exactly, is Alves not being sent to jail for his violent crime, when non-violent criminals are sent there all the time? Well, that would be the point of particular interest:

In sentencing, the B.C. provincial court judge said Alves was not pathologically dangerous but had committed a crime of opportunity.

The judge ordered that Alves be placed on the sex-offender registry for the next 20 years but that he not spend time in jail.

Yes. Seemingly, since the judge felt the need to express as much during sentencing, Alves is not going to jail because he is believed to be not pathologically dangerous. And the way we know he is not dangerous is because his crime, his rape, was one of of opportunity.

http://thecurvature.com/2009/08/20/a-crime-of-opportunity/

[Chemisse]

1. WTF

What does that mean? The woman's drink was just sitting there begging for him to put a drug in it?

So if a criminal act is easy to do (the open cash drawer was right there! Hey, I had a knife and he had the cash. What was I to do?) then it is an 'opportunity' and therefore is not such a bad thing?

I suspect this judge still thinks that women are 'asking for it' if they go out for a drink or wear a sexy outfit.

[paulsby]

4. it doesnt say he was convicted

of putting something in her drink. read it again . it says she had sedatives in her system, and with some OTHER women, he was ACCUSED (but not convicted) of adding them.

it says he was accused of sexual assault. iow, the rape. it never mentions anything about him being convicted for drugging her.

not that i have any fucking idea what the judge is talking about, but you made a false assumption. clearly the "opportunity" had nothing to do with putting a drug in her drink, since you have no reason to believe he was convicted of that.

[Chemisse]

5. Just because he wasn't convicted of putting a drug in her

Drink, doesn't mean he didn't do it. You have made a false assumption. He may have done that but they dropped that charge as part of a plea bargain. So we really don't know.

But you are splitting hairs. My premise is still valid; I just used an example (drugging her) which I was not certain actually happened.

So I will say then, how is it 'opportunity' being presented with a drugged woman (regardless of how she got that way)?

[paulsby]

7. i didn't make an assumption either way.

i have NO idea whether he did or not. you assumed he did because you didn't read what the article said precisely.

of course he MIGHT have. nobody KNOWS. but there is no evidence he did, apart from the fact that she had sedatives IN her system, according to the article

[Chemisse]

8. I didn't make an assumption and I did not read carelessly

I saw that it did not say he was convicted of drugging her. I was trying to make a point, not making an assertion about his guilt on anything he was not convicted of.

I wrote:
What does that mean? The woman's drink was just sitting there begging for him to put a drug in it?

I did not write: He put a drug in her drink.

Why do you care anyway? I was making a point about what the judge considered an opportunity. Whether or not he drugged her (and I would be willing to place bets that he DID, by the way), the point is the same. So you are not arguing with me about my stance, just picking on me for a detail.

I am wondering why you feel the need to do that.

[paulsby]

9. that;'s a good question, actually

not really much of a need to do that. i apologize for that. the internet brings out the pick in my nit

[Chemisse]

10. Oh thanks. I get like that too sometimes.

Particularly after a hard day when I have some unspent frustrations.

[liberalla]

2. The only reason there was an 'opportunity' was because he drugged her!

Fucking ridiculous. What an unbelievable, incomprehensible, ill-reasoned justification. WTF?

Provincial? How appropriate.

[ccharles000]

3. kick

[ThomWV]

6. Every moment that man walks free is an opportunity