TheLeviathan

Well, it's one of the parts that is complicated. Can a juvenile be redeemed? That's the heart of the question. I asked what you would allow him to do. Because you continue to imply he should've either been put to death or jailed for life for his act at 15. Is that what you believe? If not, what is it you believe? The question of can he be redeemed or not is one of those tough complications to this story that many of us struggle with. Since, from your tower, you seem to have moral clarity on it....please, enlighten.

No one is absolving him. And you do not want him to "do whatever he wants" because you've already shut him out of baseball. What about being a police officer? What would you allow him to do?

What do you advocate for his punishment?

Since the Republicans have forced me to the Democrats full-time....a bad thing. The money balance just got seriously damaged.

Everything I'm reading indicates that is not accurate to this situation. I think it's important we talk about the right stats, with the best evidence, in a complicated situation. Heimlich looks to be more likely to be 90% unlikely to repeat rather than what you said.

5 years/14M for Danielle Hunter. A little more than I'd like, but the right guy to extend.

We're efficient at blundering opportunities though!

Personally, I never liked that you could be forcibly compelled into union dues. But it is going to cripple a lot of major Democratic donors for sure.

Well....maybe, I'm not quite sure what you're arguing. But I think it's fair to say your earlier 90% number is not applicable to this situation. http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/Downloads/KeyResearch/FactSheetYouthSexOffenders.doc So I'm not sure where you got that number from.

I think this is a more accurate statistic to consider:

This is not true. You're referring to recidivism for adults, so it's not a statistic that would apply here. I think the difficulty here is wrapping our head around what matters most to us. I am a strong believer that criminals can (and should) be redeemed. I'm also a strong believer that sex offenders are an exception to that rule. But people like Heimlich are highly unlikely to repeat their act, especially if they demonstrate that over a period of time. So do my emotions/beliefs about harming a child/sex offenders trump my beliefs about redemption. I don't know. I also strongly believe that if you serve the time assigned to you and demonstrate a desire to partake in society that you should be afforded that opportunity. Up-thread it was falsely claimed that Heimlich failed in his duties to his sentence. In fact, he did everything asked of him and it wasn't until some local station of Barney Fifes screwed up his case that his information gets out there. We lock away the records of juvenile offenses for a reason. His should be locked away too. He's already been outed in a way that we design the system to prevent....should he be further punished for someone else's stupid mistake? I don't know, it gets down to privacy and the reasons we lock away juvenile records. (You know, because we know kids will often do things they won't repeat as adults. And we believe they shouldn't receive a life time punishment) I don't know what the answer is, but I'm leery of anyone who thinks they do in this case. You might want to come down from your ivory tower and consider the entire situation a bit more. It's complicated.

That's fair and I am probably in the same boat. Though this particular situation has a number of difficult elements to consider. A lot of conflicting beliefs/emotions for me personally.

While I sympathize with the logic, it begs a follow-up question.....is any criminal allowed redemption? Because I could say "Do you really want to buy your dinner from a person that assaulted a woman?" Or "Do you want that violent criminal building your house?" The emotional appeal isn't always fair, especially if you believe in allowing people to be redeemed. (Though I admit, this particular crime is among the most difficult to accept that on)

The circumstances are a tad more complicated than that: The SI article has more, but I don't think it's fair to say he "failed" to do his duty on this. It seems like he tried to and the police department failed on a number of fronts, creating a loophole the reporter stumbled on. Otherwise - it's unlikely anyone ever finds out about this until much later. If ever..

I feel like we have a wave of TV writing that is trying too hard to be clever. The time jumping back and forth really hurt Westworld IMO. A more straight line narrative this season would've been far better for all involved.

The best thing to happen to Kohl Stewart was the firing of Terry Ryan and his organizational approach. Hopefully these guys can salvage this kid.

Yeah, I'd skip season 2. Terrible pacing, plotting, and an absolute mess of a narrative in the finale.

My wife and I are considering The Expanse as our next show to binge/get into. Anyone have a thought on it? (Westworld and Legion were both drop-offs, so we need something good)

Yeah, looks like that wasn't true. I'm not sure it alleviates all the character concerns, however. It just absolves him of that particular issue.

I don't think this even happens without the Boston incident. Great post.

That certainly implies he was aware of the decision, thank you. Hadn't seen anything other than the quote in the first post.

It's over. Time to start rooting for trade value.

Right and the only line from the story is that he was "surprised" that Profar stole. The way people are talking, Molitor let loose about how inappropriate it was. I don't see that. I see a paragraph where Molitor was trying to explain the situation, not going after Profar. Given that just a few days ago Escobar got plunked and there was a lot of "why didn't the Twins retaliate?" chatter...would it be shocking that a veteran reliever went out and hit the kid all on his own? It also wouldn't be shocking if Molitor ordered it as a warped team-building/confidence gamble. But just my guess from that quote...it was Reed. Molitor is trying to play coy with the press rather than say anything too direct about it and protect his player.

Republicans can pass anything they want all on their own. Why haven't they? Immigration is definitely a problem. We might be able to arrive at some solutions if compromise bills weren't shot down by whacko Republicans at every turn.

Am I missing another quote from Molitor on this issue? People are talking like he ripped Profar and I can't find anything like that.