Speaker 1: Hey, this is pridgett Assembly and you're listening to stuff
Speaker 1: mom never told you. Now today we have to give
Speaker 1: a trigger warning and because we're going to be discussing
Speaker 1: the absolutely intense case of Olympic gymnast doctor Larry Nasser.
Speaker 1: So if that's going to be something that's tough for
Speaker 1: you to listen to, just know that's what we're talking
Speaker 1: about today. Now you probably have seen what happened with
Speaker 1: this case. It's one that I think really illustrates the
Speaker 1: magnitude to which someone can go on abusing women and
Speaker 1: girls for a very very long time with very very
Speaker 1: little consequence. I mean, one of the biggest questions for
Speaker 1: this case, which we'll get into, is how many people
Speaker 1: seem to apparently have been complicit it and allowing this
Speaker 1: to continue, which the question now is what level of
Speaker 1: complicity is criminal exactly. A lot of people have been
Speaker 1: comparing it to the Penn State Jerry Sandusky situation, which,
Speaker 1: interestingly enough, I saw a lot of journalists and folks
Speaker 1: on Twitter asking when this thing was just sort of
Speaker 1: bubbling up and people weren't really talking about it that much.
Speaker 1: The Penn State situation was such a huge story and
Speaker 1: scandal as it should have been. Why did it take
Speaker 1: so long for this to gather steam. Why did this
Speaker 1: story which had been out there for a while, why
Speaker 1: was it not a similar thing? It also just puts
Speaker 1: another thing on the list of things that enraged me
Speaker 1: about how much higher education is failing women. Oh, absolutely, absolutely,
Speaker 1: when you think about the fact that very likely, you know,
Speaker 1: a college, Michigan State University was letting these women and
Speaker 1: girls be abused without really doing a lot to stop it.
Speaker 1: When you think about that, it really I mean, you
Speaker 1: send someone to a doctor to help them, to take
Speaker 1: care of them, and if they were knowingly putting these
Speaker 1: girls in harm's way, it's just you really look at
Speaker 1: the university and you say, what do you do? How
Speaker 1: did you let this continue? So wait, let's take a
Speaker 1: step backwards. Let's review sort of baseline of the case.
Speaker 1: What happened? Why did this make the news so dramatically?
Speaker 1: So basically, here's what went down. Nasser was the team
Speaker 1: doctor for USA Gymnastics, and through four Olympic Games he
Speaker 1: treated hopeful young gymnasts and gold medal winners alike. He
Speaker 1: treated people that you probably have heard of if you
Speaker 1: follow gymnastics at all, I'm talking folks like Gabby Douglas, MICHAELA. Moroney,
Speaker 1: Ali Riceman, So he was really dealing with some of
Speaker 1: the biggest athletes in the world. He also worked for
Speaker 1: Michigan State University from n to twenty sixteen as an
Speaker 1: associate professor and served as the gymnastics and Women's crew
Speaker 1: team physician. So basically, under the guise of medical treatments,
Speaker 1: he had been digitally penetrating women and girls under his
Speaker 1: care for quite some time. So they would go in for,
Speaker 1: you know, to get medical help, and he would put
Speaker 1: his finger in side of them and tell them it
Speaker 1: was some sort of a special treatment to to realign,
Speaker 1: you know, their body, right. And part of what made
Speaker 1: this so enraging is the fact that he was a
Speaker 1: very well known and beloved doctor in the community. Right,
Speaker 1: So what's scary about this is this is a person
Speaker 1: who used his power and his sort of persuasive persona
Speaker 1: to befriend people, make people feel like they could trust him,
Speaker 1: to use his position of power as a medical professional
Speaker 1: to completely violate the medical professions code of ethics of
Speaker 1: doing no harm. Absolutely. There's this podcast it's very very
Speaker 1: popular in the gymnastics community called gym castic And he's
Speaker 1: actually in an episode of that podcast that I listened
Speaker 1: to in preparation for this episode, and you really see
Speaker 1: that he presented himself as the good guy right the community.
Speaker 1: He was beloved by this community, and in a sport
Speaker 1: that is so focused on women person themselves to their
Speaker 1: physical limits, he very likely gained their trust by presenting
Speaker 1: himself as someone who cared about their physicality, someone who
Speaker 1: talked about their mental health and emotional health. And listen
Speaker 1: to that podcast, you know it's it's so creepy after
Speaker 1: the facts, so I do now you can recommend listening
Speaker 1: to it because it's so creepy. But you see the
Speaker 1: way that he used that to gain trust. You see
Speaker 1: the way that he used that to sort of gain
Speaker 1: that status that we give doctors in our communities. Yes,
Speaker 1: and back in November, he pled guilty to ten charges
Speaker 1: of molestation and in a separate case, was found guilty
Speaker 1: of having more than thirty seven thousand images and videos
Speaker 1: of child pornography found on his computer. So this guy
Speaker 1: is a world class creep Yes, honestly is it? So
Speaker 1: these allegations weren't really taken seriously until August, when former
Speaker 1: gymnast Rachel den Hollander became the first person that foul
Speaker 1: a criminal complaint against him. And what's so enraging is
Speaker 1: that it took until sixteen to bring this guy to
Speaker 1: court for these charges after he's been doing this since nineteen,
Speaker 1: he admits, And there were so many opportunities to take action,
Speaker 1: and all of the governing organizations that he was involved
Speaker 1: with failed to do so despite concerns and complaints. So
Speaker 1: back in nine seven or mid a gymnast alleges that
Speaker 1: she complained to the m s U gymnastics coach Kathy Klages,
Speaker 1: saying that she was concerned at the time about NASA's treatments.
Speaker 1: Klages discouraged her from filling a formal complaint and informed
Speaker 1: Nasser of the conversation, basically going straight to the guy
Speaker 1: who she's trying to report. And this person who's reporting
Speaker 1: is a teenager at the time, who are then coach
Speaker 1: dissuades from reporting, right, So the power dynamic there is
Speaker 1: something to take into consideration. A teenage child says there's
Speaker 1: something wrong here, her coach goes to the person she's
Speaker 1: reporting tattles on her, which is a totally wrong thing
Speaker 1: to do. I want to talk about a violation of trust,
Speaker 1: and then discourages her from making any kind of formal
Speaker 1: complaint instead of maybe listening. You see that time and
Speaker 1: time again in this case, for several years in n
Speaker 1: and again in two thousand, an M s U softball
Speaker 1: player told three athletic trainers that he sexually inappropriately touched
Speaker 1: her during a medical treatment. She alleges that those trainers
Speaker 1: dismissed her concerns, and one of them even said that
Speaker 1: she should feel grateful to be treated by such a
Speaker 1: world class doctor, an Olympic doctor who quote knew what
Speaker 1: he was doing. Basically, don't question anyone. And you know what,
Speaker 1: I've been a part of sports leagues throughout my childhood
Speaker 1: and teenage years in college years, and that kind of
Speaker 1: blind obedience is drilled into players in a way that
Speaker 1: sets that kind of arena up for sexual predators to
Speaker 1: get away with it for years, and it's it's totally wrong.
Speaker 1: It's totally wrong. I really see so many intersections that
Speaker 1: allowed this to fester for so long. I think part
Speaker 1: of it is what you're talking about, where they just
Speaker 1: drill in that these people know what they're doing. I
Speaker 1: think part of it is that the elevated place we
Speaker 1: give medical professionals. I also think it's part of it
Speaker 1: is not taking the complaints and the pain of women
Speaker 1: and girls seriously, because these athletes did exactly what you're
Speaker 1: supposed to do in this situation. But you know, they
Speaker 1: did everything right, they did nothing wrong, and yet their
Speaker 1: concerns were dismissed again and again and again. And I
Speaker 1: think you see that so often in situations like this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's just a total failure of chain of command
Speaker 1: to it. It reminds me of sexual assault in the
Speaker 1: military in a way where soldiers are expected to fall
Speaker 1: in line and obedience is expected, and if you have
Speaker 1: a problem with a superior the avenues for reporting those
Speaker 1: problems are extremely hard to come by, and there's a
Speaker 1: total failure when it comes to the chain of command
Speaker 1: for holding people in positions of power accountable. Well, talk
Speaker 1: about a failure of a chain of command. Inen The
Speaker 1: Ingham County Prosecutor's Office actually investigated this doctor after there
Speaker 1: was a flurry of complaints, and they found that his
Speaker 1: treatments were quote medically sound, And it just enrages me
Speaker 1: that they supposedly looked into this and they just found
Speaker 1: nothing wrong. The fact that this man was not even
Speaker 1: using a gloved finger to insert his finger inside of
Speaker 1: people without getting their consent, without another person in the
Speaker 1: room injured hamstring. Um, No, like, no, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean, that's there's no, it's not like her vagina
Speaker 1: was broken. Exactly exactly do you come in for like
Speaker 1: a headache and he says I need to do this.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any sense. Um. It also needs to
Speaker 1: be said that one of the people involved in that investigation,
Speaker 1: Stuart Dudding's, actually resigned himself in March for his own
Speaker 1: sexual misconduct allegations. So it's just really just creeps the
Speaker 1: whole way down and it's really enraging. And what's incredible
Speaker 1: is that rage was clearly put on display this past
Speaker 1: month when beyond the actual criminal lawsuits and him being
Speaker 1: found guilty after pleading guilty to all of these charges,
Speaker 1: this past month we saw a flurry of viral attention
Speaker 1: brought to this case because of the sentencing, which is
Speaker 1: where this story really gets interesting. We'll be right back
Speaker 1: after this quick break to break it down, and we're back,
Speaker 1: and I think we can all agree that this person,
Speaker 1: Larry Nasser, was troublingly allowed to continue lusting women and
Speaker 1: girls and abusing his power as a medical professional, and
Speaker 1: that's disgusting and abhorrent and he should be punished for it.
Speaker 1: I think we can all agree on that. Yeah, hopefully
Speaker 1: there's not anybody out I mean, maybe other creeps, but
Speaker 1: hopefully most reasonable non creeps. I think we can all agree.
Speaker 1: What gets interesting, however, is how this sentencing went down.
Speaker 1: Isn't that right, Bridget That is an interesting development in
Speaker 1: this story. So this was a situation where many of
Speaker 1: us watched the sentencing happened live on television, and I
Speaker 1: definitely watched it with bated breath, and you really can't
Speaker 1: help but highlight how it was really a powerful, powerful
Speaker 1: thing to watch. You had these victims getting up and
Speaker 1: reading these impact statements about what happened to them. And
Speaker 1: in fact, The Daily the podcast by the New York Times,
Speaker 1: did a really good job of running through some of
Speaker 1: these powerful testimonies, which is what brought this case into
Speaker 1: the mainstream. By the way, it's not the fifty some
Speaker 1: oddcounts of child molestation that brought this case into everybody's
Speaker 1: collective consciousness. It was the fact that the judge presiding
Speaker 1: over the sentencing process, Judge rose Marie Aquilina allowed victims
Speaker 1: open opportunities, open mic basically, the opportunity to come make
Speaker 1: a statement that it helps explain to you, the judge,
Speaker 1: what kind of impact this person's crime has had on
Speaker 1: their lives. And the Daily did a really great rundown
Speaker 1: of what a relatively historically new phenomenon that is. And
Speaker 1: I want to first play a few of the impact
Speaker 1: statements which have been so moving and so heartbreaking, but
Speaker 1: so important in the era of me too, of getting
Speaker 1: this point across of why this was so horrific. I
Speaker 1: was eleven years old when I first went to see Larry.
Speaker 1: I was seven years old. I was only twelve. I
Speaker 1: had been as patient since I was eight years old.
Speaker 1: The pain you have caused me mentally and emotionally is unexplainable.
Speaker 1: And I was taught that it is not okay for
Speaker 1: anyone to touch you down there unless it's a doctor,
Speaker 1: and you were a world renowned doctor. I mean, the
Speaker 1: reality is that the reason this case is so newsworthy
Speaker 1: right now, beyond the horrific nature of how long this
Speaker 1: total criminal creep was allowed to continue harming women and girls,
Speaker 1: is the fact that this is unprecedented amount of victim
Speaker 1: impact testimony that was not only delivered in the courtroom
Speaker 1: but also publicized on television. Yeah, I mean you actually
Speaker 1: even saw his lawyer and Larry himself saying, it's not
Speaker 1: okay that I have to listen to this amount of
Speaker 1: victim's impact statements. This is too much. It's psychologically damaging. Which, interestingly,
Speaker 1: that statement from Larry was read aloud in the courtroom
Speaker 1: by the presiding judge, to the laughter of folks in
Speaker 1: the courtroom. Because, of course, his pain in this instance,
Speaker 1: his psychological torture pales in comparison to the damage he's done.
Speaker 1: But it was a very interesting public shaming of this person,
Speaker 1: which is understandable and rightful, but from a do process standpoint,
Speaker 1: it's it's an interesting development. So here's his letter as
Speaker 1: read by the judge. Everything wrong. They feel that is awful. Hell,
Speaker 1: hath no fury like a woman scorned by the way
Speaker 1: that portion of the letter. People gasped when they heard that,
Speaker 1: because it's such a I mean what, it's such an
Speaker 1: ignorant demonstration that he has nocking concept of the damage
Speaker 1: he's actually done and somehow is still justifying his behavior
Speaker 1: like it's somehow the seven year old girl's fault, like
Speaker 1: she's a woman scorned and that justifies what he did. Yeah,
Speaker 1: calling I hadn't even I hadn't even zeroed in on
Speaker 1: that part of how horrible that is, to say, calling
Speaker 1: a seven year old, a thirteen year old or fourteen
Speaker 1: year old that you abused a quote woman scorned, That
Speaker 1: is really next level and it really demonstrates that he
Speaker 1: doesn't understand that he could hear story after story after
Speaker 1: story of how damaging this was and still say I
Speaker 1: don't think it was that bad. The media twisted it, Yeah,
Speaker 1: And honestly, what's interesting is that poured gasoline on this fire.
Speaker 1: Right that enraged everyone even further, I think, which added
Speaker 1: to the long list of people who were ready and
Speaker 1: willing to give their testimony, give their impact statements, and
Speaker 1: accelerated the attention that this was getting. Everyone was cheering
Speaker 1: for this guy to go down in flames, understandably. What's
Speaker 1: interesting is that later on in sentencing he did give
Speaker 1: another statement that accepted responsibility, and he had sort of
Speaker 1: come around, or at least maybe his attorney talked to
Speaker 1: him into writing a better statement, because he really changed
Speaker 1: his tune. You know, he went from saying, this is
Speaker 1: psychologically tortuous for me to listen to these victim impact
Speaker 1: statements too. I understand your pain. I should pay for
Speaker 1: my crimes. I'm sorry for what I did. But only
Speaker 1: after I think the media attention became even more intense.
Speaker 1: And this judge was very interestingly emphatic in how she
Speaker 1: decided to preside over her courtroom. Wasn't shame, she was
Speaker 1: Judge Aquilina. She really had no regard for this man.
Speaker 1: You could tell that she found it as enraging as
Speaker 1: the rest of us watching at home. She was as
Speaker 1: piste as we felt in this situation, and she didn't
Speaker 1: she really didn't hold back to a point to which
Speaker 1: I almost don't think we see very often. I don't
Speaker 1: think we see judges. Is that Yeah, I don't think
Speaker 1: we do. But then then then that's what gives me pause.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of us wouldn't say this out
Speaker 1: loud because we want to see this guy go down
Speaker 1: and flames, myself included. But she's the judge, right, She's
Speaker 1: the judge who's determining sentencing. She's supposed to be. You know,
Speaker 1: what is that that um, that statue Lady Justice who's
Speaker 1: beding weighing the scales of justice or whatever. And she's
Speaker 1: up there saying, you know, good for you, you, sister survivors.
Speaker 1: This is a really important process in your healing process.
Speaker 1: She's sort of verbally coaching the women who came up
Speaker 1: to give victim impact statements, which is cool, Like she's saying,
Speaker 1: this is part of your healing process. You're a survivor,
Speaker 1: you're not a victim. Take your power back on your voice,
Speaker 1: all of which I agree with. And then she's laughing
Speaker 1: as she reads this, I'll be it ridiculous statement from
Speaker 1: Larry Nasser, And you're just like, is that the person
Speaker 1: that's sentencing this person is she's supposed to be that
Speaker 1: flagrant lee. On one side of this issue, I can
Speaker 1: completely understand where you're coming from. I had some really
Speaker 1: conflicting feelings about this. On the one hand, I was like, Rara,
Speaker 1: you tell them this is our moment. And then I
Speaker 1: remember a friend of mine said, you know, your little mislefty,
Speaker 1: look at you like championing the criminal justice system. Look
Speaker 1: at you watching this gleefully waiting for this guy to
Speaker 1: go down. Shouldn't you be advocating for the criminal justice
Speaker 1: system to be more neutral. I thought, yeah, but I don't.
Speaker 1: I'm not it was it's hard. It's hard to reconcile.
Speaker 1: It really is hard to reconcile. I don't understand this
Speaker 1: queasy feeling that I get. You know. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: I'm gleefully watching this, and I was so ra rod
Speaker 1: if he followed the stuff I've never told you Twitter.
Speaker 1: I was retweeting everything like yes, yes, yes, yes, And
Speaker 1: then I took a step back and thought, wait, what
Speaker 1: am I actually celebrating here? Like is it okay to
Speaker 1: watch this? I don't know, I know what I I
Speaker 1: totally understand what you're coming from. And I think the
Speaker 1: feeling stems from how overdo this justice was right? There
Speaker 1: were so many opportunities for this to be solved, for
Speaker 1: this justice to be delivered earlier, for hundreds of women
Speaker 1: and girls to be spared, and so this is long overdue,
Speaker 1: not to mention historically overdue, because so many child molesters
Speaker 1: and predators of sexual assault against women and girls especially,
Speaker 1: but sexual assault in general, have gone unpunished. So it
Speaker 1: was this sort of cathartic collective moment for when our
Speaker 1: culture is saying, you know what, we're actually listening to
Speaker 1: women victims now, So let's come down on this guy
Speaker 1: as a symbol of the hashtag met moment that we
Speaker 1: find ourselves in. But honestly, the whole concept of victim
Speaker 1: impact statements has never been used this way before, and
Speaker 1: for anybody who cares about equal justice under the law,
Speaker 1: this raises some concerning questions. One thing that's really important
Speaker 1: to keep in mind is that victims role in sentencing
Speaker 1: has long been a debate in the legal community. These
Speaker 1: cases are typically the state versus or the people versus
Speaker 1: some predator in this regard, and so our country has
Speaker 1: been wrestling with the role that victims should play in
Speaker 1: seeking justice without necessarily creating an environment that seems prejudice
Speaker 1: show against more and higher and more severe sentencing. So
Speaker 1: back in seven, the Supreme Court weighed in on how
Speaker 1: victims should be involved in the sentencing part of the
Speaker 1: due process that our our justice system carries out. So
Speaker 1: in this case Booth versus Maryland, the victims were saying,
Speaker 1: we're left out of the process altogether. We want to
Speaker 1: be able to make victim impact statements at sentencing, and
Speaker 1: the case was specifically focused on sentencing that included the
Speaker 1: death penalty, and I want to throw it to The
Speaker 1: New York Times excellent podcast called The Daily from January
Speaker 1: twenty five that features a really interesting interview with Emily Baslon,
Speaker 1: who covers legal issues for the New York Times magazine.
Speaker 1: Versus Supreme Court said, no, when a judge is deciding
Speaker 1: whether to sentence someone to death, they are not allowed
Speaker 1: to hear about the effect the murder has had on
Speaker 1: family members. It was overturned at some point, right. That's
Speaker 1: we hold at the eighth amend that erects no automatic
Speaker 1: bar prohibiting a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact
Speaker 1: evidence relating to the victims personal characteristics. And in this
Speaker 1: later decision, what the court says is the hearing from
Speaker 1: victims helps educate the judge who's meeting out the sentence
Speaker 1: about what the harm of the crime has been. The
Speaker 1: point that they're making is that they should not be
Speaker 1: able to hear from folks who were not there for
Speaker 1: the crime, that that has no relevance on guilt or
Speaker 1: innocent in the court of law. And also they're unpacking
Speaker 1: our historical discomfort with the injection of raw emotion and
Speaker 1: impact directly from victims and survivors themselves. Yeah, and that's
Speaker 1: the thing. Obviously, emotion is part of this. I mean,
Speaker 1: I almost don't even know where how I feel about
Speaker 1: this feelings, but you know, obviously this is an emotional crime,
Speaker 1: and I don't think we can pretend that emotions have
Speaker 1: no place in the court. Well, it does depend on
Speaker 1: your philosophy around sentencing. Think about mandatory minimum sentences. That
Speaker 1: takes all the power out of the judge to be
Speaker 1: considered of unique levels of impact that someone's crime has
Speaker 1: had on them. And the question is where what is
Speaker 1: the role of the judge in sentencing. Should it be, oh,
Speaker 1: you're guilty of fifty six crimes, You're gonna get X
Speaker 1: numbers of years because of that. Is it a simple
Speaker 1: equation or is it let's listen to the robust emotional
Speaker 1: impact that a hundred and fifty women plus come forward
Speaker 1: to discuss and share with the cord to then give
Speaker 1: the judge more of a sort of understanding of how
Speaker 1: much damage this person has done. See in this case,
Speaker 1: I actually think that's exactly what was happening. I think
Speaker 1: that the unprecedented amount of victims impact statements that we
Speaker 1: heard in the courtroom in this case was to demonstrate
Speaker 1: just how many victims there were and just how long
Speaker 1: this abuse went on for, and the magnitude and sheer
Speaker 1: skille of Naser's crimes. I think it was meant to
Speaker 1: paint that portrait so that anyone watching would have no
Speaker 1: misunderstanding about how serious what he did was and how
Speaker 1: long it spanned for, and how many victims he created.
Speaker 1: And I get that, I get it too, But where's
Speaker 1: the tension then, because we could think of a million
Speaker 1: other examples in which trial by public opinion would influence
Speaker 1: a judge, perhaps not rightfully so right if I if
Speaker 1: you know, if every sentencing was publicized live for all
Speaker 1: of the world to see, it would be a matter
Speaker 1: of who has the most compelling victim impact statements to
Speaker 1: bring someone down, you know, like this can also be abused.
Speaker 1: And I hate saying that, And I don't want to
Speaker 1: be the due process person here because I think this
Speaker 1: guy should burn in hell, quite frankly, and I think
Speaker 1: the victims who came forward did so bravely and courageously
Speaker 1: and powerfully. Um. But it was weird. It was weird
Speaker 1: to see a judge at sentencing saying things like I
Speaker 1: wouldn't send my dogs to you to Dr Nasser. You know,
Speaker 1: it's just it's uncomfortable. I don't know why. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I wonder if I'm gonna get I know I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get so much for saying this, But where is the
Speaker 1: line with due process in this case? Yeah, Emily, I'm
Speaker 1: so conflicted about this, and I totally totally hear you.
Speaker 1: One of my biggest pet peeves as someone who cares
Speaker 1: a lot about the criminal justice system and how that works,
Speaker 1: is that when she was in courtroom, she said, our
Speaker 1: constitution does not allow for cruel unusual punishment. If it did,
Speaker 1: I have to say, I might allow what he did
Speaker 1: to all those beautiful souls, these young women in their childhood.
Speaker 1: I would allow someone or many people to do what
Speaker 1: he did to others. And that's really not okay with me, right.
Speaker 1: Sexual assault in prison is not a joke. It is
Speaker 1: not some I mean, we it is a joke because
Speaker 1: you know, we watch TV and movies. Don't drop the
Speaker 1: soap is you know, supposed to be a ha ha line.
Speaker 1: But our criminal justice system and our prison industry is
Speaker 1: really really messed up. I don't think it's funny and honestly,
Speaker 1: bridget We're not alone in this. Diana Moskovitz at Deadspin wrote,
Speaker 1: even Larry Nasser does not deserve to be raped in prison,
Speaker 1: and it's sort of underscores the conflicted feelings that a
Speaker 1: lot of us have watching this, thinking, yeah, he should
Speaker 1: definitely go to prison forever um, but she would be
Speaker 1: Should we be relishing in the live sentencing process that's
Speaker 1: turning into a courtroom performance? Yeah? I know the judge
Speaker 1: took a lot of flak for her, you know, style
Speaker 1: Claire in that courtroom, but I actually did love that.
Speaker 1: To her critics, she basically was like, Oh, you guys
Speaker 1: should watch me in court every day. I'm like this
Speaker 1: every day. Cameras are no cameras. This is who I am.
Speaker 1: So part of me was like, hey, dear girl, at
Speaker 1: least she's being consistent. But it does it does raise
Speaker 1: questions about do pro says and you know, what are
Speaker 1: the ramifications of having a courtroom conversation like that, or
Speaker 1: having our criminal justice system pushed to the limit in
Speaker 1: this way, Like we might see a backlash on victim
Speaker 1: impact statements or some other dramatic things might happen right
Speaker 1: before you record a podcast about this particular subject, which
Speaker 1: we'll talk about when we come back from this quick break.
Speaker 1: And we are back and we're talking through the very
Speaker 1: dramatic sentencing and case regarding Larry Master and his disgusting
Speaker 1: long term abuse of women and girls in gymnastics. And
Speaker 1: right before we started recording today's episode, we got some
Speaker 1: more news. We noticed that he was trending on Twitter again.
Speaker 1: So what heavened? So basically, right as we sat down
Speaker 1: to record today's episode, we noticed he was trending. And
Speaker 1: the reason why he's ending is because he's back in
Speaker 1: court today and the father of three of his victims
Speaker 1: basically physically tried to attack him in the courtroom. He
Speaker 1: lunged at him, he had to be held down. He
Speaker 1: asked the judge as part of sentencing if he could
Speaker 1: be granted a few minutes alone with Nasser in a
Speaker 1: locked room, and the judge was like, no, that's not
Speaker 1: how this works. But clearly this is an emotional situation.
Speaker 1: And you know the fact that a father had to
Speaker 1: be restrained in a courtroom from physically attacking this monster.
Speaker 1: I mean, really, it's it's really something well I understand it, right,
Speaker 1: I feel like every parent out there is like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know who also understands it, that judge, because when
Speaker 1: asked if she was going to be holding this father
Speaker 1: in contempt of court, she said absolutely not Again, I
Speaker 1: understand it. It's interesting and yet at the same time,
Speaker 1: this is exactly the kind of victim impact statement that
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court previously back in seven said was not
Speaker 1: allowed because the risk we wrong from having people give
Speaker 1: impact statements who weren't even directly impacted, who weren't even there,
Speaker 1: like family members, might create some kind of prejudicial situation
Speaker 1: that could increase the severity of sentencing. And when that
Speaker 1: is the norm, could that be a problem. I hate
Speaker 1: this because this is one of those times where my
Speaker 1: lefty pie in the sky ideals are really challenged, because,
Speaker 1: you know, I found myself watching this stuff. When I
Speaker 1: saw the video of this dad attacking Larry. How was
Speaker 1: it good for him? Right when I saw the video
Speaker 1: of the judge bringing the SmackDown on him, I thought,
Speaker 1: good for her? You tell him, sis, go get him.
Speaker 1: I'm not someone who is a huge champion of our
Speaker 1: criminal justice system, and it just makes me think, where
Speaker 1: does this feeling inside come from? Where I'm gleefully rooting
Speaker 1: for all of these machinations of our justice system to
Speaker 1: operate in a way that in other circumstances I might
Speaker 1: not be so gleeful. Well, that's the thing. I understand
Speaker 1: where our glee comes from. In this very specific case,
Speaker 1: and in a lot of cases where justice is long overdue,
Speaker 1: the concern is legal precedent. I hate to be the
Speaker 1: spoiler of all things feminists. I really am not trying
Speaker 1: to make that my niche on this podcast, are I swear?
Speaker 1: I mean, is this something that could be problematic for
Speaker 1: future cases that aren't dis cut and dry, that don't
Speaker 1: have someone pleading guilty on all of these crimes and
Speaker 1: who's long overdue for a severe punishment. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know. Yeah, I think I just have to accept
Speaker 1: that I'm someone who advocates for due process and really
Speaker 1: really wants our criminal justice system to be fair and unbiased.
Speaker 1: I just like it when sexual abusers get what's get
Speaker 1: what's coming. I think I think it's like I have
Speaker 1: to just accept that my primate brain or whatever, it's
Speaker 1: just something that feels right, it's a discer have to
Speaker 1: accept that it's attention and that I can't escape it,
Speaker 1: and I just I think, like a lot of people watching,
Speaker 1: we're in this moment of me too, this reckoning where
Speaker 1: it feels like for so long we've been saying things.
Speaker 1: I mean, these women and girls have been speaking up
Speaker 1: for literal decades since nine nothing was done, and I
Speaker 1: just feel like I can't pretend like the weight of that.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't feel good, some cathartic moment of finally
Speaker 1: he's getting his and I have to just except that.
Speaker 1: I yeah, I mean I have to accept it. Well,
Speaker 1: you're relishing in that pent uprage, which is totally the
Speaker 1: moment we have right now, and I get it. I
Speaker 1: validate that. I recognize and respect that, and I also
Speaker 1: want to validate and recognize and respect for those who
Speaker 1: are looking at this saying I too feel a little
Speaker 1: conflicted over it. It's okay to care about the process
Speaker 1: and want to see this guy go down and and
Speaker 1: get his you know, get what's coming. Um, I think
Speaker 1: you hit the nail on the head. You can hold
Speaker 1: separate opinions at once. You can say he was a
Speaker 1: monster and deserves to die in prison. It's not okay
Speaker 1: for a judge to make jokes about him being raped
Speaker 1: in prison. Perhaps this unprecedented use of victims impact statements.
Speaker 1: While powerful and I applaud them, you know, wholeheartedly, perhaps
Speaker 1: it's fair to ask questions about what that means for
Speaker 1: the criminal justice system. I think all of those things
Speaker 1: can exist at once, and they have to, and I
Speaker 1: think it's an important discussion for us to be okay having.
Speaker 1: I do not want to be in a silo of
Speaker 1: feminist purity tests where the only right answer is blindly
Speaker 1: falling in line with supporting women without having the ability
Speaker 1: to question what kind of precedent the sets up. And
Speaker 1: it's not an easy position to take, but I want
Speaker 1: to validate that position for a lot of us who
Speaker 1: are feeling a little conflicted over what's happening right now,
Speaker 1: because you can believe in due process and believe that
Speaker 1: women have been long overdue and getting real justice. So honestly,
Speaker 1: I want to throw it to the listeners. I want
Speaker 1: to know what you think. I'm sure y'all will tell
Speaker 1: us all about it on Twitter, and I'm actually very
Speaker 1: curious because I don't think it's a black and white conversation.
Speaker 1: I do think there's room for tension and room for questions,
Speaker 1: and I just want to hear what folks thought. Yeah, so,
Speaker 1: please get in touch with us at mom Stuff Podcast
Speaker 1: on Twitter, Stuff Mom Never Told You on Instagram, and
Speaker 1: our inbox is always open at mom Stuff at how
Speaker 1: stuff works dot com