Reply #15: I'm "demanding" it of the article writers. It's their job.

[dmallind]

They are saying that his wealth got him a light sentence. This is quite probably so, but they do not give us any valid information on which to decide. A better way would have been something like:

The average sentence for this crime for a first time offender is 8 years. Only 2% of those so convicted are allowed out on day release like Mr Epstein, and of those 2% only 10 people got so light a follow on sentence of house arrest. 9 of those 10 people were multimillionaires.

THAT would say what they claim. As for your suggestions

1) Appeal to emotion that has nothing to do with the effect of wealth. Do you think you or I would have a different expectation based on wealth? Then why should it matter here in an article about unfair treatment of the wealthy?

2) That's exactly what the article writers should have done except in reverse - found that there were none or few who did so.

You seem to be under the impression I am in favor of Epstein's light sentence. In fact I have said absolutely nothing about whether I consider it too short or too long or fair or unfair (FWIW I am quite sure it is too lenient and have no problem imagining his money had something to do with it - but that's irrelevant to my point). All I have done in fact is say the article writer did a piss poor job of proving it.

And I am VERY suspicious of the ability of a person to approach this rationally who puts "data" in air quotes as if facts were of no concern.