The Iconoclast FEB 2018

LAURA LINGWOOD reviews
the case of Larry Nassar
Larry Nassar, an American
sports physician who serviced
the likes of female US Olympic
gymnasts, has caused global
outrage within the last few
months after it had come to
light that he had mistreated
his position as a doctor to sexually
abuse young women and
girls.
The prolific offender was branded
a ‘monster’ by judge Rosemarie
Aquilina during her final
sentencing statement. Anyone
willing to dispute his name being
stigmatized here would be
incredibly inhumane as the behaviour
he chose to undertake is
undeniably simply that of a
monster. That one word doesn’t
portray the pain and suffering
any one of his survivors had to
endure; 156 girls and women.
Females who were as young as 6
years old when he sexually
abused them, females whom of
which he abused for several
traumatizing years, and all females
whom of which he took
advantage of the trust they and
their families placed towards
him, stood in court to testify
against Nassar.
The exposure of the case went
even further than the global
scale it had originally, via the
use of a viral video of Judge Aquilina
sentencing him to 175
years in prison. However, the
nature of the language and atmosphere
Aqulilina set provoked
a controversial argument
that the “bias” created an unfair
trial and ruled out the key element
of the Judicial institution
being a healthy democratic balance.
So, is this true? Is the trial
of Larry Nassar, a now convicted
sexual abuser, unfair?
Aquilina blistered his name with
‘monster’ which clearly reflects
her personal opinion towards
him. Critics were quick to judge
Rosemarie’s actions by suggesting
that the trial creates an unjust
tribunal by allowing 156
victims to stand before the judge
and state the extent of the sentence
they want to see be applied.
JUDGE ROSE-MARIE AQUILINA– WHO WENT VIRAL ON TWITTER WITH
A VIDEO OF HER IN THE FINAL SENTENCING
One ex-gymnast, Gwen Anderson,
stated that “he is going to sit
in jail for the rest of his life, we
on the other hand are going to
move forward. We are going to
carry on with our lives, we are
going to overcome impossible
odds because that’s what we are
trained to do.” Anderson went
on to say, “little girls don’t stay
little forever, they grow into
strong women that return to destroy
your world”. The argument
the critics are placing forward
is that the judicial figures
crossed an ethical line by allowing
all 156 strong, powerful survivors
of abuse, which had such
depth and exhaustive details of