Pr. George’s couple accused of treating woman like a slave

[justtitans]

Sentencing for this case has been made for the wife involved in the case, but I wanted to point people to something the judge said:

Maryland woman gets 12 months for harboring Filipina immigrant - The Washington Post

The couple, Gloria and Alfred Edwards, earlier had pleaded guilty to one count each of harboring the woman. That set off a three-day sentencing hearing in which prosecutors argued that the couple essentially held the woman against her will. In the end, U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow ruled partially in favor of the prosecutors.


Chasanow said the woman — known in court papers by her initials, T.E. — was vulnerable because she was uneducated, spoke little to no English and didn’t understand immigration laws. But Chasanow chose not to consider involuntary servitude as an aggravating factor in the case.

I know some people may have thought my opinion on this case was 'harsh', but as I stated before, the Washington Post was leaving out information to sensationalize the story. If the judge really truly thought that this woman was being held against her will then she would have considered it. Anyone that wants to know the true facts about this case, I would encourage you to look at other sources besides the Washington Post and put the pieces together.

I also should mention that only getting 12 months for this crime is ridiculous. The wife should have gotten way, way more.

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

Sentencing for this case has been made for the wife involved in the case, but I wanted to point people to something the judge said:

Maryland woman gets 12 months for harboring Filipina immigrant - The Washington Post

I know some people may have thought my opinion on this case was 'harsh', but as I stated before, the Washington Post was leaving out information to sensationalize the story. If the judge really truly thought that this woman was being held against her will then she would have considered it. Anyone that wants to know the true facts about this case, I would encourage you to look at other sources besides the Washington Post and put the pieces together.

I also should mention that only getting 12 months for this crime is ridiculous. The wife should have gotten way, way more.

The key word here is "partially". Based on the information available on the case, the prosecutor's case couldn't be considered in its entirety because the evidence was probably too ambiguous. It doesn't mean that there was no fault, just that it couldn't be considered unequivocally. In cases where you have one person's word against another its hard to prove fault. Aside from the enslavement deal, it is surprising that the sentence was only 12 months considering the immigration fraud part of the case.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

The key word here is "partially". Based on the information available on the case, the prosecutor's case couldn't be considered in its entirety because the evidence was probably too ambiguous. It doesn't mean that there was no fault, just that it couldn't be considered unequivocally. In cases where you have one person's word against another its hard to prove fault. Aside from the enslavement deal, it is surprising that the sentence was only 12 months considering the immigration fraud part of the case.

I thought they would at least be charged for abuse, as it was stated before, but it seems like there wasn't really a strong case all the way around. In the end, to the judge, this just looks like a case of the defendants under paying a voluntary servant. It's pretty sad though, because there were also reports that they falsified documents just to get her over here and get her to stay. What a strange case.

[bowian]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

The key word here is "partially". Based on the information available on the case, the prosecutor's case couldn't be considered in its entirety because the evidence was probably too ambiguous. It doesn't mean that there was no fault, just that it couldn't be considered unequivocally. In cases where you have one person's word against another its hard to prove fault.

This. Also, the article pointed to some of the evidence available, which included photos showing the woman getting along with her employers. Just because someone is treating you nicely does not mean they are not taking advantage of you. However, as you mentioned, proof is key.

With regard to the Washington Post, people can (and I bet they do) read or listen to any of the myriad media sources out there. The Post is the Post. The important thing is to engage some critical thinking and to consider a variety of sources.

[molukai]

To call the criminals her employers is humanizing them. They are not her employers; they were criminals, pure and simple. They forced her into indentured servitude, forced her into marrying a relative of theirs and seized money that was owed to her separate from her owed pay (which was also owed her). Furthermore, the fact that she was threatened into compliance makes her not even fitting of the indentured servant term. The proper classification is indeed slave.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by molukai

To call the criminals her employers is humanizing them. They are not her employers; they were criminals, pure and simple. They forced her into indentured servitude, forced her into marrying a relative of theirs and seized money that was owed to her separate from her owed pay (which was also owed her). Furthermore, the fact that she was threatened into compliance makes her not even fitting of the indentured servant term. The proper classification is indeed slave.

Just for historical reference, an indentured servant isn't the same as a slave. Are we saying that she was an indentured servant? I think there are times you can definitely argue that she was treated like a slave, but there are times when it seemed like she was treated like a worker. Was she mistreated? Yes. Was she underpaid? Yes. Was she held against her will? At certain point she was, and a certain point she was not. To suggest that she was treated like a slave the entire time that she was there would be inaccurate. That is why I would be hesitate to use that word. It has a strong meaning. Let me put it like this, would you compare her experience with the 3 women in Ohio? There are some similarities but those cases are really night and day. That right there was a clear sign of slavery. Those women were literally in bondage.