# data[].attributes.body
Well, there was not enough evidence that proves Anderson raped the victim so if he was convicted it woulda really be fair

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think justice was served because there was inconsistency in the way the crime was treated based on location even though the severity of the crime did not change due to where it took place.

# data[].attributes.headline
There should have been a trial by jury ,but at the same time a jury could have shown bias and there was no actual evidence soooooooo...

# data[].attributes.subject
There should have been a trial by jury ,but at the same time a jury could have shown bias and there was no actual evidence soooooooo...

# data[].attributes.body
I totally understand the issue with there not being enough evidence but stuff like this happens all the time. So often women speak out about an assault and there it’s enough evidence. I mean it seems pretty hard to have evidence for something like that. That girl should have had the chance to tell her story. It was hard for her to do that in the first place and she should be allowed speak on her own behalf. There is a lot more but I am to lazy.

# data[].attributes.body
rape is a very serious crime to be accused of, and there need to be many steps taken to ensure that he actually did it before punishment. if everyone who is accused of rape is assumed guilty without evidence then there would be (and in a way already is) a very serious issue of false accusations by people seeking to ruin somebody.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that justice was not served as well as it could have been. However, with the circumstances, they did the best they could, considering there was no evidence against Anderson. If he had been a convicted rapist, then the punishment he got would not have been nearly enough. I also don't think it's fair that Anderson got kicked out of the ceremony just because of the complaints of other students. He was still considered "innocent until proven guilty." However, I think that the victim should have had more chances to attempt to present evidence if he had truly raped her.

# data[].attributes.body
In general, I would say that no, justice was not served in the Anderson case. We consider the following:
(1) Anderson pled guilty to one count of unlawful restraint. Therefore, his accuser was unable to testify against him, and her words were not appraised in the criminal court at all.
(2) Anderson was barred from graduation at the University of Texas at Dallas, which seems odd as he had been attending the school in question for two years.

I think that it is reasonable to say that neither Anderson nor his victim received what they deserved. Anderson should have stood trial, and, assuming there was sufficient evidence, he should have been convicted. Banning him from UTD graduation was an insufficient and immensely delayed punishment for his actions. His victim should have had the opportunity to testify against him.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not feel like justice was served. This is because both parties didn't get a fair chance. If he did do it, the girl didn't get justice for the crime, or a trial. However, there is no proof and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I feel that if Anderson didn't do it, he did not get a fair outcome. If Anderson didn't do it, he now has to live with the consequence of something he didn't do.

# data[].attributes.body
Morally, I do not believe justice was served in this case because if Anderson did commit the assault, then he deserves more severe punishments. Although I personally think that Anderson was guilty, I do believe that justice was truly served in this case. In order to prove someone guilty there must be evidence to convince "beyond reasonable doubt", but in this case, there wasn't enough proof to convict him. Because there wasn't enough concrete evidence, it would be unfair to assume that he is guilty without proof; legally justice was served even though some details around the incident did suggest that Anderson may have actually assaulted the victim.

# data[].attributes.headline
No, because he got off lightly, and had nowhere close to a fair sentence. A comparable offense would have made him serve more than a thousand years in jail, but instead, the father got six months, and the girl got nothing.

# data[].attributes.subject
No, because he got off lightly, and had nowhere close to a fair sentence. A comparable offense would have made him serve more than a thousand years in jail, but instead, the father got six months, and the girl got nothing.

# data[].attributes.body
I personally don't feel that justice was served. The woman who claimed to have been raped by Anderson never got to go to court and present her case and try to prove him guilty. For many women, accusing someone of rape can lead to threats on their life and being publicly shamed, so why would she call the police on Anderson if she didn't need justice to be served. For the plea deal given I feel that it was a semi accurate sentence, but they were only acknowledging that Anderson had unlawfully restrained someone. The fact that the courts didn't even include the accusation of rape in the plea deal is insane, since that's the reason he was brought to court and originally arrested.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think justice was served because they did the wrong punishments. The article said that there were 4 counts of sexual assault and I think that deserves more than 3 years in prison, $400, and probation. This is like a time out for him and he could be let out unchanged and start doing these things again.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the sentence he got was way too lenient and the fact that he had the option to take a plea deal to reduce his sentence. I think there shouldn’t be a plea deal for certain cases, but I don’t know which because I’m not familiar with all of the cases and charges. The fact that he basically admitted to doing the crime is not very comforting, and I feel like the plea deal should only be a little less harsh than going to court and being found guilty. Both options show he did the crime but one gave him a much lighter sentence. I think the plea deal was the majority of what made his case unfair towards the victim.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think justice was fully served because the justice did not fit the crime; he should have been tried for the full crime and not for only the lesser charge of unlawful restraint.

# data[].attributes.body
Justice was served for the crime. I believe that justice was served because there was no evidence other than the girl’s word. She could have made up the whole thing. I don’t think a court should give a person a big sentence for an accusation that has no evidence. The Declaration of Human Rights states that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Anderson was not proven guilty, so therefore he is innocent. Since he was considered innocent I believe his sentence was fair.

# data[].attributes.body
In MY opinion I think justice was NOT served to the victim. She was willing to face her rapist, and he still didn’t go to court. He said he wasnt guilty, and if he wasn’t he would have gone to court and like been like “yeah I’m not guilty”. I also think that him getting into UTD yet not allowed at the graduation was dumb?? Like ?? If the students didn’t want him there , they should have petitioned for him to get out. lasagna

# data[].attributes.body
Probably because innocent until proven guilty but he probably did it so its hard to make the punisment worse but i dont think it should be lessened either

# data[].attributes.body
I think that justice was not served because there was no trial, so we will never know what crimes he would have been convicted for, which means we do not know the punishment that he could have been sentenced to.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it's a difficult question. When I first read through this article, I was leaning towards no, justice was not served, but when I thought about it and put my opinion to paper (which I spent all of 6th period doing), I still think it's too complicated to give a solid answer either way, but the best I can do is to say, no, Anderson didn't get justice, but I still think that UTD was right to keep him from campus and graduation. There was not enough evidence against Anderson to prove he raped his accuser, but even without hard proof, the victim's claims convinced many people. They convinced LaBorde, who indirectly stated that she more or less agreed with the victim, but more importantly, 26,000 UTD students believed the victim's claims. They all felt unsafe and uncomfortable knowing Anderson was on campus. We can only imagine how scared UTD students

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think that Justice was served for the girl. I think that there are certain things after the case that shouldn't have happened. Like, him getting banned from his graduation after he had been going there for two years. But I do not see how he accepted the plea deal (if he hadn't done the crime) that there wouldn't been worse punishments, than cases that are significantly less criminal. And though there is no proof of him doing the act there has to be something said for him taking the plea deal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Yes because there is no proof at all the Anderson raped her and so he shouldn't have been punished for it and he wasn't.

# data[].attributes.subject
Yes because there is no proof at all the Anderson raped her and so he shouldn't have been punished for it and he wasn't.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not believe that justice was served because there is no way to know whether or not he is guilty. Because he was not found guilty for it though I don't believe that UTD had the right to kick him out.

# data[].attributes.body
There was no evidence that he did it so i would have to say that justice was served just because there was no evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not believe that justice was served in this case as there was no trial or conviction. I feel that due to these ill factors it would not be fair to punish somebody under the crime of rape and was too harsh and therefore unjust. If rather Anderson was charged with just unlawful restraint and served the appropriate consequences it would be just. Although it is equally possible that Anderson is or is not a rapist, without adequate evidence it is impossible to prove him guilty and punish him so.

# data[].attributes.body
No, I don't think justice was served. If Anderson had done it even though it wasn't proven, then he didn't get the punishment he deserved. It would seem like he did do it because of the victim's story, but there's nothing that actually proves it, which means there's nothing they can do about it.

# data[].attributes.body
I think justice was not served particularly well just because I feel like there was not enough evidence for either side. At least based on what was included in the article, there appeared to be a good amount of evidence for the victim’s side, but some of it was not proved correct or incorrect. Then again, the fact that the defendant took the lesser charge may suggest that he could want to avoid a more severe punishment. He also may have just wanted to not risk getting a worse punishment, assuming he was innocent, because the jury may be convinced the victim was telling the truth as the victim comes up with more 'proof'.

# data[].attributes.body
I have no clue if he did it. There wasn't any evidence, so there's really no way to tell. ((I hate the guy that tried to bring up the hospital photo though."You smiled when someone took a photo of you! Blasphemy! Are you- are you eating in that photo? CHEESE CRACKERS?? DISGRACEFUL")) I think if he DID do it, justice wasn't served because the legal punishment for rape isn't "oh boohoo you missed graduation :/" it's jail time. You traumatized a person, they're going to deal with that for their entire life, but whatever you wanted to wear an ugly ceremony robe!! poor you! But if he DIDN'T assault her, then it's not really fair to him to be treated like he IS a rapist by his entire college. I think if he had just gone to court for the case, it would've been proven, so nobody could treat him one way or another without being biased about it.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that I can logically say whether or not justice was served in this scenario. The article, in my opinion, did not provide enough evidence to prove either side. If he is innocent then he is still facing backlash for something he did not do, but if he is guilty then the victim is the only one feeling the punishment

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that justice was served in this case because Anderson pleaded guilty and he experienced a very small punishment that did not correspond to his actions. Even though Anderson was not convicted, I personally think that he deserved harsher punishment. I believe that expelling Anderson from UTD was a fair choice, considering the number of complaints issued, but it wasn't the type of punishment that Anderson should have received.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think justice was served because while Anderson was punished, I don't think it was necessarily correct for what he was accused of. Granted it was just an accusation, so there is the possibility that he did nothing at all. I have to admit I am biased towards the victims because of multiple family members of mine.

# data[].attributes.headline
What difference does only one more rapist being present at graduation do? There are probably other rapists at graduation. Anderson is just ONE person. Anderson being left out of graduation makes justice served. 

# data[].attributes.subject
What difference does only one more rapist being present at graduation do? There are probably other rapists at graduation. Anderson is just ONE person. Anderson being left out of graduation makes justice served. 

# data[].attributes.body
No, because without deciding whether or not he was guilty of the crime, you can't say he needed to receive punishment. And, since this case had no trial, there was no evidence to the charge, so there is no reason to punish him. I do not think he did it, because of this lack of evidence, and I believe that the people who would bring up the argument of him being guilty because he wanted to avoid a trial are wrong, as even if he was proven not guilty, the accusation can still hurt him in the long run. It only makes sense to take the plea deal and minimize the damage done to his life.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't believe that justice was given in the manner that it should have been, because he did not even go to trial, and I personally believe that what the UTD campus pulled was a bit uncalled for (because he went to the college after the case had happened and at first nothing happened.) Although I do believe he deserved a harsher punishment, I also believe the UTD thing shouldn't have happened.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that whether or not justice was served depends on whether or not the crime of sexual assault was committed by Anderson. It is impossible to know whether or not the crime was committed based on the facts presented. However, if Anderson did in fact rape the victim, then justice was not served. If he did not, then justice was served by the legal system. It was his defense team's strategy to take the plea deal of unlawful restraint. Since he was never convicted of sexual assault though, I think the UTD students had no right to remove him from the campus, unless they suspected he had engaged in similar activities or made a student uncomfortable.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that justice was served because the defendant used the rules of our system and took a lesser sentence. He was not convicted of felony sexual assault therefore he did not do it.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't know because you would have to decide whether he did the crime or not, and it's even more difficult because this is a "he said, she said" kind of case. If he did do it then justice was not served.

# data[].attributes.body
With regards to the Anderson case I do not think justice was served because I do not think there was any substantial evidence against him, and I think that he should not have been banned from attending his school. I feel this because he was not convicted and the kit that the woman did came back negative, therefore there is technically no substantial evidence against him. I think he took the deal because if he were to say he was guilty for rape, then he would be registered as a sex offender, and if he did not in fact commit the crime then his life would be ruined either way.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think justice was served in this case because no outcome really came out of it and nothing was ever proven. This case is all circumstantial and would not have held up in court due to the fact that the prosecution would have the burden of proof. Neither Anderson nor the victim got justice. In my opinion, because this case never went to court and there was not a verdict, all the actions taken by Baylor and UTD against Anderson are unfair and not based on facts. This is due to the fact that if the truth is Anderson did not commit the offense, then his reputation got ruined for nothing, but if he did commit the offense, then justice was not served for him. However, because we don't know whether or not he did it, we cannot speculate.

# data[].attributes.body
I guess it is. Since the case went public he will probably never get a job and will be haunted by this for the rest of his life. His life is basically ruined at this point

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that I can logically say wheth

# data[].attributes.body
In this case, I don't think that justice was necessarily served because I don't think that there was much of a case here to begin with, only an accusation, and Anderson was still punished because of it. In this case, the accuser made an accusation, which can be made about anyone at any time without any substantiating evidence. Anderson ended up taking the plea agreement, in my opinion because he would rather just get the whole situation over with instead of going to trial and letting the jury decide his fate. Since there is no evidence to support the accuser´s claim (since she has the burden of proof to fulfill) and he was not convicted, I do not think that it was fair for him to be barred from walking at graduation. So, in this case, I think that the accused got a punishment that was not warranted.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that justice was really served for either Anderson or for the victim. There was never a trial as Anderson took the plea deal so the victim felt like she did not get to go in front of a judge. Anderson did not get a fair shake either because he got kicked out of Baylor and UTD even though he was not convicted and people stereotyped him even though he was not accused.

# data[].attributes.headline
I do not think that justice was truly served because there was not enough evidence to claim that Anderson actually did the crime. But, if the crime was actually committed, then I think that justice was served because he deserved what he got coming to him. But since there was no conviction, he did not deserve that. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I do not think that justice was truly served because there was not enough evidence to claim that Anderson actually did the crime. But, if the crime was actually committed, then I think that justice was served because he deserved what he got coming to him. But since there was no conviction, he did not deserve that. 