In cases like this, it’s likely the victim defended the family, and it made it impossible to classify the crime as slavery if she said she was free to leave but “was afraid of the violence outside”, which the article mentioned. It sounds ridiculous but in any court, if you can’t prove something beyond doubt, you cannot punish, which I think is why they ended up with that arrangement.
But being so afraid that you have never been outside unless accompanied by your bosses would be pathological in any other case.
Also, what I said was "ridiculous" was the jury's conclusion, not going outside.
Pathological, yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean that this fear was instilled by the family as a way to keep her trapped.
Most people in Brazil are so used with the precautions that they have to take to deal with urban violence, they don't get to realize that they are the ones living in their own prisons. I have family members in Rio de Janeiro who get panic attacks at the thought of going anywhere by themselves. I've met grown-up, educated, independent people in college who wouldn't dare to do anything outside of the home <-> campus itinerary on their own.
Minimum wage is about US$300, which would make about US$220k total (you get about 13.3 salaries per year), plus fines and overtime. They'll have to pay social security too. It seems to me that the case doesn't include the labour part of the situation. That might be a separate case.
> “The signing of this agreement does not rule out the possibility that the worker may pursue individual claims through the courts,” the statement added.
You are acting like the case is that the girl was kidnapped or taken from their family against their will. Barring extraordinary circumstances, this is far from the truth here. More likely than not, this is the case of some poor family that couldn't take care of the girl and gave her away.
It is a horrible arrangement, and she should be given a lot more than what she is getting (at the very least, she should be given backpay + pension equivalent to the market rate of her work for all these years), but to treat this case as some sadistic family keeping someone in captivity is overreacting.
If it was as bad as you are claiming it to be, she wouldn't stay with the family before the investigation, yet everyone deemed better to let her stay with the family even after the sentence was given.
Maybe this is a sensitive topic for you, but try not reading more into the article than it's there. The decision was recommended by the social workers.
No it's not. I can see how it's recommended. It's the best possible decision for the victim. But the scale of the crime is still horrible.
I wouldn't pin judgement on someone elses recommendation nor would I say them being a social worker validates it even more than say some rando guy on the internet. Judge the facts.
Her life was ruined. That is huge. It is an epic crime. Not a mild thing.
How so? We are talking about someone coming from a poor origin in one of the poorest states in Brazil, in the 1970's!
This is the story of a girl whose mother has been working with the family and moved in with them when she was 7 years old. For some reason, after a while the mother gets out of the picture (Passed away? Tried her luck to migrate south but couldn't take her child?), she had no place to go so she stayed with them. It's not like she had a whole range of opportunities ahead of her. What do you think her life would be had she not stayed with the family? Do you think she would be better off if she was thrown on the street?
Yes, it sucks that she grew up in an environment where she was not seen as an equal peer. Yes, it is appalling to think that no one in a seemingly wealthy family never thought of giving the same opportunity to her as they would give to their own kids. Yes, she should have been given a lot more autonomy. Yes, she deserves to get a lot more for what she has done beyond shelter/food/clothes. But all things considered, at that time her staying with the family was the best alternative in a scenario where all alternatives are shitty.
Stop applying today's standards for something that happened more than 55 years ago, specially when you clearly have no grasp on what is like to live where abject poverty is the norm.
I do not know her complete circumstance in Brazil because I don't know brazil very well. I'm not yet convinced you do either.
What I do know is from my own background. That is, if the same situation happened to her in the US, orphanage can do much better for her. She can have more chances. Even 55 years ago.
You make a convincing argument here, but that's only if all the details of what you say is true and full aligns with the true reality of her exact situation... which I doubt. Do you live in brazil? do you know the history of brazil 55 years ago and the exact living conditions? If not, then your argument doesn't hold weight. On the other hand if you have detailed knowledge and experience with her circumstance then I will concede.
I was born and raised in Sâo Paulo, Brazil. Fortunate enough to not have lived through these experiences, but not affluent to the point where I was detached from people from more humble backgrounds. I can tell you that even today most orphans would rather have the life of this girl than growing up in the system.
systemic racism is a thing, bet you there are judges, lawyers, etc that have the same thing going on. many in power do and thus are sympathetic to such causes. it's hard to viciously go after what you are guilt of.
