[rglullis]

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.

[threethirtytwo]

maybe.. but it's very close to "sadistic family". It's very very close. It wasn't slavery, but excruciating close to slavery.

And definitely the punishment given is a complete under-reaction and your attempt here to lighten the situation lightens it way too much.

[rglullis]

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.

[threethirtytwo]

It's the same reason why a lot of wives who have spent years being abused and beaten by husbands end up still staying with their husband.

[rglullis]

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.

[threethirtytwo]

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.

[rglullis]

> Her life was ruined.

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.