Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

But they weren't under a court order to refrain from doing so.

No but it would definitely go a long way to prove guilt...

This is ridiculous....

Relapse wrote:Kids pled guilty, posted the incident, and get to walk. Such justice!

They released the sentence that was put down?

purplefood wrote:No but it would definitely go a long way to prove guilt...

Well, there's two competing arguments here.

The first relates directly to the case at hand: whether or not its right to prosecute a rape victim for violating a court order by tweeting the names of her assailants. I think the arguments presented within the article in support of the notion that it is are specious at best. In particular, the guy talking about victims' rights is entirely wrongheaded. Yes, we created victims' rights in order to encourage victims to come forward, but that doesn't mean they are allowed free reign over the law. Indeed, up until the twitter incident, this case would be counted as a success story for victims' rights as the girl did, in fact, come forward.

Victims have the right to bring their grievances to the court of law, and have their case heard. They do not have the right to further punish their assailants beyond the decision rendered by the court. If we allowed that there wouldn't be any point in having a court at all.


The second has more to do with the general idea of confidentiality regarding the accused, specifically if the accused is a minor.

dogma wrote:

purplefood wrote:No but it would definitely go a long way to prove guilt...

Well, there's two competing arguments here.

The first relates directly to the case at hand: whether or not its right to prosecute a rape victim for violating a court order by tweeting the names of her assailants. I think the arguments presented within the article in support of the notion that it is are specious at best. In particular, the guy talking about victims' rights is entirely wrongheaded. Yes, we created victims' rights in order to encourage victims to come forward, but that doesn't mean they are allowed free reign over the law. Indeed, up until the twitter incident, this case would be counted as a success story for victims' rights as the girl did, in fact, come forward.

Victims have the right to bring their grievances to the court of law, and have their case heard. They do not have the right to further punish their assailants beyond the decision rendered by the court. If we allowed that there wouldn't be any point in having a court at all.


The second has more to do with the general idea of confidentiality regarding the accused, specifically if the accused is a minor.

Sounds like you're Soft on Crime .

Hope just doesn't have access to fire arms. Not a sck joke but I'm sure that anger is building

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:The purpose of laws is to protect people, not the other way around.

Amusingly, I believe she broke a law meant to protect people.

To protect rapists. Rapists do not deserve protection. Juvenile or not. The only juvenile crimes I am in favor expunging are those minor crimes such as regular assault or stealing. Not for murder or rape.

Actually no. The law is meant to protect juveniles, with no regard as to the crime committed, who were tried and sentenced as juveniles.

The fact that they were prosecuted as juveniles is sketchy to me, as supposedly there are photographs of what happened which the boys circulated. Makes me think that this was a "lesser" form of sexual assault, if the prosecution was willing to hear a plea bargain...or they just did not have a solid case to begin with at all.

In any situation, however, the fact that the girl "named and shamed" the boys is unacceptable. If there had been reason to, there is a sexual offender registry list that these boys would have been put on rather than just having their names posted on Twitter.

The details of the plea deal at this point are unknown, so I can't make a judgement on that outside of the girl and her family finding them "unacceptable".

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:They deserved to have their names published for rape.

Possibly. And if you and enough other people believe that you can work to have the law changed.

But right now the law is what it is, no matter how much you think it shouldn't be.

Saying that it was against the law is not an argument. There is no reason why people should follow unjust laws. If, for example, a country makes a law making it illegal to hide Jews from persecution and extermination, that does not mean it is wrong for someone to hide Jews.

The law matters more than just whether or not it is just in a particular instance. Respect for the law is a virtue in itself. Like all virtues it can be taken too far, such as in your example of the Jews above, but that doesn't mean it isn't still an important consideration.

Relapse wrote:

Horst wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Manchu wrote: You don't get to violate court orders just because you're the victim of a crime.

Exactly. Took me 20 minutes to attempt to explain this to my wife last night.

I disagree, depending on the sentence the boys got.

If they got a few years jail time for rape, then yea, you probably shouldn't violate a court order, because justice has already been served.

If they get like 2 months community service, well, bring out the pitchforks, the courts have failed, its time for vigilante justice.

I know very well a woman who was gang raped by her sky diving instructer and his buddies when she was 16. She went after him a couple days later with a rifle, but got stopped before she shot him.
He got off with a light plea bargain.

She shouldn't have stopped.

Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Horst wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Manchu wrote: You don't get to violate court orders just because you're the victim of a crime.

Exactly. Took me 20 minutes to attempt to explain this to my wife last night.

I disagree, depending on the sentence the boys got.

If they got a few years jail time for rape, then yea, you probably shouldn't violate a court order, because justice has already been served.

If they get like 2 months community service, well, bring out the pitchforks, the courts have failed, its time for vigilante justice.

I know very well a woman who was gang raped by her sky diving instructer and his buddies when she was 16. She went after him a couple days later with a rifle, but got stopped before she shot him.
He got off with a light plea bargain.

She shouldn't have stopped.

Yeah, I was about to say that. I'd call that temporary insanity.

No one familiar with that term would.

She didn't stop by choice, that's for sure. She now goes with a conceal/carry permit and wouldn't hesitate for a second to put a bullet into anyone who tried to touch her.
Seeing how that incident affected her, and just going by common sense at how lightly her assailants got off, Imdon't blame the girl for posting the names of her attackers after they pled guilty.

It's not a matter of "blaming" her. It's a matter of her being held in contempt for violating a court order.

Manchu wrote:It's not a matter of "blaming" her. It's a matter of her being held in contempt for violating a court order.

When the law goes against the instinctive nature of its citizens, bad things happen. A society that refuses to punish rapists deserves anarchy.

Testify wrote:

Manchu wrote:It's not a matter of "blaming" her. It's a matter of her being held in contempt for violating a court order.

When the law goes against the instinctive nature of its citizens, bad things happen. A society that refuses to punish rapists deserves anarchy.

Please learn to actually make a point in a constructive manner.

There is nothing suggesting that these two boys were not "punished".

When one is put through the court system, the court system is the agency who implements the punishment. You do not get to add a punishment to that when you feel that they weren't "punished enough".

The boys were punished. They were sentenced. They took a plea bargain. I have not seen the details of the plea agreement(if anyone has seen it, I'd love a link), but it likely was a hefty punishment with a stipulation that they were not registered as sex offenders.

That does not mean she gets to name and shame them because she thinks they need to be. That's not how the system works.

And really. Anytime you go with "a society that does X deserves anarchy", you make yourself look like an irresponsible teenager.

Kanluwen wrote:

Testify wrote:

Manchu wrote:It's not a matter of "blaming" her. It's a matter of her being held in contempt for violating a court order.

When the law goes against the instinctive nature of its citizens, bad things happen. A society that refuses to punish rapists deserves anarchy.

Please learn to actually make a point in a constructive manner.

There is nothing suggesting that these two boys were not "punished".

When one is put through the court system, the court system is the agency who implements the punishment. You do not get to add a punishment to that when you feel that they weren't "punished enough".

The boys were punished. They were sentenced. They took a plea bargain. I have not seen the details of the plea agreement(if anyone has seen it, I'd love a link), but it likely was a hefty punishment with a stipulation that they were not registered as sex offenders.

That does not mean she gets to name and shame them because she thinks they need to be. That's not how the system works.

And really. Anytime you go with "a society that does X deserves anarchy", you make yourself look like an irresponsible teenager.

People have an inherant desire for justice. If someone rapes our baby girl, we want to make sure they're put behind bars and not let off. The system has failed to do this, therefore the moral imperative of the law has been eroded.
The law doesn't exist to give judges something to do, it exists to uphold order in society. Frankly the only way to get decent change is for vigilantes to act in situations like this and blow these scumbags' brains out.

The fundamental flaw is that they were tried as juveniles in the first place.

Testify wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Testify wrote:

Manchu wrote:It's not a matter of "blaming" her. It's a matter of her being held in contempt for violating a court order.

When the law goes against the instinctive nature of its citizens, bad things happen. A society that refuses to punish rapists deserves anarchy.

Please learn to actually make a point in a constructive manner.

There is nothing suggesting that these two boys were not "punished".

When one is put through the court system, the court system is the agency who implements the punishment. You do not get to add a punishment to that when you feel that they weren't "punished enough".

The boys were punished. They were sentenced. They took a plea bargain. I have not seen the details of the plea agreement(if anyone has seen it, I'd love a link), but it likely was a hefty punishment with a stipulation that they were not registered as sex offenders.

That does not mean she gets to name and shame them because she thinks they need to be. That's not how the system works.

And really. Anytime you go with "a society that does X deserves anarchy", you make yourself look like an irresponsible teenager.

People have an inherant desire for justice. If someone rapes our baby girl, we want to make sure they're put behind bars and not let off. The system has failed to do this, therefore the moral imperative of the law has been eroded.
The law doesn't exist to give judges something to do, it exists to uphold order in society. Frankly the only way to get decent change is for vigilantes to act in situations like this and blow these scumbags' brains out.

That's not justice.

That's vengeance.

Don't confuse the two if you want to have a productive discussion.

There are many ideas of "justice". Retributive justice, restorative justice, utilitarianism, and distributive justice.
Depending upon the circumstances, the judge may have felt that the proper way to go here was restorative justice which is aimed at bringing the victim and offender together, forcing the offender to see the consequences of their actions before reintegrating them into society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:The fundamental flaw is that they were tried as juveniles in the first place.

The fundamental flaw is that you are not looking at it objectively. Whenever we have cases such as this, you're the first person to get into rabblerousing mode and advocating for an emotional response rather than a logical response.

Kanluwen wrote:
There are many ideas of "justice". Retributive justice, restorative justice, utilitarianism, and distributive justice.
Depending upon the circumstances, the judge may have felt that the proper way to go here was restorative justice which is aimed at bringing the victim and offender together, forcing the offender to see the consequences of their actions before reintegrating them into society.

You...you seriously think a rapist should be bought together with their victim? Jesus Christ

Kanluwen wrote:
The fundamental flaw is that you are not looking at it objectively. Whenever we have cases such as this, you're the first person to get into rabblerousing mode and advocating for an emotional response rather than a logical response.

Heaven forfend people should have emotions you silly human WHY WOULD YOU GO AND HAVE FEELINGS. Now, back to your treadmill, drone.

The fundamental flaw is that you are not looking at it objectively. Whenever we have cases such as this, you're the first person to get into rabblerousing mode and advocating for an emotional response rather than a logical response.

Wait, is that bad? I'm confused. I didn't actually read the thread, just the article.

Manchu wrote:It's not a matter of "blaming" her.
It's a matter of her being held in contempt for violating a court order.

I'd have contempt for that court also, as well as any of the prosecutors that went with a light plea deal.

Testify wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
There are many ideas of "justice". Retributive justice, restorative justice, utilitarianism, and distributive justice.
Depending upon the circumstances, the judge may have felt that the proper way to go here was restorative justice which is aimed at bringing the victim and offender together, forcing the offender to see the consequences of their actions before reintegrating them into society.

You...you seriously think a rapist should be bought together with their victim? Jesus Christ

I can tell you're going to be a blast to have a discussion with. You're like Frazzled Jr, only without the amusing weiner dog deflections.

You'll notice that nowhere did I say that is "my stance". I said that "the judge may have felt that the proper way to go here was restorative justice".
Since you seem to have a hard time grasping the concept of "we don't have all the pertinent information to make an informed decision", I'll put this to you.

The term used in the article for the offense is "sexual assault". "Sexual assault" ,when used in the fashion that the media uses it, is a broad category of offenses put under a generic term. This includes rape (which can be further clarified as forced anal, vaginal, or oral penetration), inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of a victim in a "sexual manner".

We can safely rule out "forced kissing" as going to a court case for this instance, as we likely can CSA(over the legal age of consent in all likelihood) and we can likely rule out the torture of a victim in a "sexual manner" as what happened. Which leaves two (four really when we get clarifications for rape into a mix) possible scenarios for what the boys would have been charged with.

The fact that they were not tried as adults makes it seem very much like there are mitigating/suspicious circumstances (such as a relationship between the girl and one of the victims which could be described as "of a sexual nature" prior to the events) or a very distinct lack of evidence, as otherwise this would not have been a juvenile case.
Sexual assaults are taken very seriously when charges are being pressed but at the same time, the majority of these cases boil down to "He said, she said". Without evidence, there is only so much that can be done in the eyes of a reasonable judge.

Kanluwen wrote:
The fundamental flaw is that you are not looking at it objectively. Whenever we have cases such as this, you're the first person to get into rabblerousing mode and advocating for an emotional response rather than a logical response.

Heaven forfend people should have emotions you silly human WHY WOULD YOU GO AND HAVE FEELINGS. Now, back to your treadmill, drone.

Really? You think laws should be decided upon how we feel?

That will end great! We won't need prisons, we won't need to attempt to rehabilitate anyone, we can just shoot them all in the head and be done! Hooray!

Now, back to your corner and let the grown-ups talk "anarchist".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

The fundamental flaw is that you are not looking at it objectively. Whenever we have cases such as this, you're the first person to get into rabblerousing mode and advocating for an emotional response rather than a logical response.

Wait, is that bad? I'm confused. I didn't actually read the thread, just the article.

Which is even worse. As a lawyer, you should be well aware that not every case has all of the details publicized and that there is often more going on than the media makes out.

Did a quick Google and found this.

Kanluwen wrote:

Testify wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
There are many ideas of "justice". Retributive justice, restorative justice, utilitarianism, and distributive justice.
Depending upon the circumstances, the judge may have felt that the proper way to go here was restorative justice which is aimed at bringing the victim and offender together, forcing the offender to see the consequences of their actions before reintegrating them into society.

You...you seriously think a rapist should be bought together with their victim? Jesus Christ

I can tell you're going to be a blast to have a discussion with. You're like Frazzled Jr, only without the amusing weiner dog deflections.

You'll notice that nowhere did I say that is "my stance". I said that "the judge may have felt that the proper way to go here was restorative justice".
Since you seem to have a hard time grasping the concept of "we don't have all the pertinent information to make an informed decision", I'll put this to you.

The term used in the article for the offense is "sexual assault". "Sexual assault" ,when used in the fashion that the media uses it, is a broad category of offenses put under a generic term. This includes rape (which can be further clarified as forced anal, vaginal, or oral penetration), inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of a victim in a "sexual manner".

We can safely rule out "forced kissing" as going to a court case for this instance, as we likely can CSA(over the legal age of consent in all likelihood) and we can likely rule out the torture of a victim in a "sexual manner" as what happened. Which leaves two (four really when we get clarifications for rape into a mix) possible scenarios for what the boys would have been charged with.

The fact that they were not tried as adults makes it seem very much like there are mitigating/suspicious circumstances (such as a relationship between the girl and one of the victims which could be described as "of a sexual nature" prior to the events) or a very distinct lack of evidence, as otherwise this would not have been a juvenile case.
Sexual assaults are taken very seriously when charges are being pressed but at the same time, the majority of these cases boil down to "He said, she said". Without evidence, there is only so much that can be done in the eyes of a reasonable judge.

Kanluwen wrote:
The fundamental flaw is that you are not looking at it objectively. Whenever we have cases such as this, you're the first person to get into rabblerousing mode and advocating for an emotional response rather than a logical response.

Heaven forfend people should have emotions you silly human WHY WOULD YOU GO AND HAVE FEELINGS. Now, back to your treadmill, drone.

Really? You think laws should be decided upon how we feel?

That will end great! We won't need prisons, we won't need to attempt to rehabilitate anyone, we can just shoot them all in the head and be done! Hooray!

Now, back to your corner and let the grown-ups talk "anarchist".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

The fundamental flaw is that you are not looking at it objectively. Whenever we have cases such as this, you're the first person to get into rabblerousing mode and advocating for an emotional response rather than a logical response.

Wait, is that bad? I'm confused. I didn't actually read the thread, just the article.

Which is even worse. As a lawyer, you should be well aware that not every case has all of the details publicized and that there is often more going on than the media makes out.

Did a quick Google and found this.

I too believe in getting the victim and the attackers together. She can bring Smith, Wesson and seventeen of their best friends. The best friends are really just hangers on though, and should be gotten rid of immediately, fired off as it were.
There is no justice. Just us.

Which is even worse. As a lawyer, you should be well aware that not every case has all of the details publicized and that there is often more going on than the media makes out.

Evewn better. I can read through the BS even more. This was a simple plea because they couldn't be bothered. I read the article. I don't know what you're on about or why we're even corresponding. I sent nothing directed to you to you. In short, push off!

Relapse wrote:

Manchu wrote:It's not a matter of "blaming" her.
It's a matter of her being held in contempt for violating a court order.

I'd have contempt for that court also, as well as any of the prosecutors that went with a light plea deal.

@Kanluen,

It's atad hard to be objective if you or your daughter was the one raped.
I seriously hope you don't think it is a good thing to bring the victim and rapist together outside of the victim accusing the attacker in court.

Relapse wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Manchu wrote:It's not a matter of "blaming" her.
It's a matter of her being held in contempt for violating a court order.

I'd have contempt for that court also, as well as any of the prosecutors that went with a light plea deal.

@Kanluwen,

It's a tad hard to be objective if you or your daughter was the one raped.

Of course it is. But it does not mean that the courts should not be objective or that one should immediately reach for retributive justice.

I seriously hope you don't think it is a good thing to bring the victim and rapist together outside of the victim accusing the attacker in court.

It depends upon the exact circumstances of the situation, I'd say.

Not all victims are content to never see their attacker again. Some only feel closure when confronting their attacker, some feel a need to "forgive" their attacker.
People react differently to traumatic events and accordingly have different ways of getting over the events.

Testify wrote:When the law goes against the instinctive nature of its citizens, bad things happen. A society that refuses to punish rapists deserves anarchy.

That is a stupid comment. Follow your logic through: once the society is anarchic, the instincts of the citizens will be to rape. So when the law is re-established should rape then be legal?

Manchu wrote:

Testify wrote:When the law goes against the instinctive nature of its citizens, bad things happen. A society that refuses to punish rapists deserves anarchy.

That is a stupid comment. Follow your logic through: once the society is anarchic, the instincts of the citizens will be to rape. So when the law is re-established should rape then be legal?

That's a chilling view of human nature.
Anarchy is replaced by order, not perminant anarchy.

We needn't even discuss it. Anarchy only occurs when people believe emotions are more legitimate than laws, like the victim in the instant case.

Testify wrote:
When the law goes against the instinctive nature of its citizens, bad things happen. A society that refuses to punish rapists deserves anarchy.

So, instead of a ~700,000 major sexual assaults per year, we end up with a few million. Brilliant.

Testify wrote:
That's a chilling view of human nature.

Perhaps, but it also happens to be one which is well supported by the available evidence. Look at the amount of sexual violence that takes place in de facto war zones, failed states, or refugee camps. It is insanely high, and not nearly so tightly confined to women and young girls.

Testify wrote:
Anarchy is replaced by order, not perminant anarchy.

And order doesn't imply that rape is illegal.

Testify wrote:Frankly the only way to get decent change is for vigilantes to act in situations like this and blow these scumbags' brains out.

And clearly a responsible father, instead of supporting his daughter, will throw his life away by exacting his vengeance upon her assailant.

The damage is done, once you start talking about "vigilante justice" you aren't helping or protecting your daughter, you're serving you own ego; which is despicable.