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.

I can't believe they considered charges against her in the first place. The judge is a grade A donkey-cave for letting them off with a light plea bargin.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48292780/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/?

Pleas are generally arranged with the prosecutor's office according to sentencing matrices. Also, the chick violated a court order. You don't get to violate court orders just because you're the victim of a crime.

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.

Platuan4th wrote:Took me 20 minutes to attempt to explain this to my wife last night.

Haha, this could be hilarious if read just slightly out of context.

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.

Horst wrote:... its time for vigilante justice.

I hope for your sake that you just talk a big talk.

its the internet... everyone is a big talker here.

Though I wouldn't participate in such a thing, I wouldn't condemn those who do.

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

However, if the court order is not constitutional, then violate away!

BTW: It would appear that we are in violation of the court order, since we are talking about the case and the Judge ordered that the case not be discussed. (My point being, the victim is not the defense or prosecution, if the court order applies to her, then it applies to us.)

Chris Klein, an attorney for one of the boys, said publicizing their names may create problems for them in the future.

Raping people causes problems for the victim in the future as well...

She probably shouldn't have done what she did but likewise they shouldn't have had a light sentence...

Tye_Informer wrote:

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

However, if the court order is not constitutional, then violate away!

BTW: It would appear that we are in violation of the court order, since we are talking about the case and the Judge ordered that the case not be discussed. (My point being, the victim is not the defense or prosecution, if the court order applies to her, then it applies to us.)

She is a party to the case, with intimate details about said case. We are not.

The boys in this case are minors, as is the girl, and no verdict or plea had been set when she released the boys' names. As despicable as I may find them, they were still minors and cases involving minors are generally kept from the public for a variety of reasons. She violated that order. I'm not say what they did was right. I'm not saying that they should get off with no punishment. What I am saying is, she should have followed the law. The case was/is? still in progress. Last I heard, the judge hadn't yet decided whether to accept the plea deal or not, so any complaints about the punishment for the boys would be premature.

They deserved to have their names published for rape.

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 purpose of laws is to protect people, not the other way around. People should not follow unjust laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And those boys deserve everything they get for committing rape.

If this happened outside the US, and I couldn't be extradited (probably not for something trivial like this) I'd publish their names myself. It's a shame if they don't make it to the sex offender registry.

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.

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

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 purpose of laws is to protect people, not the other way around. People should not follow unjust laws.

So what about if they were actually innocent of the rape charge? (I know in this particular case they have pled guilty, but I'm talking about a hypothetical case)
Would you have been okay with the girl spreading the names of two boys who she alleges raped her, but who until proven guilty, are innocent? Because then you have two boys, who are innocent of any crime, but whose names are being spread around news websites with allegations of rape, because the girl broke the law.

But it's an unjust law so that would be fine wouldn't it?

Laws covering minors just work differently. They were not tried as adults, so the names of all involved were under seal.

There is a reason we have actual laws and stuff instead of mob justice.

But but... mindless, idiotic mob justice* is so much more satisfying than actual justice.

*Revenge

Wait, hold up, have they even been found guilty yet?

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

We don't know that they were charged for rape. We know that the word rape was used, but most news agencies use the term interchangeably with sexual assault, which isn't necessarily the same thing.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Saying that it was against the law is not an argument. There is no reason why people should follow unjust laws.

Of course there is, for example to avoid facing the punishment for refusing to follow a law that you believe to be unjust. Simply because a law is unjust doesn't mean that you shouldn't face punishment for violating an unjust law.

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

Some times it is, and in this case the law against the disclosure of case details is intended to protect the accused, or the guilty in the case of minors. Of course, there are also laws in place to protect the state from the people, and the law itself from both.

People are expendable, legal and governmental systems are generally not.

They pleaded guilty, though that wasn't really Goliaths point, though I do expect the "omg goaliteh dey erte gulty!" response any moment now.

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.

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.

Rape a woman when she's unconscious while you’re a minor = get thrown to the wolves

Bash a dudes head in with a club when you’re a minor = record expunged

Say wha?

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.

I'm just going to put this quote here.

"Murdering murders to show that murdering is wrong is wrong."

Goliath wrote:

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

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 purpose of laws is to protect people, not the other way around. People should not follow unjust laws.

So what about if they were actually innocent of the rape charge? (I know in this particular case they have pled guilty, but I'm talking about a hypothetical case)
Would you have been okay with the girl spreading the names of two boys who she alleges raped her, but who until proven guilty, are innocent? Because then you have two boys, who are innocent of any crime, but whose names are being spread around news websites with allegations of rape, because the girl broke the law.

But it's an unjust law so that would be fine wouldn't it?

MrDwhitey just answered that. If for some reason the "victim" was not actually a rapist, and it could be proven that they did not commit rape, then they can sue for libel. Otherwise, it is extremely immoral to punish rape victims for exposing the people who raped them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LoneLictor wrote:

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.

I'm just going to put this quote here.

"Murdering murders to show that murdering is wrong is wrong."

That is because there is a system available to punish them, and which is usually more accurate than people doing it themselves.

Except they were not considering punishing her for naming rapist, they were considering punishing her for violating state laws they prevent the disclosure of all parties involved in juvenile crimes of a sexual nature.

The way to fight unjust laws is to change them, not breaking them.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:MrDwhitey just answered that. If for some reason the "victim" was not actually a rapist, and it could be proven that they did not commit rape, then they can sue for libel. Otherwise, it is extremely immoral to punish rape victims for exposing the people who raped them.

Amusingly by then, the persons life is already ruined from the false accusation. Justice!

d-usa wrote:Except they were not considering punishing her for naming rapist, they were considering punishing her for violating state laws they prevent the disclosure of all parties involved in juvenile crimes of a sexual nature.

The way to fight unjust laws is to change them, not breaking them.

I agree that it's better to change unjust laws, rather than just ignoring them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:MrDwhitey just answered that. If for some reason the "victim" was not actually a rapist, and it could be proven that they did not commit rape, then they can sue for libel. Otherwise, it is extremely immoral to punish rape victims for exposing the people who raped them.

Amusingly by then, the persons life is already ruined from the false accusation. Justice!

Except if you have a court order, you can get the accusation removed from the website(s) in question.

I'm pretty sure they didn't care about being identified.

" "These boys shared the picture of her being raped with their friends and she can't share their names with her Twitter community? That's just crazy," O'Neill said. "

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
MrDwhitey just answered that. If for some reason the "victim" was not actually a rapist, and it could be proven that they did not commit rape, then they can sue for libel. Otherwise, it is extremely immoral to punish rape victims for exposing the people who raped them.

Wait, why does the alleged rapist have to prove that he did not commit rape?

Are you proffering that, in the case of rape, guilt should be presumed?

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.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Except if you have a court order, you can get the accusation removed from the website(s) in question.

Yeah, good luck with that. You're effectively talking about tracking down every single site that posted, or mirrored, a story featuring the names of the accused and serving them all with court orders. This is all at the expense of the people seeking to have their names cleared.

Then of course there's cached search results, which you can't do anything about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:I'm pretty sure they didn't care about being identified.

" "These boys shared the picture of her being raped with their friends and she can't share their names with her Twitter community? That's just crazy," O'Neill said. "

Probably not, but that isn't really the point.

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