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.

Kanluwen wrote:The fundamental flaw is that you are not looking at it objectively.

To be fair to Fraz, no one in this thread is looking at it objectively.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:order doesn't imply that rape is illegal.

Bull gak.

They charged...the victim...for revealing the names of her attackers?

What a bunch of arseholes.

Squigsquasher wrote:They charged...the victim...for revealing the names of her attackers?

What a bunch of arseholes.

They did their job. The entire point of a society where the Rule of Law is enforced is that it applies equally to everyone.

Squigsquasher wrote:They charged...the victim...for revealing the names of her attackers?

What a bunch of arseholes.

There is no room for humanity in the face of the rule of law, damnit.

Squigsquasher wrote:They charged...the victim...for revealing the names of her attackers?

What a bunch of arseholes.

Let's be completely clear:

She wasnt charged at all. She COULD have neen charged for violating a gag order regarding the case. This same sort of gag order is involved in almost every case involving a minor.

She was at no point in danger od being charged for going to the police about what happened.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:They did their job. The entire point of a society where the Rule of Law is enforced is that it applies equally to everyone.

A pity it wasn't enforced very equally against the rapists.

The "rule of law" has already long since failed when a guy gets years in jail for smoking pot and then someone else rapes someone, takes pictures of it, and then sends them to everyone they know on the internet to humiliate the victmi further... and gets a few months.

Sebster and Dogma seem to get it.

At the end of the day, we make quick emotional responses to things like this because rape is so abhorrent, but the law is the law.

And the law is there set in stone because of all the "what ifs" that can occur. What if the girl was lying about getting raped and she then goes on facebook and tells everyone about these lads?

A man can get his life fethed up by things like that.

Rape is awful, and obviously I feel bad for the lassie in this case, and yes there should definitely be tougher sentences for this type of thing, but one has nothing to do with the other. You cant go "Oh I disagree with this sentence so I am going to break some laws myself" that ain't how it works.

So you know, obviously in this instance I feel for the girl, but generally speaking if you get given a gagging order and you get told not to break it, don't break it.

MattryRM -- the unlikely voice of reason.

You know, Matty, you should do a book with that title. Or a radio show.

I'm not arguing for or against her actions, I'm just making an argument against this "rule of law" stuff, and the inherent unfairness of the situation. The laws themselves are flawed, so the "rule of law" is flawed, which really dulls the related arguments in my eyes.

Yes, she probably shouldn't have done it. But I don't blame her for it regardless, and I'm glad she wasn't charged.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:order doesn't imply that rape is illegal.

Bull gak.

There have been plenty of ordered societies in which rape was not illegal. In fact, pretty much all of them prior to the 1500s.

Okay, there's no charge involved here.

There was a court order. The victim violated the court order. Counsel for the defendant filed a motion to show cause, i.e., to make the victim come to court and explain why she violated the order. The judge would then have the option to hold her in contempt. Counsel retracted the motion and the victim never had to explain why she violated the law and was thus never in danger of being held in contempt.

Yeah, our system is just sooooooo corrupt OMG.

dogma wrote:There have been plenty of ordered societies in which rape was not illegal.

If by plenty you mean "zero", then you are right.

Testify wrote:
There is no room for humanity in the face of the rule of law, damnit.

No there isn't, that's pretty much the point.

Melissia wrote:If by plenty you mean "zero", then you are right.

You should look into the history of the concept. Its quite interesting.

Manchu wrote: Counsel retracted the motion and the victim never had to explain why she violated the law and was thus never in danger of being held in contempt.

And not because of public pressure.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:If by plenty you mean "zero", then you are right.

You should look into the history of the concept. Its quite interesting.

I think you misunderstand.

I have a far tighter definition of "ordered society" than you are applying here.

And rape being legal is an automatic disqualifier for the term. No society that legalizes rape is an ordered society.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:If by plenty you mean "zero", then you are right.

You should look into the history of the concept. Its quite interesting.

I think you misunderstand.

I have a far tighter definition of "ordered society" than you are applying here.

And rape being legal is an automatic disqualifier for the term. No society that legalizes rape is an ordered society.

I can't see how rape being legal automatically makes a society disordered. I mean, morally bankrupt, yes - abhorrent, yes, but disordered implies there is ... no order, not just an order you disagree with.

Bromsy wrote:

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:If by plenty you mean "zero", then you are right.

You should look into the history of the concept. Its quite interesting.

I think you misunderstand.

I have a far tighter definition of "ordered society" than you are applying here.

And rape being legal is an automatic disqualifier for the term. No society that legalizes rape is an ordered society.

I can't see how rape being legal automatically makes a society disordered. I mean, morally bankrupt, yes - abhorrent, yes, but disordered implies there is ... no order, not just an order you disagree with.

I think a society that allows random acts of violence would probably be very disordered...
There may be some order in some way but allowing one form of violence would leave it open to further violence with very little effort...

purplefood wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:If by plenty you mean "zero", then you are right.

You should look into the history of the concept. Its quite interesting.

I think you misunderstand.

I have a far tighter definition of "ordered society" than you are applying here.

And rape being legal is an automatic disqualifier for the term. No society that legalizes rape is an ordered society.

I can't see how rape being legal automatically makes a society disordered. I mean, morally bankrupt, yes - abhorrent, yes, but disordered implies there is ... no order, not just an order you disagree with.

I think a society that allows random acts of violence would probably be very disordered...
There may be some order in some way but allowing one form of violence would leave it open to further violence with very little effort...

Well, that's the point isn't it? What if it isn't random?

If it isn't random then...
Well like you said, morally bankrupt...

purplefood wrote:If it isn't random then...
Well like you said, morally bankrupt...

I generally say what I mean, and mean what I say.

Melissia wrote: The laws themselves are flawed, so the "rule of law" is flawed, which really dulls the related arguments in my eyes.

How so? Faced with badly designed laws, I'd rather them be badly designed laws that apply to everyone the same. Transpose this in political terms, the Rule of Law is nothing more than a democratical distribution of legal rights amongst the population ; 1 citizen, 1 legal power, 1 legal code of interpretation. At least in principle, I'm sure we can find cases of rich or influential persons being judged through a different interpretation of the law (thinking about you Strauss-Kahn) in a 2 second google search.

The laws might look subjectively weak, and they might objectively be so (if we can find a gauge to measure objectivity in harshness of punishment), but as long as the Rule of Law is respected, then the overall system retains some integrity. It's still Law, and isn't 'the will of the Sovereign' or some other bs like that. Again, using the political analogy ; you might only get to elect crooked politicians, but everyone gets to have the same weight in choosing which crooked politician gets in office.

purplefood wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:If by plenty you mean "zero", then you are right.

You should look into the history of the concept. Its quite interesting.

I think you misunderstand.

I have a far tighter definition of "ordered society" than you are applying here.

And rape being legal is an automatic disqualifier for the term. No society that legalizes rape is an ordered society.

I can't see how rape being legal automatically makes a society disordered. I mean, morally bankrupt, yes - abhorrent, yes, but disordered implies there is ... no order, not just an order you disagree with.

I think a society that allows random acts of violence would probably be very disordered...
There may be some order in some way but allowing one form of violence would leave it open to further violence with very little effort...

Considering the whole point of this thread is that people got let off from rape charges, that appears to be the state we're in/headed in.
There was a 14 year old in the UK who raped a 5 year old girl and didn't go to prison because the judge ruled that he'd been corrupted from society.

Anarchy in the UK.

Again, the case is not done. Unless there has been a recent update all that has happened was that the prosecutor went to submit a (rather weak) plea deal. The judge, again unless there has been a recent change, has not said whether or not he will accept said plea. The two boys have not "got let off", they are still on trial.

Anyone that thinks we are living under the rule of law sees through rose-colored glasses.

I think the victim in question who felt the rapists got off easy should have told the judge to F his gag order, and do what she did.

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:Anyone that thinks we are living under the rule of law sees through rose-colored glasses.

In western society we are, its just not perfectly fair and free from failure.



As for the case at hand. We don't know what the original charges were except 'Sexual Assault'. This could be as 'innocent' as another teen trying to steal a kiss, maybe, maybe not, we just don't know. When we do know is the Sexual assault as a term covers a very broad range of unrequited actions many of which are similar to the actions needed to 'sweep a girl off her feet'. There may be a very good reason they successfully plea bargained the sexual assault charges to next to nothing.

However once exposed the defendants in the case are at genuine risk of being labeled alongside rapists by vigilantes, hotheads and militant feminists.
These injunctions are there for a reason.

Phanatik wrote:Anyone that thinks we are living under the rule of law sees through rose-colored glasses.

Still writing science fiction, I see.

Orlanth wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Anyone that thinks we are living under the rule of law sees through rose-colored glasses.

In western society we are, its just not perfectly fair and free from failure..

If it's not perfectly fair or free from failure, it's not true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Anyone that thinks we are living under the rule of law sees through rose-colored glasses.

Still writing science fiction, I see.

Yes, but the royalties just aren't coming in... <sigh>

Regards,

As Hans Zarkov shouted in joy, "You're back!".

Phanatik wrote:If it's not perfectly fair or free from failure, it's not true.

So planes do not fly because sometimes they do not fly...?

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Phanatik wrote:If it's not perfectly fair or free from failure, it's not true.

So planes do not fly because sometimes they do not fly...?

A plane on the ground is an expensive taxi. That's why they say they are taxiing down the runway...
FYI: the "Mona Lisa" is not a painting; it's a painted. (just in case you ask)

"Living under the rule of law" is an unrealized concept that implies perfection. Without perfection, its not true.

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:
"Living under the rule of law" is an unrealized concept that implies perfection.

Explain how it implies perfection.