Underage Sexual Assault Victim Faces Jail Time...For Tweeting the Names of Her Attackers (UPDATED)
- Thread starter CrazyCapnMorgan
- Start date
wow. so you know going to prison isn't bad? the only way to truly be punished is to be prison raped? hmmm, I for one LOVE the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.alex_pink said:
also we don't even know the details of the case, and judging by the facts that are known i don't think they raped her. why? well they are 17 and they were not tried as adults, 15-17 is an age range were anything serious enough like rape, and murder will get you charged as adult. besides they fact that the prosecution was willing to extend a plea bargain tells me one of 3 things happened.
1, they didn't have enough evidence to convict but the defense didn't want to risk a trial.
2, they over charged as an intimidation tactic to force an out of court plea deal.
3, the crime was not all that serious, still terrible mind you, but not the gang rape people seem to assume, possibly some groping and naked pictures while she, who is also under the drinking age, was passed out at a party.
I believe you plead guilty TO SUCKING AT SPELLING! I got another one. Your held in the contempt of court to SPELL YOUR OR YOU'RE CORRECTLY!spartxn said:The two Plead Guilty. How is that "Covering up" unless u r talking about the laywers and Judge, in which case I say, "Welcome to the United States Justice system".
P.s. It sucks ass. Also Im surprised she isn't facing more time for "contempt"; not saying she did anything wrong nor am I siding with the two boys.
Also, to point this out, our court system sucks about as much as others, so nothing to self-hate.
___________________________________
I have no clue what the age of consent is where she is, but I don't think that matters since these boys are not licensed sex offenders. In essence, people they are around [if I'm not getting this confused with a pedophilia thing] are going to be told that they are a licensed sex offender anyway and will have a impossibly difficult time finding a job.
I guess this is better then the death sentence, since it will make these boys really despise what they did but at a certain time there needs to be a drop of revenge and instead a bullet of apologies with the gun being words.
In conclusion, theres honestly nothing wrong with naming them, those types of experiences can traumatize a person for their whole life. Hell I remember a girl that was raped twice then was sent to Camp Cross or Lake Cross, I can't remember the name that well, was beaten up mentally and sometimes physically for being raped, something out of her control. Got raped two more times and literally broke.
You fucked with someone on such a deep level you deserve all types of five-minute hell.
It matters because the boys could be charged with pedophilia but of course thats a side thing and most likely they are not, however if the age of consent is 18 where she is they will have more on their rap record.Wolverine18 said:
This is true, but I still see no more harm will come to them then what their record holds. What I said before my conclusion [did you read that or did you only quote the parts that you did read?] I said that they will most likely miss out on many job opportunities along with many other, important things their entire lives just because of this. I am totally in favor of sexual assault victims throwing out the dicks who did it to them. It creates such a terrible feeling and memory that there is no way, in anger, not to eventually break a egg and say their names.
I also told a story of a women who was raped twice, she was in her teens, then was sent to a Christian summer camp that physically beat and brainwashed children. She was sent there because she was raped. When she got out with her mind all washed she got raped two more times. I honestly wouldn't blame that person for saying "Yep these four guys raped me, fuck them" and obviously this isn't the same case but theres my rational behind my statement.
While here, just because there is a law does not mean that particular law is 100% good. Would it be a good law to kill people who wore pink shirts on Saturdays? Of course not. The law is there to help set some guidelines so that people won't go off the rails with freedom, but that doesn't mean that all laws are good.
Overall, you should have read up on more about my reasoning which I did go into. The first statement I was vague on with that question but that is besides the point. There's my rational on my post and you can argue with it how you see fit, but at the end of the day I doubt these boys will have any more or less luck because they were named via twitter by their victim.
If by justices you endanger the attackers lives because she's not satisfied by the results, then sure. And no, she's not acting like Gandhi. She's trying to incite violence, not avoid it.trophykiller said:
Yes, but that does sound like exactly the sort of case that you plea bargain down to something that doesn't put you on the registry so that your entire life isn't ruined and that the prosecutor would want to plea bargain down because "felt up drunk girl" is a hard sell to get a jury to damn teenagers for forever (read: the registry). Which makes the court order make a lot more sense, if a big part of the reason for accepting a plea bargain was to avoid the registry and permanent harm for the rest of their life connected to it. I wonder if they could get out of their plea deal, given this court order was violated, destroying part of their reason for accepting a plea deal in the first place?alex_pink said:
Perhaps they should have considered the repercussions of committing THE most despicable act a single human can commit. Tell me, if you were shot, but survived, would you want to be able to speak about it, or would you want to "protect" the man who shot you by never talking about it, despite all the trauma it may have caused you?Tanner The Monotone said:
It is ironic though, how they didn't seem to care about protecting her identity, yet she's expected to care about theirs. She didn't ask to be drugged, she didn't ask to be violated, and she certainly didn't ask for salt to be poured on the proverbial wound by having the images spread around.
The criminal justice system in America is run by, for, and of the criminals.
This has nothing to do with sexual assault.
A girl disobeyed a judge.
Judge tells you to do something, you listen, you don't listen and you go to jail, pretty simple.
A girl disobeyed a judge.
Judge tells you to do something, you listen, you don't listen and you go to jail, pretty simple.
Whoa whoa whoa! This kind of statement is exactly why the public should stay out of the courtroom. And I quote...trophykiller said:
...and all signs pointed to her underage drinking in excess to be the cause.
You may disagree with the courts position and support Savannah, but don't spread lies like this. They did NOT drug her.
If they go away I really don't care. That's if I was shot. I can't say what I would do if I was raped, but if I did break the law, I would expect to be punished for it.trophykiller said:
I do agree with on this.trophykiller said:
Though I think that it needs fixed and will never be able to be fixed, I think that's going a little far.trophykiller said: