Underage Sexual Assault Victim Faces Jail Time...For Tweeting the Names of Her Attackers (UPDATED)

Mar 9, 2010
2,722
0
0
If this wasn't a charge of sexual assault on a minor then we wouldn't be seeing such a backlash. If you disobey court orders then you deserve punishment, regardless of whether you were a victim or not. If you're also too stupid to realise why you're being punished then you deserve to be punched in the face.
 

Mikkaddo

Black Rose Knight
Jan 19, 2008
558
0
0
my only argument is she's breaking the law herself. Tragic that she was sexually assaulted, but like facebook and the internet in general, it's still breaking the law if she talks about it DURING THE CASE. Once the convictions are given and the case is closed, she can say whatever she wants about it. But until that point, she, as well as they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to say NOTHING outside of to their lawyers and outside of the courthouse.

just to clarify (though I shouldn't need to) I in no way support her attackers or what they did. I also however, in no way support her talking about the case while it's still ongoing as she should well know it's against the law. If no one else, her lawyer should have told her she can't discuss the case while it's still ongoing. That is the issue to me. Tragic that she was assaulted. I do wish her luck with her life, but she shouldn't break the law . . .
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
surg3n said:
Are people assuming that sexual assault means rape?
Yes, because in a great many jurisdictions they are the same thing. It's often harder to find jurisdictions where they are two completely different crimes.
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
gigastar said:
Sexual harassment isnt nice, but it doesnt give you leave to disobey the rules.
Tekkawarrior said:
I don't see a problem with them being named. If more people were named for their actions then people would stop doing dumb shit.

Oh no their life is ruined and they'll never get a job. Well fuck em I say they should have thought about that before sexually harassing someone.
Assault. She was sexually assaulted, not harrassed. Different thing.

OT: This just makes me sad in so many ways.
 

edgecult

New member
May 4, 2011
158
0
0
Well part of it has to do with the whole expunge your record at 18 deal I'de think. If you went and plastered their names to any wall it'd fit on it sorta defeats the purpose of the sealed records if a random google search will pull more info than a complete background check, that's probably why this whole animosity violation problem is well a problem. (Their names and crime are on the internet now.. they'll never be wiped again no?)

Now ethically this does come to an interesting conundrum, Does their rights to live their lives really (it's gone beyond just privacy and such at this point) out weight the rights of the girl to ensure her story is heard in complete. (among others of course.)

I do kinda find it an interesting though I got from this was that if they'd just been aged a few years. (or well at least the boys were but either/and... not or) Their names wouldn't just be not secret.. they'd be spending the rest of their life going door to door each time someone moved telling them all their names and crime.. but that few year age shift means now nobody is aloud to know about any of it. Curious huh?


Personally I never much cared for this rule applying to more major crimes. (I could care less if they expunge petty theft and vandalism and whatever. That's meh.. but not something I feel I'de like to know if they moved in next to me.) Fact is these boys had their chance for a normal life and traded it off because they were dumb on a truly advanced level of dumb. Why should they get a muligan on that? I'm 21 I wouldn't get it if I did i... what makes their age deserving of a magic anti life screwing shield? (the picture snapping really just makes this an even more annoying level of low. "Oh no we deserve to not have everyone know what we did.. but hey dude if you say i'ma bad dude I'll show you pictures we took to prove we did it." blah blah blah..) That's the end of my opinion on this.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Mikkaddo said:
my only argument is she's breaking the law herself. Tragic that she was sexually assaulted, but like facebook and the internet in general, it's still breaking the law if she talks about it DURING THE CASE. Once the convictions are given and the case is closed, she can say whatever she wants about it. But until that point, she, as well as they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to say NOTHING outside of to their lawyers and outside of the courthouse.
The fact that it's during a case is irrelevant. Facts of cases in progress are discussed in the public forum all the time. The issue here is that the defendants are minors, and even since they were convicted, their identities would have remained anonymous even after the case was closed.
 

Sparrow

New member
Feb 22, 2009
6,848
0
0
Whilst I don't necessarily agree with it, it's the law and she broke it. Whilst I doubt they'll give her jail time (because, come on, that's just harsh) they probably will fine her.
 

Smeatza

New member
Dec 12, 2011
934
0
0
Mikkaddo said:
my only argument is she's breaking the law herself. Tragic that she was sexually assaulted, but like facebook and the internet in general, it's still breaking the law if she talks about it DURING THE CASE. Once the convictions are given and the case is closed, she can say whatever she wants about it. But until that point, she, as well as they are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to say NOTHING outside of to their lawyers and outside of the courthouse.

just to clarify (though I shouldn't need to) I in no way support her attackers or what they did. I also however, in no way support her talking about the case while it's still ongoing as she should well know it's against the law. If no one else, her lawyer should have told her she can't discuss the case while it's still ongoing. That is the issue to me. Tragic that she was assaulted. I do wish her luck with her life, but she shouldn't break the law . . .
This.
Why should a sexual assault trial be different than any other trial?
 

Daveman

has tits and is on fire
Jan 8, 2009
4,202
0
0
As far as I'm aware (as I'm doing Jury Service at the moment) for the UK you're not allowed to talk about trials in progress. If she'd waited then it would have been made a matter of public record.

I think those boys were pieces of trash but she has been incredibly stupid about this.
 

pilouuuu

New member
Aug 18, 2009
701
0
0
When people commit those crimes they are a risk to society, so society deserves to know their identities.

This shows how unfair "justice" can be at times. Unless they were innocent. In that case she would deserve to be severely punished.
 

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
Being a victim of one crime doesn't give you an excuse to be the perpetrator of another. While her actions were somewhat understandable given her situation, they were still wrong, and illegal to boot.

I have no sympathy for the perpetrators of the assault, and hope they receive severe punishment from the law. That doesn't mean I think it's suddenly acceptable to abuse their rights outside of the law, though.
 

surg3n

New member
May 16, 2011
709
0
0
LetalisK said:
surg3n said:
Are people assuming that sexual assault means rape?
Yes, because in a great many jurisdictions they are the same thing. It's often harder to find jurisdictions where they are two completely different crimes.
Hmmm, in the UK sexual assault can mean grabbing a boob, or slappinb a butt - when it's rape, we call it rape, even in court. I'm thinking that it was less than rape, considering they haven't been sentenced yet. I think the distinction has to be made, the court decided that it was fair to protect their identity, so that's what makes me question how severe the assault was. By hiding the facts of the case, people are expecting the worst, she herself is claiming that they protect rapists. I mean, what if she's just looking for attention after what could be a far less serious case of assault...

1. It was at a party with lots of witnesses.
2. There were 2 of them.
3. They shared photographs with friends.

Not a typical rapist MO, IMO.
 

Lt._nefarious

New member
Apr 11, 2012
1,285
0
0
'Kay so they raped her, took photos, showed the photos around and bragged about it and they're being made the victims?

Well... Uh... I wish I surprised by this...

She shouldn't have broken the rules but I think if the guys showed of the rape then requested anonymity they don't really deserve it...
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
Somehow I imagine her rapists reading this story and going "Wow, that's fucked up." I have no idea how this could have any legal grounds. They plead guilty, so in even in the eyes of the law, they are rapists (or "sexual abusers"). It's not like she's committing libel. They are guilty. It may have been a court order, but you can't make court orders that violate constitutional or human rights, can you? It would be like getting a court order against eating.
 

Robert632

New member
May 11, 2009
3,870
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Robert632 said:
So...She deliberately violated a court order, and the response is "That's bullshit, she shouldn't be punished for that!"?

Now, don't get me wrong, that she could go to jail for longer then they might is a bunch of crap, but she still violated a court order and should be charged as such, regardless of her circumstances.
I seriously doubt this court order, which prevents her from even speaking about her own rape, is actually legal and Constitutional.
Look at it this way, if it's not legal and constitutional, then any decent lawyer will be able to use that to get her off any charges. On the other hand, if it is legal and constitutional, then she did do something wrong and should be punished for that, regardless of her situation.


DVS BSTrD said:
Robert632 said:
So...She deliberately violated a court order, and the response is "That's bullshit, she shouldn't be punished for that!"?

Now, don't get me wrong, that she could go to jail for longer then they might is a bunch of crap, but she still violated a court order and should be charged as such, regardless of her circumstances.
So the court is always right even when it's not? There IS a difference between the legal system and ACTUAL justice you know.
I did not say that the court is always right because that's just crazy. But, if she did wilfully and knowingly violate a legal court order, and if they can prove it, then she should be charged accordingly.
 

Fappy

\[T]/
May 1, 2020
12,010
0
41
Country
United States
People violate court orders all the time. Most people get away with minor fines.