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

[Scars Unseen]

Prediction: No matter how long this thread goes on, there will be people insisting that rape victims are somehow excused from obeying the law. Possibly accompanied by a variation of "facepalm.gif" for people just joining the thread.

Don't disappoint me Escapist.

 

[Jorec]

I'm pretty confident that lynch mobs don't exist anymore.

Jorec, may I welcome you to the real world, where things happen despite you being ignorant to them.

I can think of a lot of cases where this kinda stuff happened, names got released, guys and gals got beaten or even killed, just in the city I live in. (Or rather near.) Granted, I can't think of any mobs, but you don't need an entire mob to justify this law.

I am well aware of what happens in the real world, friend. I was just commenting from my personal knowledge(or apparent lack thereof). Lynchings hardly happen here in California as far as I know, so excuse me for being so woefully ignorant.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Distasteful as it may be sometimes, in order to live in a society that has laws, those laws must be abided by. There was a plea deal made, the boys had received whatever punishment the judge laid down. Part of this included keeping their names confidential, and she broke the law.

What they did was heinous, and it is possible that they received too light a sentence for it, but that is a separate issue from her transgression of the law. Yes it has an influence, in that clearly hers is a crime of passion that stems from the treatment of their case, but the case was over in the eyes of the law.

As I say, it is distasteful, and sometimes may seem deeply morally unfair, but you can't call for the law to be upheld when it suits you and then not when it doesn't. The boys have been made victims by her, and more importantly they have been made targets by her. She did this knowing they would be attacked by the community, and in fact I think she probably did this hoping to incite violence against them.

What they did was wrong, I'm not denying that, but what she did was also wrong, and she deserves to be punished for it.

When you break the law, punishment is enacted, without that most basic of tenets, the law has no meaning.

 

[fenrizz]

She willingly broke a court order because she did not agree.
She should be punished, but I doubt she will get the maximum sentence (and she shouldn't).

They are minors, and should be allowed to have a life after they have served their sentences.

 

[axlryder]

She violated a court order. It's an issue separate from the sexual assault itself. I'm not saying the issue is black and white, but it's not like the courts are really going out of their way to be dicks about this either. Confidentiality is considered important for a reason.

 

[CriticalX13]

They violated her rights, and get a reduce sentence due a plea bargain.

She violates their rights, she to should go for plea bargain for a reduced sentence. She could also get a further reduction by throwing in some emotional distress in there as well as some remorse.

Everyone learns a valuable lesson about how justice works. Cough to a lesser charge show some remorse and you will get a reduced sentence. Generally speaking most countries justice systems work this way.

My questions are what were her friends doing and what kind friends do these boys have that they would think this is acceptable behavior? And what did the friends do about it?

If humans were as civilized as we make ourselves out to be, there would be no need for a justice system.

 

[m19]

There is a reason why the victim doesn't decide the punishment.

 

[Hirumakage]

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.

1. Sexual Assault can happen anywhere. And parties are one of the easiest places to do it. Crowded environments where people are drinking and being stupid all around allow for many things go unnoticed. College kids are raped all the time at parties and it goes unnoticed by the people who were there.
2. Actually, some rapists will team up. Gang rape anyone?
3. Idiots will be idiots and sharing a photo of them doing some chick is great for popularity. It's like them saying, ?Hey look what we did to this chick!?
There all kind of rapists with varying MOs. It?s a mistake to dismiss someone for being a rapist just because they don?t fit the cookie cutter image of what you deem to be a rapist. That?s how horrible people are able to run free hurting people as they wish.

OT: I hate what happened to her and I don?t think it is fair. The deal seems to be unfair and people should know what they did. But, if she ordered not to say anything then she shouldn?t have (Even though she really should be able to). Sad situation all the way around.

 

[Robert632]

Wow. You REALLY believe not allowing someone to publicly announce the names of two teenage idiots doing something idiotic is the same as RELEASING A TOTALLY RAPING RAPIST ZOMG!!?

So as long as you're under 18 actually raping someone only makes you an idiot, not a monster?

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.

She shouldn't be sent to jail if they aren't.

Ok, so first you are assuming the outcome a trial that has not occurred, but let's ignore that for a moment because I need to point something out.

I don't agree with how those two boys were "charged". I think that was a crap-load of BS. However, that does not have any bearing on what she did. Should people be able to get off on charges due to the outcome of a case related only because the exact same people are in there, only with reversed positions? Is that really how justice is supposed to work?

Now I'm going to head off you pointing out that how the two boys were charged is not how justice is supposed to work either, and I agree with you. That was BS and is something that needs to be changed within the justice system. But that doesn't mean she gets off on doing something illegal.

Also, stop assuming she's going to jail. That case has yet to conclude (Or even really start), so we won't how she will be punished until then.

I'm trying not to assume anything, I'm just saying IF she's convicted, she shouldn't receive a punishment more severe than they do. And yes I did appreciate that you were agreeing with me.

Well, given that she did this as a crime of passion rather then to be malicious, if she does get charged, it'll likely be very light.

 

[salinv]

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.

Actually, they aren't the same thing. Sexual Assault can mean anything from groping to assault (and possibly battery) in a sexual nature, to the further extent of being rape. Threatening to rape someone would be sexual assault, but not rape, for example. Groping a boob isn't rape, but is also sexual assault. In the specific case of Kentucky laws, it could mean sexual abuse (sexual contact without consent, degree varying on capability of providing content), sodomy (without consent), or even full blown rape. The label provided can be misdemeanor, not necessarily a felony.

Word download for sexual assault definitions around the US [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CIUBEBYwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Frelieffundforsexualassaultvictims.org%2Fresources%2Fsexualassaultchart_NCVLI-D.doc&ei=9W8NUPDEBrG_2QWW9Kgn&usg=AFQjCNHCtD-_t85pSYme3Nu5-S1yq4Oj0w&sig2=12D6W-yhPrngDfOvW1Mb3g]

OT: All of what the boys might have done is deplorable, and they should be punished for their crime. However, she knowingly disobeyed the court's order, and violated their protection of remaining anonymous due to being a minor. As a minor in the US you have no rights. You can't vote, you don't have anywhere the same responsibility. To counter this you have protections that protect your life as legally "responsible" from the period of your life where you are not.

It might be fair for their name to be plastered for everyone to see now, but in 50 or 60 years they reach retirement age without ever being able to hold a worthwhile job, would you call it fair to have ruined their entire lives from a "childhood mistake?" If said mistake was, without a doubt, rape, then yes, they should live with it their entire lives. But if the crime was touching a breast and taking photos while she was drunk and passed out on the couch, they should still be punished, but not stuck in 60+ years of societal jail.

People here are likely assuming things they truly don't know and are jumping to conclusions. I vote that people wait to pass judgement of either party until after we know more.

edit: forgot something

 

[JanatUrlich]

This is fucking ridiculous. The boys who did it to her should definitely be named and shamed. Who even offered them anonymity in the first place? If you can't deal with being named for what you've done don't fucking do it.

I understand that she violated a court order, but what I don't understand is why that court order was there in the first place.

I don't care if they're high school students with their whole life ahead of them. So was she.

 

[Fappy]

Not sure about any rape here. Sounds like they took pictures of her naked, obviously against her will. Sounds like she was passed out drunk too.

Oh yeah, plea deals are between both lawyers, just sayin.

She should be pissed at her parents and lawyer too.

That's what I was thinking. They couldn't get away with a plea bargain like this if her parents/lawyer had not consented.