If I remember correctly she had never agreed to not naming names and didn't even know that she had to stay silent about them until after she had already mentioned their names. She was not part of the decision to keep their names secret.
Underage Sexual Assault Victim Faces Jail Time...For Tweeting the Names of Her Attackers (UPDATED)
- Thread starter CrazyCapnMorgan
- Start date
The Prosecutor is generally the one who offers plea bargains, with the victims consent. So really, she should be pissed at her lawyer/parents for taking this if she didn't like the deal.JanatUrlich said:
Second, it doesn't matter if you don't understand why the court order was there, it was still there. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it
She knew she wasn't supposed to mention their names. How else do you explain in her Tweets her saying "Lock me up for telling everyone their name"saphirekosmos said:
To name something from the top of my head, without any research:Jorec said:
The Westboro Babtist Church.
Or how about a lot of the protesters at Wall Street?
They didn't have pitch forks or torches but if you would throw them some people from the stock market and told them that it was them who caused the crisis, there would definitely be violence.
Denouncing someone is wrong and if she wants to do it, she has to face the consequences.
'cause in the end it's totally counter productive.
But since the US justice system is all about vengeance and satisfaction, alot of people will probably disagree with me here.
'cause in the end it's totally counter productive.
But since the US justice system is all about vengeance and satisfaction, alot of people will probably disagree with me here.
I think she posted that after she found out that she was supposed to stay silent about their names.Lionsfan said:
perhaps we should do something? be proactive maybe give the court bad press in order to coerce them into...I dont know not being megadicks?
Okay, so the problem I have with this situation is that the defendants got a plea deal in the first place. What was the prosecution worried about that might let the boys off?
But the deal happened. And the fact that the offenders are minors means that they enjoy a modicum of legal protection even though they are criminals. Generally, you don't get charged as an adult unless you've done something really heinous or malicious. From what I read, it sounds like the girl passed out at a party (drinking nothing stronger than prune juice, I'm sure), and these guys (likely in altered states as well) did things to her.
Now let me be clear: I am NOT defending or justifying their actions, but given the fact that no one was likely in their right state of mind (I'm assuming), then to charge them as adults makes little sense. They were to be sentenced according to the terms of the plea agreement, and everyone can go about their lives.
However, this little darling has decided that this isn't good enough, and, in full acceptance that her actions were in violation of a court order; exposed the identity of her violators. She has apparently accepted responsibility for her actions and the sentencing inherent.
Which honestly doesn't surprise me.
She'll only be in jail for 180 days (if that) and -being a minor herself- will probably have that sponged from the public record the instant she gets out. Her assailants, on the other hand, stand to face public judgment for one bad decision they made when they were 17 and drunk for the rest of their lives. Something the justice system tried to spare them, and reasonably so I think.
So she's got her revenge, now she's got to sleep in the bed she's made. Nothing frightful or sordid about it.
But the deal happened. And the fact that the offenders are minors means that they enjoy a modicum of legal protection even though they are criminals. Generally, you don't get charged as an adult unless you've done something really heinous or malicious. From what I read, it sounds like the girl passed out at a party (drinking nothing stronger than prune juice, I'm sure), and these guys (likely in altered states as well) did things to her.
Now let me be clear: I am NOT defending or justifying their actions, but given the fact that no one was likely in their right state of mind (I'm assuming), then to charge them as adults makes little sense. They were to be sentenced according to the terms of the plea agreement, and everyone can go about their lives.
However, this little darling has decided that this isn't good enough, and, in full acceptance that her actions were in violation of a court order; exposed the identity of her violators. She has apparently accepted responsibility for her actions and the sentencing inherent.
Which honestly doesn't surprise me.
She'll only be in jail for 180 days (if that) and -being a minor herself- will probably have that sponged from the public record the instant she gets out. Her assailants, on the other hand, stand to face public judgment for one bad decision they made when they were 17 and drunk for the rest of their lives. Something the justice system tried to spare them, and reasonably so I think.
So she's got her revenge, now she's got to sleep in the bed she's made. Nothing frightful or sordid about it.
I'm in the group that thinks that all names in a sexual assault case should be kept confidential. Do you know how much it can scar someones reputation if they are accused of sexual assault? Even if they do not get convicted.
OT: If the court said that the boys names should be kept confidential then they should have been. Just because she is the victim doesn't mean she shouldn't be punished for her wrongs. throw the boys in jail, then fine her and give her the time the penalty says.
OT: If the court said that the boys names should be kept confidential then they should have been. Just because she is the victim doesn't mean she shouldn't be punished for her wrongs. throw the boys in jail, then fine her and give her the time the penalty says.
Funny you mention that example. I was undergoing some military training when some bloke in another barracks put his dick in some guys mouth and took a picture while the guy was asleep. When he woke up and was told what happened he quite rightly flipped out and went straight to the Sargent Major in charge of the facility.Jiggy said:
The victim was 17 years old, the perpetrator 19 (or something). He gets immediately arrested by the military police, court martialled and charged with sexual assault on a minor and given a hefty prison sentence. When he's done serving that, he'll come out and face civillian charges for the same incident, usually followed by more jailtime...
Pretty much fucked that kid up for life... He wasn't the sharpest bloke either.
Nah. there'll probably be a fuckton of victim blaming like on here.ecoho said:
According to descriptions of the incident, it WAS rape. Which is easy to verify, given the whole....Video taping.surg3n said:
So if she's punished it's because she deserves to be punished? Kinda like when they released the dogs on those civil rights activists in the 60s? I mean, they weren't vindicated by the courts despite laws and constitutional interpretations....Robert632 said:
But what stops some vigilante from going after any other criminal? Why should they get special protections for getting off with raping someone with a slap on the hand? And if I choose to commit a heinous crime, where do I get such a sweet deal?HardkorSB said:
Plus, please don't pretend naming and shaming is the same as instructing people to go kick their asses. That's lazy, disingenuous, and pretty far from reality. Plus, if that's really the case, shouldn't Spike Lee be in jail right now? He actually tweeted Zimmerman's address during the Treyvon case (even though it wasn't the right address, which led to some poor couple being harassed ad nauseum).
People do this on a more severe and larger scale all the time, and don't face ANY penalty. Jesus.
Legally, she may not be responsible for 3rd party action against them *if* she released their names without encouraging any action. I know you said that stating their names is the same as inciting action, but that's debatable - is it really inciting or is it just sharing information about a trial? I could tell you the ruling on any given case, and if you decide to go vigilante because the sentencing wasn't to your taste, that doesn't make me guilty of vigilantism.HardkorSB said:
This would also be a separate issue if it were "names of the accused" and not two admittedly guilty people.
It's painfully clear why she felt the need to name them -- the legal system is letting her down. She was violated, and photos were distributed (if that was done online, who knows where or when they may resurface), and now the two guilty parties have secured a plea bargain that may very well be too lenient. I've *lived* this, and been in the uncomfortable position of having to protect my attacker from the "superhero Texas Ranger wannabe" types who care about me by not releasing his information. So while I've not only been dealing with all of the psychological and social backlash of being assaulted all this time, he's gone on relatively unscathed, and partially because I haven't told anyone "here he is, get him for me." If they're not required to register as sex offenders after this - so it follows her forever while they can pretend it didn't happen, then I agree with her actions. I hope she pays the minimum fine for violating a court order.
Her lawyer/parents had to have agreed to a plea deal or we'd be hearing from them regarding this. So "fuck the court" should be "fuck her lawyer for setting up a plea deal".Adam Jensen said:
And no she didn't do the right thing. We don't need teenagers deciding what is and isn't enough when it comes to punishment
Well, if the two boys plead guilty on the condition that their names would be kept confidential, and the girl releases the names anyway, than she has not only violated the law, but possibly even endangered the lives of the two boys. I'm surprised that she's only getting 180 days in jail. It doesn't matter what your situation is, if you violate the law, you violate the law. These boys wanted their names kept confidential for a reason: Because bad things happen to guilty people when the public knows who they are. That's why there are often tunnels from jails to courtrooms. That's why terrorists or other criminals get police escorts to the courtroom. Because if they didn't, than some vigilante would shoot him, rather than allowing the perp to go through the court to allow them to prove their innocence, if it exists.
TL ; DR
The girl broke the law, same as anyone else, her situation with regards to the boys doesn't matter, she still violated the law and should have gotten a full sentance. Contempt charges usually aren't as short as 180 days.
TL ; DR
The girl broke the law, same as anyone else, her situation with regards to the boys doesn't matter, she still violated the law and should have gotten a full sentance. Contempt charges usually aren't as short as 180 days.
No, they do. They've evolved, physical death is no longer the goal; now the inability to get a job, as well as social impairment, is. Death threats are made, life continues with difficulty.Jorec said:
We call these mobs 'Internet forums', their ropes are social media and the sex offender registry.
And I'm fine with that. Rapists deserve to be rendered powerless.
On the other hand, she did breach, as I see it, the law and there should be consequences. The fine certainly, although jail time seems excessive to me. If they're stupid enough to brag about her getting penalties, then it's their own grave.
The lynch mobs are waiting.