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

[Blackfire001]

She has full right to speak her case. Its been protected and held up time and again.
Remember that guy in the casey anthony case that commented in the court room during a break? He was within his right. He could have, should have, argued with the judge that speaking is a protected 1st amendment right that HAS to be followed. No if an's or buts. Even more so is a state government building.

 

[The Rainmaker]

She totally deserves being punished. Just like those who sexually assaulted her deserve to be punished. Either we follow the law, or we don't, no matter what some of you think. You might think it is wrong, but too bad, if we should change the law to remove the punishment of what the girl did, we would basically remove the law that gives minors the right to be anonymous in court cases. If you think this sounds like a good punishment, you are forgetting that time served in prison is meant as rehabilitation. People who are sentenced by a court are meant to be able to return to society someday, and if they get the "rapist" label on them, that won't happen.

Captcha: be nice
Fuck you, captcha

 

[Lionsfan]

true but at this point public backlash is gonna be such that theyll have it as a requirment by the end of the year.

Nah. there'll probably be a fuckton of victim blaming like on here.

Can you give some examples? Criticizing her Twitter behavior =/= saying she's responsible for the initial incident

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.

People did freak out about what Spike Lee did. Just because someone else did it doesn't make it right

 

[Robert632]

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.

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....

To answer question one: Yes. She violated a court order, which is against the law. Thus, if she's convicted she should be punished. It should be very lenient due to the passionate nature of the crime, but that still doesn't excuse that she broke the law.

To answer question two: Not like that at all. She should be tried by a court of law, and if she is convicted, then she should be punished. What happened to those protesters was BS, but that has no bearing on this case. All that matters in this case is why and what she did, not why and what other people did 50 years ago.

 

[4173]

Nope. I don't know for sure the court order was appropriate, but I'm reasonably confident it wasn't unjust/lawful. Slippery slope, yadda yadda. Too lazy to Google, but I wonder if this sort of thing actually promotes further criminal behavior in the defendants; I'm certainly not saying they should be coddled, but if they are treated too shit upon re-entering society, intuitively that would lead to rejecting society. No idea if that is born out by facts, though.


I do hope she gets as low a penalty as possible, however.

 

[SmegInThePants]

she should have the freedom of speech to talk about what happened to her.

While I'm not pleased with this situation, it's not "freedom of speech". If the plea agreement was "noone can reveal who they are", she violated that. If the plea was "keep the record sealed", then she didn't. Freedom of speech is a different thing from contract law (or whatever this is exactly).

I'm not saying how things are, but how I would have them be. Didn't mean to give the impression I was stating what the law was.

She was not party to their plea agreement, so her actions should not be limited by an agreement made between others (the offenders and the gov't).

again, how I would have it be, not necessarily how it actually is.

 

[razer17]

LAws are laws. She isn't allowed to give their names, she did, she broke the law. She has to deal with the punishment that that entails. No one would be defending her if it hadn't been for the fact that she had been sexually assaulted. Yes, sexual assault is horrible and disgusting, but it doesn't give you an excuse to break the law.

Edit - I will say that while it is no excuse for breaking the law, she should get a lenient punishment due to the nature of the crime.

 

[theLadyBugg]

if you decide to go vigilante because the sentencing wasn't to your taste, that doesn't make me guilty of vigilantism.

It doesn't? How does that work?
If you do something, you're not guilty of doing it?

Check the pronouns again: If you do something, that doesn't make me guilty of doing it. If I do something, it doesn't make anybody else guilty.

 

[TheDoctor455]

I'll be shocked if they do actually give her jail time, I honestly don't think they will. She might get the fine though, just to make an example of her for disobeying a court order.

It's so stupid, she should be able to name and shame the people who violated her.

It wouldn't be the first time a rape victim has been thrown in jail for something like this.


That one is... arguably worse than the OP.
Just... disgusting what some assholes will do whenever they get a little bit of power.

 

[yeti585]

I'm not saying how things are, but how I would have them be. Didn't mean to give the impression I was stating what the law was.

She was not party to their plea agreement, so her actions should not be limited by an agreement made between others (the offenders and the gov't).

again, how I would have it be, not necessarily how it actually is.

I get the whole "she was not party to their agreement so she shouldn't have to abide by it" thing, but the agreement is to protect the other party and it has no consequences for her (except you know, violating it). If the agreement said "We will plea guilty to these charges in exchange for anonymity and she has to announce to the world that she was raped." then she should have been part of the agreement. the former agreement does say (or at least implies) that everyone should keep the boys anonymous, and do you know how hard it would be to get everyone in one place? or how counterproductive that would be?

But, she should have been part of the agreement to avoid this. There are some problems with her being part of the agreement though. She was raped by these boys and her former actions (releasing their names to the internet, like a bleeding waterfowl to piranha [did you know they can smell fresh blood from like a mile away?]) shows that she isn't the most calm person about it. She probably wouldn't have given the boys, who still have a chance to turn things around, a fair deal.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I'm more interested in why she was order to not talk about it and how that's possible when the boys pleaded guilty. If its not a public case and their plea bargain was to prevent this from going on there records then I can see it, otherwise no. Also if they were stupid enough to photograph the crime and give pictures to friends, why the hell didn't the state just prosecute them? Isn't this an easy win when you have pictures and can probably trace them back to the boy's phone?

Anyways, this has nothing to do with rape. It has to do with a court order. You can argue however you like about the legitimacy of the laws and procedures that lead to the situation but she did violate a court order knowingly and is being punished for it.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Well this is just grim all round.

I don't think there should be any laws or enforceable deals that have convicted criminals saved public shaming. For starters, I sure as shit want to know if a steaming pile of human being lives near me. Secondly, in a country that values free speech, I think the public should be allowed to speak about the attackers.

There's a really cool group in Australia (my home) that finds out the names and addresses of convicted child molesters and posts them online for all to see. They give you some links to their information, as well as the ages of their victims and the circumstances and dates in which the crimes occurred.

 

[yeti585]

I'll be shocked if they do actually give her jail time, I honestly don't think they will. She might get the fine though, just to make an example of her for disobeying a court order.

It's so stupid, she should be able to name and shame the people who violated her.

It wouldn't be the first time a rape victim has been thrown in jail for something like this.


That one is... arguably worse than the OP.
Just... disgusting what some assholes will do whenever they get a little bit of power.

I don't agree with not giving the victim the contraception. But, I truned that video off right after she said "It's all about punishing victims." That was unneeded and out of place.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

It really fucking sucks, especially given that the charges being pressed on her are likely a result of the defense attorney. When rape cases come up in court, the biggest thing the defense attorney will do is blame the victim. It's one of the reason people think lawyers are evil.

Unfortunately, this poor girl probably doesn't have a leg to stand on. She broke the rules, so they will jump on her for that. Her intentions were understandable - they took pictures and shamed her by sending them to her friends, it is only right to want to shame them as well, but either way, I'm thinking they would have ended up in the Sex Offender registry, which would have shamed them for life.

Oddly, I'm surprised that if they distributed pictures of a 17 year old being raped that they aren't being charged with possession and distribution of child pornography as well.

This is a pretty fucked up case that makes me want to go live in outer-space.

 

[theLadyBugg]

if you decide to go vigilante because the sentencing wasn't to your taste, that doesn't make me guilty of vigilantism.

And if you trample someone to death because I yelled "FIRE!!" in a crowded theatre, doesn't make me guilty of trampling someone to death.

First of all, it'd be pretty damned difficult for me to trample somebody to death on my own, so yeah, if I managed to, that's all on me. Secondly yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is a very specific example, and that scenario is considered inciting a panic - so if I trampled because you yelled, then I'm guilty of the trampling, and you're guilty of inciting a panic. If I've just left an open court sentencing and tell you John/Jane Doe plead guilty and is now being released on probation, and say nothing else relevant to the case or the person in question, then all I am doing is relaying information. If I don't also encourage you to take matters into your own hands, but you decide to go punch John/Jane Doe in the face repeatedly, that makes you guilty of assault. There's a difference between releasing information and encouraging action. This girl released information and faces penalty for breaking a court order. We can't tell whether or not she encouraged action without seeing the tweet - if she did, yes, I can see a problem. But if not? She's revealing the names of two guilty parties because they fell short of being tried as adults and therefore get privacy protection from the law. That's not the same as sending a mob after them.

 

[twobeef]

They made a plea deal, which I don't understand. They had pictures of their crime how did they get a plea deal? This was an open and shut case.

Because it's a lot easier for the prosecution to plead guilty for the crime and take a reduced sentence than to have to drag everyone into court, select a jury, and deal with the media.

Plea bargain culture is a complicated thing in the U.S. - something like 90% of criminal cases end in pleas now. On the side of the prosecution, there's not enough taxpayer money for judges and lawyers to argue every case. If every accused criminal who was offered a plea was to go to trial, it would pretty much shut down the judicial system as we tried to prosecute every case. On the defendant side, we have a lot more mandatory minimum sentence laws in the U.S. that demand a judge pass down a certain harsh sentence for a crime if convicted. There's research suggesting that many innocent people accept plea bargains for lesser sentences under the risk-vs.-reward that it's better to get off light for something you didn't do than go to trial, lose, and end up in jail for decades.

There was a really important Supreme Court case about this a little while ago that flew under the radar:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/us/supreme-court-says-defendants-have-right-to-good-lawyers.html?_r=1

 

[ArnRand]

This thread is incredibly offensive and most of the "people" posting here are truly horrid, vile and disgusting creatures.

Let me put this into simple terms for you morons:

It does not matter that the girl recieved a court order not to make the names of the people who raped her public: COURT ORDERS LIKE THAT SHOULD NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE!

It's a very simple train of thought: two males have raped a woman, and now they are set free back into society, with the "authorities" witholding their names. In other words: the courts have endangered every single female within reach of the perps.

The woman simply did the public service the courts failed to do by tweeting the names of two rapists so women in their vicinity would have a chance not to get raped by them.

Any "justice system" that criminalises warning people that there are known rapists walking among them; any "justice system" that criminalises rape prevention is a flawed, malfunctioning justice system that has no right to exist, must be abolished as soon as possible, and should be fought against by every progressive minded individual until their last breath.

First, rape is different to sexual EDIT:abuse (I originally put assualt). (don't beleive me, go look at the kentucky laws.) They aren't rapists, they're terrible people, sure, but not as bad as that.

Second THEY'RE MINORS. The law keeps the names of minors secret for a reason. So we don't get vigilante justice of the kind you're advocating doing more harm than good.