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

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,417
0
0
Those two boys should get put on a sex-offender list and get what they deserve. I think the girl should have had the right to reveal her attackers, to be honest.

And I'm not sure why, but this reminded me of another case where boys were caught throwing stones at a homeless guy, and were declared guilty. Turns out the homless guy molested them.

The justice system is utterly broken and worthless.
 

trophykiller

New member
Jul 23, 2010
426
0
0
The criminal justice system is run by, for, and of the criminals. Corruption, lies, and straight-up BS are all you'll find. Though it is often evil, it is a necessary evil. Why do you think vigilante film are so popular here in the states? Because people see the criminal justice system failing them, and they want something more competent. Yes, vigilantism is wrong, but it seems better than what we have.

Either way, victims have a right to speak out, no matter what the crime. Trying to shut people up is one of the red flags for corruption. As someone who was stabbed, neglected, poisoned, tortured, beaten, and sexually abused by their own mother, then watched her get away with almost all of it, I know there is no justice in the criminal justice system. And as for the things she was actually caught for, one was giving sexual favors to one of the judges so she could win the case. Wonder why she got away with so much.

P.S. captcha is "evil genius". Hmm...
 

trophykiller

New member
Jul 23, 2010
426
0
0
DugMachine said:
And why do I keep seeing the word 'rape' and 'rapists' when it comes to these two idiots. I see sexual assault, not rape. 'Rapist' has soooo much more weight behind it than sexual assault so don't demonize the two more than needed.
They gave her ruphees to make her pass out. This wasn't just "Oh, look! That girl passed out 'cause she had too many drinks! Let's take some funny pictures!" This was a cold blooded violation of a young woman's personal rights using an illegal substance, not to mention production, possession, and distribution of pornography involving a minor.
 

trophykiller

New member
Jul 23, 2010
426
0
0
Tanner The Monotone said:
Victim or not, she broke the law and deserves to be punished accordingly.
Right, because there's never been an unjust law before. I personally picture what she did to be an act of civil disobedience, like that of Gandhi. In the tweet, she specifically mentions how she sees no justice in the punishment and is willing to face jail time to have her attackers exposed.
 

Sindaine

New member
Dec 29, 2008
438
0
0
Buretsu said:
Sindaine said:
Recidivism, look it up. You do that shit once, you are going to do it again. So let's keep them away from women. Put them on disability or whatever if we must but keep them away from people they might hurt.
Reform, look it up. And if you treat them as nothing more than criminals, you're ensuring that's what they'll be. If, on the other hand, you treat them as human beings who have a chance to change their ways, you may just be surprised how well they turn around.

And funny you should mention having their lives ruined, because there's a young lady named Samantha whose life they in fact ruined, and yet it's their scumbag lives that people are up in arms about. This is where we are as a nation. Two men rape an unconscious woman, and the country weeps for the rapist rather than the victim. How disgusting is that?
What I find disgusting is the idea of treating them as evil, inhuman monsters who must be forever shunned by society. And that you think that nobody cares about the victim, merely because they don't support vigilante justice.
The poor, poor rapists! Someone think of the rapists! Uh-baw!

It's pretty clear you don't give two shits about the rights of the victim--you know, the one who had her rights forcibly removed by two worthless shitstains? What about her right to try and protect other women from them? Think about it, if she hadn't told anyone, nothing would have stopped them from going to another party and roofying another girl the very next night.
 

Enverex

New member
Oct 6, 2010
56
0
0
Did you read what actually happened? No-one was raped. That word's being thrown around all over the place, but no-one actually raped anyone in this case.

Everyone in this thread is acting like they video'd some sort of "hard-core gang-bang" but after reading the reports, no-one had sex with anyone. In fact it reads more like spin-the-bottle gone wrong.

Additionally, if they just "drop" the charges for her flagrant disregard for the law, what is their legal precedent for it? Surely that is then going to set a bad benchmark for the future too.
 

TheKaduflyerSystem

New member
Feb 15, 2011
116
0
0
Oh FFS
This is why Warhammer 40K Law and Order makes more sense to me; less hassle MOAR bullets.
BUUUUUT I am extremely blunt and has a penchant for overreacting and speaking too soon. (sorry)
 

Sigma Castell

Elite Member
Sep 10, 2011
2,701
0
41
The laws the law...Yes, what she went through was horribel, but her attackers have the right to anonymity until the court decides otherwise.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
You cant tell the public the names as the defence can use that as reason for an unfair trial or at worst have the trial cancelled or whatever. I do sympathise with her and i am glad the charges against her were dropped.
 

Stripes

New member
May 22, 2012
158
0
0
The law is the law, she broke the law and therefore will face charges for breaking the law. It is not a pick and choose situation no matter how tragic the situation is.

Catpa:medlling kids. Kind of ironic, in a black humour sort of way.
 

Stripes

New member
May 22, 2012
158
0
0
Sindaine said:
Buretsu said:
Sindaine said:
Recidivism, look it up. You do that shit once, you are going to do it again. So let's keep them away from women. Put them on disability or whatever if we must but keep them away from people they might hurt.
Reform, look it up. And if you treat them as nothing more than criminals, you're ensuring that's what they'll be. If, on the other hand, you treat them as human beings who have a chance to change their ways, you may just be surprised how well they turn around.

And funny you should mention having their lives ruined, because there's a young lady named Samantha whose life they in fact ruined, and yet it's their scumbag lives that people are up in arms about. This is where we are as a nation. Two men rape an unconscious woman, and the country weeps for the rapist rather than the victim. How disgusting is that?
What I find disgusting is the idea of treating them as evil, inhuman monsters who must be forever shunned by society. And that you think that nobody cares about the victim, merely because they don't support vigilante justice.
The poor, poor rapists! Someone think of the rapists! Uh-baw!

It's pretty clear you don't give two shits about the rights of the victim--you know, the one who had her rights forcibly removed by two worthless shitstains? What about her right to try and protect other women from them? Think about it, if she hadn't told anyone, nothing would have stopped them from going to another party and roofying another girl the very next night.
Two things. Do they not also have a right to life, a right being something you cannot legally have taken from you? It seems you disagree, having committed a crime making their lives "worhless". As the previous person said, just because you are concerned for the criminals does not mean you arent concerned or sympathetic for the victim.
 

ShindoL Shill

Truely we are the Our Avatars XI
Jul 11, 2011
21,802
0
0
elvor0 said:
Just because it's the law that doesn't make it right.
By this logic, they should be acquitted. Because, as you said, it being the law doesn't make it right.
Of course, I would get about a hundred quote-messages from people calling me a fucking idiot for saying that. Because, if I were being serious, it would be true. I said it because I was making a point: we have laws. Don't break them. If we allow one or two people to pick and choose, we should allow everyone to do so otherwise the system is broken. But if we do then the system is broken. Because nobody should pick and choose. Everybody should be judged by the same laws.
What if, instead of reporting the crime, she'd grabbed a knife, broken into their houses and stabbed them to death? Would that be okay?
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
TrilbyWill said:
elvor0 said:
Just because it's the law that doesn't make it right.
By this logic, they should be acquitted. Because, as you said, it being the law doesn't make it right.
Of course, I would get about a hundred quote-messages from people calling me a fucking idiot for saying that. Because, if I were being serious, it would be true. I said it because I was making a point: we have laws. Don't break them. If we allow one or two people to pick and choose, we should allow everyone to do so otherwise the system is broken. But if we do then the system is broken. Because nobody should pick and choose. Everybody should be judged by the same laws.
What if, instead of reporting the crime, she'd grabbed a knife, broken into their houses and stabbed them to death? Would that be okay?
You're putting words in my mouth, taking what I said out of context. I said that specific law isn't right, I didn't say all laws should be abolished or that no laws are right. Sexually assaulting someone is morally wrong /and/ lawfully wrong. You're right, everyone should be judged by the same laws. It was once the law that black people had to sit on the other side of the bus to white people, was that right, by any standards other than the law? It changed because people stood up against it and broke the law while doing so. Laws change because people stand up against them. Okay racial discrimination vs this case is obviously out of balance, but it was just the first thing that popped into my head.

No my point is, yes we have laws, but we should be able to speak out against them. Her stating the names of her attackers is not morally wrong on any level, me going out and stabbing some is. Granted in this case, it's a bit grey as she was violated, but if she'd gone and killed them then yes it would be a bit too far and she should be jailed. But that isn't what happened, you can't base your argument on what might have happened. I'm not saying we should be able to pick and whether the law /applies/ to us if we don't agree with it. I'm saying it's a ridiculous law, and should be spoken out against. She should was making a stand against a law, which frankly, offers the perpetrators protection /for the crime they committed/, screw that.

Like I said, if someone did that to me, I'd damn well tell people who they were, and if it were possible for me to do so, go and give them a sound beating, if you wanna go and violate someone like that, you better be prepared for a smack in the chops at the very least, you shouldn't get the luxury of hiding behind the law. I don't agree that they should be allowed protection and anonymity and as we can see, she spoke out against the court order, leading to people like myself rallying around her, which ended up leading to the consequences of her actions being removed. Because it's not right, that shouldn't be the way it is. If no one ever spoke out against anything we'd just be mindless robots doing what ever the higher ups tell us just because were told to.

For a personal example, I smoke pot, which is against the law in the UK, I do not agree with that law, however were I to be caught, I'm not going to say "That shouldn't apply to me because I don't agree with it", but I do speak out against it /being/ the law, because I don't agree with it and I think it should be changed. No one in their right mind is going to argue to that Rape/Pedophillia/cold blooded murder shouldn't be a law in modern society.

What I don't understand is how everyone can be so cold and damning to to girl,
 

zarguhl

New member
Oct 4, 2010
141
0
0
The whole argument makes no sense.

If someone does something that involves you there is no circumstance that exists that should prevent you from being able to tell another.

"Bob said hi to me this morning."
"Bob ate my sandwich!"
"Bob raped me!"

It's a suppression of freedom of speech otherwise. If it's untrue that's different, then you're trying to damage another person through lies. But if something happened that involved you, you should be able to talk about it UNLESS you agreed PRIOR to the action that you wouldn't (such as a non disclosure agreement at work).

The entire legal system there should be arrested for human rights violations.

Edit:
And it should be remembered that laws are only created to punish criminals, never to help ordinary people. They are created from the viewpoint that all of society are equal, not from the viewpoint that a few are criminals and the rest are not.
 

Lionsfan

I miss my old avatar
Jan 29, 2010
2,842
0
0
zarguhl said:
The whole argument makes no sense.

If someone does something that involves you there is no circumstance that exists that should prevent you from being able to tell another.

"Bob said hi to me this morning."
"Bob ate my sandwich!"
"Bob raped me!"

It's a suppression of freedom of speech otherwise. If it's untrue that's different, then you're trying to damage another person through lies. But if something happened that involved you, you should be able to talk about it UNLESS you agreed PRIOR to the action that you wouldn't (such as a non disclosure agreement at work).

The entire legal system there should be arrested for human rights violations.

Edit:
And it should be remembered that laws are only created to punish criminals, never to help ordinary people. They are created from the viewpoint that all of society are equal, not from the viewpoint that a few are criminals and the rest are not.
The thing is, she did agree to it. Or her attorney/parents agreed to it anyways. And when she thought the punishment wasn't enough, then she decided to break the rules.

You can't pick and choose which laws you wish to uphold
 

Rednog

New member
Nov 3, 2008
3,567
0
0
zarguhl said:
The whole argument makes no sense.

If someone does something that involves you there is no circumstance that exists that should prevent you from being able to tell another.

"Bob said hi to me this morning."
"Bob ate my sandwich!"
"Bob raped me!"

It's a suppression of freedom of speech otherwise. If it's untrue that's different, then you're trying to damage another person through lies. But if something happened that involved you, you should be able to talk about it UNLESS you agreed PRIOR to the action that you wouldn't (such as a non disclosure agreement at work).

The entire legal system there should be arrested for human rights violations.

Edit:
And it should be remembered that laws are only created to punish criminals, never to help ordinary people. They are created from the viewpoint that all of society are equal, not from the viewpoint that a few are criminals and the rest are not.
Uhh I hope you realize that in the real world and not armchair politics there is no carte blanche freedom of speech. In legal cases there is tons of information that is suppressed to uphold the rights of both parties. No one has the right to go waiving around anyone's details. Hell if you're a juror you can't talk about the case to anyone before the case is over, and even after it's over in some cases you can still be told that some information isn't supposed to be just spewed out as public knowledge. Is this a human rights violation? According to you it would be, hell it was a part of their day so why can't they go on the air to news stations and just tell everything that happened in court that day?
Or how about people who work in the medical field, hey I treated so and so's disease today why can't I go around telling everyone about it? Isn't that my freedom of speech? It's a true thing that happened to me today.