Girl Faces Jail Time for Naming Rapists

[ParkCungHee]

Ah.... but i see. Rape is special.

If Rape wasn't special, accused rapists wouldn't get special treatment as opposed to other crimes.

 

[Mise]

For the record, I'm quite comfortable with the idea of plea bargains. And I certainly won't comment on whether the rapists got off too lightly or not.

Rather, it seems that most people here are, like me, outraged at the idea that the victim can't even tweet about the men who raped her. That's just plain wrong, and it serves no other purpose than institutionally silencing the victims of rape.

 

[caketastydelish]

So if you cause someone to die, you should get the death penalty?

What?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Ah.... but i see. Rape is special.
Mostly because it supposedly only affects "girls and women".
And women are... special...

Actually, I made it quite clear that it should pertain to all such violent crimes, such as armed robbery, aggravated assault, and any sort of intentional homicide. I guess you missed that part in your completely absurd rush to judgment about how my mind must work.

 

[JollyRoger]

What?

If law is black and white, then you should receive the same punishment for killing someone. There should be no gray area to consider varying degrees of punishment (or potentially, no punishment at all).

 

[caketastydelish]

If law is black and white, then you should receive the same punishment for killing someone. There should be no gray area to consider varying degrees of punishment (or potentially, no punishment at all).

Well if it is manslaughter I would not support the death penalty. Accidents are accidents (although they should still go to jail for some time).

However, otherwise, I would have to frankly say I would support the death penalty. If someone killed me intentionally, I'd want them dead. So I would have to hold myself to that standard also.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well if it is manslaughter I would not support the death penalty. Accidents are accidents (although they should still go to jail for some time).

However, otherwise, I would have to frankly say I would support the death penalty. If someone killed me intentionally, I'd want them dead. So I would have to hold myself to that standard also.

Killing is killing. You are putting way too much gray in the law.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well if it is manslaughter I would not support the death penalty. Accidents are accidents (although they should still go to jail for some time).

However, otherwise, I would have to frankly say I would support the death penalty. If someone killed me intentionally, I'd want them dead. So I would have to hold myself to that standard also.

Yes, personal vengeance is so much better than a modern system of justice.

 

[metatron]

Actually, I made it quite clear that it should pertain to all such violent crimes, such as armed robbery, aggravated assault, and any sort of intentional homicide. I guess you missed that part in your completely absurd rush to judgment about how my mind must work.

It as more of a general kind of a 'rush'. Not particularly tailored to your mind specifically.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You still made patently false allegations about my opinions which I have made quite clear in this thread.

Then you even insinuated that I don't even care about the incessant rapes which occur in men's prisons in the US which many "law and order" advocates actually think is a suitable form of punishment, even though I have frequently stated just the opposite opinion.

 

[metatron]

even though I have frequently stated just the opposite opinion.

Aware of that. Appreciate it.

Then you even insinuated that I don't even care about the incessant rapes which occur in men's prisons in the US which many "law and order" advocates actually think is a suitable form of punishment,

Except that i didn't. *shrug*

 

[Berzerker]

You don't tug on superman's cape.

You don't spit into the wind.

You don't pull the mask off the old lone ranger...

And you dont break court orders.

Or you can sing the old song, 'I fought the law and the law won'. That works too.

I presume the reason why she was told not to divulge them publically is that they, as minors, also had some protections under the law regardless of them comitting said crime.

I run into this all the time at my work regarding juvenile records being sealed. Is what the kids did ok? Hells, no. But does labeling them as lifelong offenders for doing something stupid as kids help anyone, either? Not really, no.

She didn't label them as anything other than her attackers, she has that right whether or not a state exists - and thats why she has the moral high ground to ignore that court order.

 

[MobBoss]

She didn't label them as anything other than her attackers, she has that right whether or not a state exists - and thats why she has the moral high ground to ignore that court order.

Deciding that you have the moral high ground to act outside the law is very dangerous not to mention very subjective.

Do you also agree that people should ignore the law on other issues as well if they decide they have the 'moral high ground'? I dont, because that removes the entire point of the law to begin with.

The law should be the same for her, them, and everyone else. If the law in that state says court records should be sealed where minors are concerned, then they should be sealed. End of discussion.

 

[cardgame]

If a law is wrong, it needs be broken to draw awareness of the injustice.

 

[Gamemaster77]

If a law is wrong, it needs be broken to draw awareness of the injustice.

Amen to that. The people who are saying she should got o jail, because she broke the law need to realize something. Something being illegal, and something being wrong are too different things. The kind of people who just blindly follow the law are the kinds of people who allowed authoritarian dictatorships to come to power. If the law is not right, then something needs to be done about it. Often, breaking the law will accomplish what needs to be done.

 

[Farm Boy]

Amen to that. The people who are saying she should got o jail, because she broke the law need to realize something. Something being illegal, and something being wrong are too different things. The kind of people who just blindly follow the law are the kinds of people who allowed authoritarian dictatorships to come to power. If the law is not right, then something needs to be done about it. Often, breaking the law will accomplish what needs to be done.

The thing about civil disobedience is that you need to both be certain that the law needs changing and that you willingly accept the consequences of your having broken a law in order to get it changed. Rule of law in this case kowtowing to rule of the mob isn't really a great precedent. You also need to be sure that the outrage isn't actually making things worse a la JR's quote below.

She won't go to jail. She will get a plea bargain or a pass and assuming she is a juvenile, the record will be sealed (until you yahoos signing petitions get a law passed to have juvenile records retroactively unsealed).

 

[Flying Pig]

Rather, it seems that most people here are, like me, outraged at the idea that the victim can't even tweet about the men who raped her. That's just plain wrong, and it serves no other purpose than institutionally silencing the victims of rape.

On the contrary, I think it's affirming the cornerstone of our justice system, which is that the courts will arbitrate. The court hands out a punishment, and as far as possible that is the end of the matter - it's not for the victim to then go handing out his own brand of summary justice. It's easy to have an emotional response and say that all rapists are evil and that their victims deserve to be able to take their revenge (personally, I think the laws on rape tar too many things with the same brush to make that blanket judgement possible), but I think that in this case her punishment was deserved.

To look at it from another angle - what if she'd waited outside the courtroom and beaten them with a cricket bat? I'd say that should be treated exactly the same as any other assault with a cricket bat; she doesn't get special favour before the law for revenge, and quite rightly too. The same applies here, except it's harder for us to see it so rationally.

 

[MobBoss]

If a law is wrong, it needs be broken to draw awareness of the injustice.

Or not.

Do you really think sealing court records in the cases of minors to be wrong? Because that is precisely what the issue is here.

To look at it from another angle - what if she'd waited outside the courtroom and beaten them with a cricket bat? I'd say that should be treated exactly the same as any other assault with a cricket bat; she doesn't get special favour before the law for revenge, and quite rightly too. The same applies here, except it's harder for us to see it so rationally.

Precisely. She still had the moral high ground to beat them didnt she? Possibly, but that doesnt make it right in the eyes of the law.

It occurs to me couldnt she have abided by the court order, but brought civil suit against them if she still felt wronged by them? Why didnt she do that instead of going against the court order?

 

[Gamemaster77]

The thing about civil disobedience is that you need to both be certain that the law needs changing and that you willingly accept the consequences of your having broken a law in order to get it changed.

Yes, I agree you need to be prepared to accept the consequences. I'm just trying to comment on how ridiculous it is when people say "she should get punished because she broke the law". Rather, they should say why they think the law should stand the way it is.

 

[MobBoss]

Yes, I agree you need to be prepared to accept the consequences. I'm just trying to comment on how ridiculous it is when people say "she should get punished because she broke the law". Rather, they should say why they think the law should stand the way it is.

I dont have a problem with courts sealing records when minors are involved. Do you?