What the hell? (16 year old girl drugged, gang-raped, pictures on Facebook)

[Cat Whisperer]

Story here. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/facebook-pictures-help-police-in-alleged-gang-rape-at-bc-rave/article1710072/) I don't even know what to say about this - "socially corrupt" gets close. If the people convicted of this crime are under 18, they'll be charged as Young Offenders, get light sentences, and have their records completely sealed when they turn 18. That isn't right - rape is an adult crime, and if you're old enough to do the crime, you should be old enough to face the consequences, like this young girl is going to have to.

[Freudian Slit]

People were taking pictures and not, say, calling 911? Even if you don't want to intervene in stopping it (that could get dangerous, admittedly) not calling the police is inexcusable.

I'd like to believe that they just didn't know it was rape and thought it was consensual...but if they did know and just didn't care, that's pretty evil.

[Leaper]

If it was a rave, then a lot of the onlookers were probably drunk/stoned off their gourds to begin with.

[mhendo]

If it was a rave, then a lot of the onlookers were probably drunk/stoned off their gourds to begin with.I've been pretty drunk in my life, but i can't imagine being drunk enough to actually watch someone rape a drugged girl.

[elninost0rm]

If it was a rave, then a lot of the onlookers were probably drunk/stoned off their gourds to begin with.I've been pretty drunk in my life, but i can't imagine being drunk enough to actually watch someone rape a drugged girl.

This, although rape could *possibly* be seen as consensual if the observing party was drunk AND the girl was drugged (minimal resistance). That's the only possible way I could see that being feasible.

[Leaper]

Hmm, perhaps I have a distorted view of what being drunk/stoned feels like... I've never been either, so I had no point of reference. Not that I have ANY desire to watch these videos to see for myself...

[elninost0rm]

Hmm, perhaps I have a distorted view of what being drunk/stoned feels like... I've never been either, so I had no point of reference. Not that I have ANY desire to watch these videos to see for myself...

You can't really describe it to a person that's never been in either state.

Judgment starts to go after 4-5 drinks. It takes a nosedive after 10+.

[amanset]

hat isn't right - rape is an adult crime, and if you're old enough to do the crime, you should be old enough to face the consequences, like this young girl is going to have to.

Sorry I just cannot agree. A nasty crime doesn't change the reasons why juveniles are treated differently.

[elninost0rm]

hat isn't right - rape is an adult crime, and if you're old enough to do the crime, you should be old enough to face the consequences, like this young girl is going to have to.

Sorry I just cannot agree. A nasty crime doesn't change the reasons why juveniles are treated differently.


Where do you draw the line? When does one magically understand that rape is an awful thing? 16? 17? 18? When, exactly?

Sorry, I'm with CW on this one.

[Kobal2]

Where do you draw the line? When does one magically understand that rape is an awful thing? 16? 17? 18? When, exactly?

Sorry, I'm with CW on this one.

When does one magically understand that stealing, killing, destroying property, beating people up etc... are awful things ?

Besides, it's not like the validity of consent from drunk/stoned people is a clear line even among adults, as evidenced by some threads on the subject right on this very board.

[elninost0rm]

Where do you draw the line? When does one magically understand that rape is an awful thing? 16? 17? 18? When, exactly?

Sorry, I'm with CW on this one.

When does one magically understand that stealing, killing, destroying property, beating people up etc... are awful things ?

Besides, it's not like the validity of consent from drunk/stoned people is a clear line even among adults, as evidenced by some threads on the subject right on this very board.


Right...I just don't think that juveniles (especially those very near to the age of an adult) should be given such preferential treatment, especially when dealing with something like rape.

Come on. I was probably 12-13 and if you described the act of rape (as impartially as possible), I would be able to absolutely tell you that it is wrong and the person should be punished. If the perp is, say, 17, why should he be punished less severely for this?

[x-ray vision]

Come on. I was probably 12-13 and if you described the act of rape (as impartially as possible), I would be able to absolutely tell you that it is wrong and the person should be punished. If the perp is, say, 17, why should he be punished less severely for this?
What I think are some pretty compelling reasons are given here:

http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf

[Cat Whisperer]

hat isn't right - rape is an adult crime, and if you're old enough to do the crime, you should be old enough to face the consequences, like this young girl is going to have to.

Sorry I just cannot agree. A nasty crime doesn't change the reasons why juveniles are treated differently.
I think in the case of rape it should; this is a crime that truly *can't* be committed by an actual child, not the legal fiction of a child that our judicial system has invented for 17 month 11 years old young adults. It's really sick to think like this, but juveniles *know* that their crimes are treated much less seriously than adults, and in my opinion, it is likely that this played a part in the decision of the young people to behave like they did (both the rape and the taking pictures and posting them).

[elninost0rm]

Come on. I was probably 12-13 and if you described the act of rape (as impartially as possible), I would be able to absolutely tell you that it is wrong and the person should be punished. If the perp is, say, 17, why should he be punished less severely for this?
What I think are some pretty compelling reasons are given here:

http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf

A good list, and I probably don't disagree with most of the things on it.

I think it's just a simple question of when someone should be fully accountable for something like that. When does it "stick" that you should expect to do the time if you commit the crime? There are about a billion shades of gray with this, but I think that they are sometimes TOO lenient.

I think in the case of rape it should; this is a crime that truly *can't* be committed by an actual child, not the legal fiction of a child that our judicial system has invented for 17 month 11 years old young adults. It's really sick to think like this, but juveniles *know* that their crimes are treated much less seriously than adults, and in my opinion, it is likely that this played a part in the decision of the young people to behave like they did (both the rape and the taking pictures and posting them).

Agree.

[x-ray vision]

A good list, and I probably don't disagree with most of the things on it.

I think it's just a simple question of when someone should be fully accountable for something like that.
I don't think it's a simple question. But I do think the link does a good job of answering your question of why someone at the age of 17 is less morally culpable for their actions than those with fully matured brains.

[llcoolbj77]

For your more serious felonies, i.e., murder, rape, and robbery... juveniles as young as 14 can be tried and sentenced as an adult in Virginia. I am a defense attorney who focuses on juvenile justice. And I can tell you that a juvenile charged with forcible rape will almost automatically be certified as an adult in my jurisdiction (14 and older).

Further, when a juvenile is convicted of a crime that would be considered a felony if committed by an adult, (including property crimes) their records do not seal in Virginia. I assume most jurisdictions have similar rules.

For the little things (shoplifting, marijuana, etc...) you better believe that juveniles get a slap on the wrist. And rightfully so, IMHO. But I have a 17yo former client sitting in the adult detention center, awaiting charges where the prosecutors are seeking life (and they will get it). He was the driver in a case where two buddies committed a pretty heinous rape/murder. This kid will get no break.

[elninost0rm]

A good list, and I probably don't disagree with most of the things on it.

I think it's just a simple question of when someone should be fully accountable for something like that.
I don't think it's a simple question. But I do think the link does a good job of answering your question of why someone at the age of 17 is less morally culpable for their actions than those with fully matured brains.

I just contend that 17 is no different than 18. I'm sure there have been more neurological studies than one could possibly count, but I still don't think it absolves them from being tried as an adult for something heinous like rape.

"Fully matured brains"? Do you mean an 18-year old brain?

For your more serious felonies, i.e., murder, rape, and robbery... juveniles as young as 14 can be tried and sentenced as an adult in Virginia. I am a defense attorney who focuses on juvenile justice. And I can tell you that a juvenile charged with forcible rape will almost automatically be certified as an adult in my jurisdiction (14 and older).

Further, when a juvenile is convicted of a crime that would be considered a felony if committed by an adult, (including property crimes) their records do not seal in Virginia. I assume most jurisdictions have similar rules.

For the little things (shoplifting, marijuana, etc...) you better believe that juveniles get a slap on the wrist. And rightfully so, IMHO. But I have a 17yo former client sitting in the adult detention center, awaiting charges where the prosecutors are seeking life (and they will get it). He was the driver in a case where two buddies committed a pretty heinous rape/murder. This kid will get no break.

Yeah I think that's how it should work, more or less. Obviously there is a lot of room for tweaking, but I don't think the current system is right.

[Cat Whisperer]

This is one area where Canada could stand to be more like the US; there was a case recently of a young girl (13 years old) who killed her brother and her parents with the help of her boyfriend (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20070709/mh_murder_070709/). She was convicted of all the murders in the first degree, but as a Young Offender, her record of premeditated murder of her entire family will be sealed when she turns 18; her entire sentence is a maximum of 10 years, of which no more than six can be spent in custody. I understand she's been in intensive psychotherapy since her incarceration, but I think that a person who can kill her entire family is pretty much a defective human being, age irrelevant. On second thought, the psychotherapy is a great idea, to hopefully protect the rest of us from her.

[The Great Sun Jester]

First of all, horrible story in the OP. It sounds like someone had a run-in with some pretty selfish individuals and I sincerely hope she'll be ok down the road. (FTR: in my mind selfishness is one of the most destructive human qualities, so don't think I'm downplaying this behavior as "childish")
I don't think it's a simple question. But I do think the link does a good job of answering your question of why someone at the age of 17 is less morally culpable for their actions than those with fully matured brains.Take that thing right out of here. Ours is a society that craves revenge, not understanding, explanation and correction. If we could find a brain structure that was present in 100% of sociopaths and absent in relatively harmless people, and if we could demonstrate that removing that structure would transform a sociopath into one of the herd 100% of the time, we'd STILL demand harsh treatment of the people with that deformity if they've hurt or killed someone. We'd do that even knowing the deeds were directly related to a physical anomally that could be corrected.

That said, there are far too many people on this planet already if you ask me. That being the case I could probably get behind some draconian program that weeded out the non/counterproductive elements of our species.

[x-ray vision]

I just contend that 17 is no different than 18.
Is 17 different than 16? 16 from 15?

I'm sure there have been more neurological studies than one could possibly count, but I still don't think it absolves them from being tried as an adult for something heinous like rape.
Since you said:

I think it's just a simple question of when someone should be fully accountable for something like that.

Then maybe you could give us the answer?

"Fully matured brains"? Do you mean an 18-year old brain?
No. Take some time to read the article. You asked:

If the perp is, say, 17, why should he be punished less severely for this?

I linked to the article because I think it made a compelling argument why a 17 y.o should be punished less for this.

[elninost0rm]

I just contend that 17 is no different than 18.
Is 17 different than 16? 16 from 15?

It would differ based on the crime. What a previous poster said re: Virginia law would probably be a compelling way to approach the issue. Is 17 years, 11 months, and 25 days different than 18 years, 0 months, 0 days? In our judicial system, it is, but should it be? That's the argument I have.



Since you said:

I think it's just a simple question of when someone should be fully accountable for something like that.

Then maybe you could give us the answer?

I can't give you a specific answer, but I think that there is too large a gap between adult convictions and juvenile convictions in terms of severity. It is impossible to gauge it from an age perspective, but we try our best (hence the age of 18, etc).



"Fully matured brains"? Do you mean an 18-year old brain?
No. Take some time to read the article. You asked:

If the perp is, say, 17, why should he be punished less severely for this?

I linked to the article because I think it made a compelling argument why a 17 y.o should be punished less for this.

Right, and I'm arguing that a 17 year old is not really different than an 18 year old in terms of mental maturity. They are CERTAINLY no different in determining if rape is an appalling crime.

[kidneyfailure]

I'd like to contribute to the ongoing discussion here, but I'm just shocked and appalled by this whole incident. We live in a fucking sick world.

[elninost0rm]

snip

No real need for me to address each of your points.

If you can justify why a person that is 17 years, 11 months, and 25 days old should receive a penalty that is a FRACTION of what a person would receive if they were 2 weeks older, then I will give you that. Of course there are many reasons (neurologically, physically, etc.) why a level of maturity should be used to consider the punishment for a crime, but you have to agree that something isn't right in how it's currently done.

IANAL, or by any means knowledgable of law, but I was under the impression that it is very difficult to try someone as an adult if they aren't due to age. Even then, a firm conviction is harder still.

[x-ray vision]

It would differ based on the crime. What a previous poster said re: Virginia law would probably be a compelling way to approach the issue. Is 17 years, 11 months, and 25 days different than 18 years, 0 months, 0 days? In our judicial system, it is, but should it be? That's the argument I have.
That's not an argument it's a question. Unless you mean you're making the argument that age shouldn't matter. How do you think we should determine when someone is mature enough to buy alcohol, or consent to sex, etc? If not on the day someone turns a specific age, then what?

I can't give you a specific answer, but I think that there is too large a gap between adult convictions and juvenile convictions in terms of severity.
If someone is still at the age where there the parts of the brain that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences and other characteristics that make someone morally culpable still hasn't matured, then I'd argue there should be a large gap in the severity of punishment between him and someone with a fully matured brain.


Right, and I'm arguing that a 17 year old is not really different than an 18 year old in terms of mental maturity.
If you're talking about a 17 y.o. that's going to turn 18 tomorrow, of course. But you do think that one year of aging at that age will make a difference in the physical maturity of the brain and the better judgment that will come along with it, don't you?

Anyway, I wasn't talking about the difference between a 17 y.o. and an 18 y.o. I don't know if 18 should be any cut-off age. But the article I linked to does show that a 17 y.o. brain isn't fully matured, that that doesn't happen until the early 20s, and is lacking in the areas I listed above.


They are CERTAINLY no different in determining if rape is an appalling crime.
There's a difference between a young person being able to determine that something is wrong and having a brain mature enough to be able to not do that wrong thing when caught up in a certain situation. I know you didn't say otherwise, but I wanted to point that out.

[llcoolbj77]

snip

IANAL, or by any means knowledgable of law, but I was under the impression that it is very difficult to try someone as an adult if they aren't due to age. Even then, a firm conviction is harder still.

Nope. Speaking of Virginia law here (but I have no reason to believe that many other jurisdictions would differ widely):

14 and Older:
Murder, Rape, Robbery - Certification as an adult is automatic if requested by the prosecution. The Juvenile Court Judge has no discretion. It will be certified to a grand jury, and the offender will be indicted as an adult. If convicted, it is an adult conviction. The Judge can then sentence the Juvenile as an adult (big boy prison), or remand the case for sentencing in the Juvenile Court. In these cases, the Juvenile is committed to our department of Juvenile Justice (kid prison - but still prison) not to exceed their 21st birthday. Judges can also split the baby and sentence a juvenile to a portion of time in kid prison, and a portion of time in adult prison. But the conviction is an adult conviction... never to be expunged (unless overturned on appeal, obviously).

Other serious felonies (B&E, involuntary manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated sexual battery) - Prosecutors can request certification, and there is a hearing on the merits. Issues to be considered are the Juvenile's age (14 vs. 17 and 11 months), prior history, severity of crime, effect on victims/community, psychological factors, etc.... Punishment is similar to the above, depending on whether or not the offender was certified. If they are not certified, but still convicted... they can still be sentenced to kid prison, but it is for an indeterminite time frame. And their record will NOT seal.

[x-ray vision]

If you can justify why a person that is 17 years, 11 months, and 25 days old should receive a penalty that is a FRACTION of what a person would receive if they were 2 weeks older, then I will give you that.
I probably can't do it any better than you did:

It is impossible to gauge it from an age perspective, but we try our best (hence the age of 18, etc).

[elninost0rm]

If you can justify why a person that is 17 years, 11 months, and 25 days old should receive a penalty that is a FRACTION of what a person would receive if they were 2 weeks older, then I will give you that.
I probably can't do it any better than you did:

It is impossible to gauge it from an age perspective, but we try our best (hence the age of 18, etc).

Okay, so I will reform my argument:

The penalties involved should not create such an enormous disparity. Take the example given above regarding the Canadian girl that murdered (or at least helped murder) her entire family.

Do you think it's FAIR that this girl will be able to reassimilate into society in ~10 years after committing 1st degree murder? I don't, but that's where our opinions differ, I think.

Nope. Speaking of Virginia law here (but I have no reason to believe that many other jurisdictions would differ widely):

14 and Older:
Murder, Rape, Robbery - Certification as an adult is automatic if requested by the prosecution. The Juvenile Court Judge has no discretion. It will be certified to a grand jury, and the offender will be indicted as an adult. If convicted, it is an adult conviction. The Judge can then sentence the Juvenile as an adult (big boy prison), or remand the case for sentencing in the Juvenile Court. In these cases, the Juvenile is committed to our department of Juvenile Justice (kid prison - but still prison) not to exceed their 21st birthday. Judges can also split the baby and sentence a juvenile to a portion of time in kid prison, and a portion of time in adult prison. But the conviction is an adult conviction... never to be expunged (unless overturned on appeal, obviously).

Other serious felonies (B&E, involuntary manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated sexual battery) - Prosecutors can request certification, and there is a hearing on the merits. Issues to be considered are the Juvenile's age (14 vs. 17 and 11 months), prior history, severity of crime, effect on victims/community, psychological factors, etc.... Punishment is similar to the above, depending on whether or not the offender was certified. If they are not certified, but still convicted... they can still be sentenced to kid prison, but it is for an indeterminite time frame. And their record will NOT seal.

Sounds good to me, then.

There's a difference between a young person being able to determine that something is wrong and having a brain mature enough to be able to not do that wrong thing when caught up in a certain situation. I know you didn't say otherwise, but I wanted to point that out.

Eh, really? "Whoops, tripped and fell..Gah! Didn't notice my penis inside you...What do I do?! Let's keep going".

Anyone that gets "caught up" in a situation either knows full-well that it is wrong (morally and legally) OR is mentally disturbed. No 17 year old should be unable to determine that.

[elninost0rm]

To clarify:

Anyone that gets "caught up" in a RAPE situation either knows full-well that it is wrong (morally and legally) OR is mentally disturbed. No 17 year old should be unable to determine that.

[The Flying Dutchman]

What is really bugging my ass most by this whole trajedy is the flippant refusal by those to take down the pictures or keep reposting while all the police can do is beg.

[elninost0rm]

What is really bugging my ass most by this whole trajedy is the flippant refusal by those to take down the pictures or keep reposting while all the police can do is beg.

That's the interwebs for you.

Not that it in any way vindicates the fucks doing that.

[Gustav]

If you're going to use judgment and common sense when a 17 year old commits a horrible crime and try him as an adult, then it seems the converse should go as well. If an 18-year-and-one-week old gets caught for a relatively harmless offense, like drugs or stealing, it should be possible to say "it's not like he magically becomes an adult the week he turns 18", and charge him as a minor. I have a pretty strong feeling they don't, though...

[kidneyfailure]

What is really bugging my ass most by this whole trajedy is the flippant refusal by those to take down the pictures or keep reposting while all the police can do is beg.

I noticed that in the article, as well. Interestingly enough, these photos were called "child porn" in that article at least once, but they can't bust the people who wont delete the photos on child porn charges? Seems odd to me.

[Freudian Slit]

I can't believe that they even have to invoke child porn. I mean, even if she wasn't a child, it would still be the worst kind of thing to keep them up. It's pictures of someone being brutally raped. How anyone could post those and live with themselves is beyond me.

[Cicero]

Well this is where I have some difficulty with all jurisdictions that I know of- if a crime is perpetrated why do "special circumstances " really appear.

If I was a 13 year old girl and got raped- would I care if the person who did it was under age?

The crime was still committed.

Ed Gein- he may have had a mother fixation- he murdered a few people. Those poor people are still dead. So he is housed and looked after for about 30 years but he was still a fruit cake.

[llcoolbj77]

If you're going to use judgment and common sense when a 17 year old commits a horrible crime and try him as an adult, then it seems the converse should go as well. If an 18-year-and-one-week old gets caught for a relatively harmless offense, like drugs or stealing, it should be possible to say "it's not like he magically becomes an adult the week he turns 18", and charge him as a minor. I have a pretty strong feeling they don't, though...

You're right, Gustav. Our legal system has drawn the line at 18.

For a lot of minor charges, however, most adults will get a slap-on-the-wrist punishment for first offenses as well. For a first time drug offense, for example, an adult can have the conviction dismissed if (s)he completes treatment, community service, and has no additional charges for a determined period of time.

I think the most important distinction between how we treat juveniles and adults in the system is the emphasis on punishment vs. rehabilitation. The focus on rehabilitation in the juvenile system is paramount. As a result, recidivism rates tend to be much lower... ((This is my anecdotal experience. In my county, our juvenile recidivism rate is about 4-6%, which is the second lowest in the State)). :)

[Una Persson]

Come on. I was probably 12-13 and if you described the act of rape (as impartially as possible), I would be able to absolutely tell you that it is wrong and the person should be punished. If the perp is, say, 17, why should he be punished less severely for this?
What I think are some pretty compelling reasons are given here:

http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf
I don't find that in the least bit compelling, and I have actually done research on this subject. IMO a violent crime should almost never be stricken from a teenager's record.

I was the victim of a violent crime from a kid who was 17 years and 360 days old. I find it abominable that 5 days meant the difference between him having an adult felony record versus being wiped clean. It's completely indefensible, in fact - he was a violent drug-dealing thug who attacked me, and all the hand-wringing over brains not being fully mature is bullshit. He was mature enough to drive a car, have multiple crimes under his belt, run his own drug-dealing enterprise...and yet still not mature, huh? Really, now.

In fact, until we can quantifiably set a metric for brain maturity the argument for giving violent teens a second, third, fourth, etc. chance is meaningless. If we want to ride that brain maturity horse, then we should also ban driving, having a bank account, and many other items before 18 as well.

[matt_mcl]

For a lot of minor charges, however, most adults will get a slap-on-the-wrist punishment for first offenses as well. For a first time drug offense, for example, an adult can have the conviction dismissed if (s)he completes treatment, community service, and has no additional charges for a determined period of time.

Quite so; in Canada we have the "conditional discharge," in which the court can impose various conditions, but if they are met, the person will be deemed never to have been convicted, will have no criminal record, and will have their police record purged after three years. (If the person violates the conditions, they may be returned to court and re-sentenced for the original crime.)

[Palooka]

In fact, until we can quantifiably set a metric for brain maturity the argument for giving violent teens a second, third, fourth, etc. chance is meaningless. If we want to ride that brain maturity horse, then we should also ban driving, having a bank account, and many other items before 18 as well.Why would those activities, which are obviously quite different from criminal acts, need to be the same age as criminal acts?

[Spoons]

The event took place in Canada. As such, and very generally speaking, for any participants, the Criminal Code of Canada (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/) (CC) would apply; and if those participants were 18 or older, the CC's prosecution and sentencing provisions would also apply. However, any accuseds under the age of 18 would fall under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Y-1.5/index.html) (YCJA). It is important to understand that the CC and the YCJA work together, in the sense that the CC contains all possible charges that can be laid against anybody of any age, but the YCJA determines how those charges are prosecuted and sentences determined when the accused is under 18.

Turning to the CC first, we see that under s. 271, the Crown can elect to prosecute a charge of sexual assault (the term used by the CC instead of "rape") in a couple of different ways. I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to how the Crown would elect to proceed, as age and past offenses may play a role in the Crown's election decision, and various age-related defenses may be advanced by the accuseds under CC ss. 150.1 through 153. It should also be noted that some of the possible charges under CC ss. 150.1 through 153 might be able to be laid also, in place of (or perhaps alongside of) CC s. 271. There are also probably charges possible against those who posted photos on Facebook under CC s. 163.1 (child pornography).

The YCJA is a different beast altogether. Its primary purpose is to ensure that youth can be prosecuted for crimes, but in a slightly different way than adults. Ideally, the YCJA allows youth criminals (aside to Cat Whisperer: the term "young offenders" is no longer used officially) to be prosecuted for crimes committed under the CC, but with the possibility of having their records wiped by the time they hit 18. This does not necessarily occur, however; see YCJA ss. 61 through 81 as regards prosecuting youth as adults for presumptive offenses (defined at s. 2(1) of the YCJA), which some of the CC charges might be.

Note that if drugs were involved, there might even be charges possible under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-38.8/) (CDSA). Unfortunately, the news story was sketchy on the drug angle and I have to get to a few things today, so I won't discuss the CDSA and its schedules right now.

Again, and honestly, I have no idea how this will all shake out, but I thought it worthwhile to take a fast look (key word: fast; unfortunately, I don't have the time nor the information to analyze this fully) at the legislation that will govern the array of charges that can stem from this event, and also to provide links to the applicable legislation. I should add that while I am very familiar with the CC, I never dealt with youth crime, so my knowledge of the YCJA isn't what it could be and I might be missing something in it. And, we only have the linked news story to rely on for facts--there may be something in facts not reported in the news item that could give rise to entirely different CC or CDSA charges and YCJA provisions. But I hope this all aids the discussion somehow.

[Una Persson]

In fact, until we can quantifiably set a metric for brain maturity the argument for giving violent teens a second, third, fourth, etc. chance is meaningless. If we want to ride that brain maturity horse, then we should also ban driving, having a bank account, and many other items before 18 as well.Why would those activities, which are obviously quite different from criminal acts, need to be the same age as criminal acts?
Click on the link - it's a report highlighted by the ABA arguing for a stance that peak mental maturity does not occur until the early 20's, and therefore this says that teenagers shouldn't be treated as adults. Since driving and managing your finances are also activities which could have serious and significant impacts to yourself and others, and which require significant mental maturity, I fail to see why one would give them more leeway.

At a bare minimum the age of majority for criminal acts should be pushed back to 16, IMO.

[TriPolar]

At a bare minimum the age of majority for criminal acts should be pushed back to 16, IMO.

Absolutely

[Cat Whisperer]

I've been thinking about this a little more today (spent the day photocopying - lots of good cogitating time), and while I think it's great in theory that we try to rehabilitate young criminals rather than get revenge on them, and I get that their brains aren't as mature as that of a 30 year old, but that doesn't change the effects that young criminals have on their victims and the society we're living in. I overheard some young guys talking on the bus one day; one was telling the other that he was turning 18 soon, and he'd have to stop doing crimes now. They bloody well know what they're doing is wrong; there's just no particular incentive to stop them from doing it. That's the downside of our approach to young criminals; it's all about protecting and helping the criminals, and the consequences of their actions seem to be overlooked. That isn't as big a deal when they're wrecking bus shelters and stealing everything that isn't nailed down (but it certainly makes my city a lousier place to live), but when you start talking about crimes that have serious consequences for the victims, it seems like young criminals get off very lightly for the amount of damage they cause.

[amanset]

Sorry I just cannot agree. A nasty crime doesn't change the reasons why juveniles are treated differently.
I think in the case of rape it should; this is a crime that truly *can't* be committed by an actual child, not the legal fiction of a child that our judicial system has invented for 17 month 11 years old young adults. It's really sick to think like this, but juveniles *know* that their crimes are treated much less seriously than adults, and in my opinion, it is likely that this played a part in the decision of the young people to behave like they did (both the rape and the taking pictures and posting them).

I think you need to differentiate between someone that is physically a child and someone that is mentally a child. Elevn and twelve year olds are having sex. That means they can force sex on other. Yet they are still children.

We draw a line somewhat arbitrarily as there needs to be a line somewhere for the law to work. The same way we decide when people can drive and drink alcohol.quite simply it may not be perfect but it is the best method we've got.

[marshmallow]

So do teenage rapists and murderers clean up their act once they reach their mid 20s? The percentage of teenagers who are that sick and socially maladjusted is pretty small, so excuse me for believing it's not a "growing up" issue. Partying too much, not taking school seriously, being an ass, hanging with a bad crowd -- sure, those are growing up issues that are fairly common. Gangrape?

[amanset]

What I think are some pretty compelling reasons are given here:

http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf
I don't find that in the least bit compelling, and I have actually done research on this subject. IMO a violent crime should almost never be stricken from a teenager's record.

I was the victim of a violent crime from a kid who was 17 years and 360 days old. I find it abominable that 5 days meant the difference between him having an adult felony record versus being wiped clean. It's completely indefensible, in fact - he was a violent drug-dealing thug who attacked me, and all the hand-wringing over brains not being fully mature is bullshit. He was mature enough to drive a car, have multiple crimes under his belt, run his own drug-dealing enterprise...and yet still not mature, huh? Really, now.

In fact, until we can quantifiably set a metric for brain maturity the argument for giving violent teens a second, third, fourth, etc. chance is meaningless. If we want to ride that brain maturity horse, then we should also ban driving, having a bank account, and many other items before 18 as well.

At one point do you think he should be treated as a child and why? 17? 16? 15? 7?

It is uncomfortable, but we have to draw a line somewhere and stick to it for the law to work.

[amanset]

So do teenage rapists and murderers clean up their act once they reach their mid 20s? The percentage of teenagers who are that sick and socially maladjusted is pretty small, so excuse me for believing it's not a "growing up" issue. Partying, not taking school seriously, being an ass -- sure, those are growing up issues. Gangrape?

It seems to me that you are saying no one can clean up their act. May as well give life sentences for everything and anything.

[lavenderviolet]

So do teenage rapists and murderers clean up their act once they reach their mid 20s? The percentage of teenagers who are that sick and socially maladjusted is pretty small, so excuse me for believing it's not a "growing up" issue. Partying too much, not taking school seriously, being an ass, hanging with a bad crowd -- sure, those are growing up issues that are fairly common. Gangrape?

I'm guessing that most of them grow up into adults with Anti-Social Personality Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder).
There are many people out there who just don't get that there are predators among us who really don't have normal human emotions such as empathy or compassion and will only fake having such feelings as a manipulation tool.
In most cases, these kinds of people are the product of a terrible home environment, and that's very sad, but the reality is that some people are so broken that you can't fix them (at least not with our current understanding of antisocial personality disorder). No therapy can teach someone to have a conscience or to care about other people's rights if they just don't have that capacity. For me, the issue isn't wanting revenge/punishment - I just think we need to protect ourselves from the predators out there by keeping them away from people they can hurt.

[Una Persson]

At one point do you think he should be treated as a child and why? 17? 16? 15? 7?

It is uncomfortable, but we have to draw a line somewhere and stick to it for the law to work.
First, I posted 16 up above.

Second, in my post to you I was talking about criminal records being wiped clean, not punishment. I think for a violent crime, those records should never be wiped. Treat a 12 year-old murderer as they currently are under the current law, but I see no compelling reason why that crime has to be hidden. It should also be used to deny them the right to possess a firearm, too, and I say that as one of the most pro-2nd supporters on this message board.

[BayouHazard]

I find this most disturbing.

Personally, I hope the *least* that happens to anyone found to have knowingly downloaded images of this crime is their computer gets seized, wiped, and donated to a women's crisis center.

Let the punishment fit the crime in that particular case.

[BayouHazard]

Hmmm...

I'm going to extrapolate from another social context-and maybe unwarrantedly so.
Gang rape, in which a girl is drugged and raped by a large contigent of frat boys at a frat party, is something that is a semi-common affair in the U.S. One of the frat members will find a girl who's perhaps a bit of a social outcast, bring her to the party, and, well, get her drunk, with or without the benefit of a date rape drug(which is just a new technological advance on alcohol). When she passes out upstairs, the frat boys line up.

These are big opportunities for them to prove their masculinity to one another and to bond with each other. While *some* of the males present at one of these things probably are sociopaths of some sort or another, I think that most people underestimate how much being part of a group reduces feelings of culpability and removes inhibitions.

I suspect that's exactly what was going on here. When you(or I) are in a group, there's a perceived reduction of responsibility. If the people at the rave, later on in life, and sober, came upon a woman being assaulted and screaming for help; I suspect their response would be to either try and stop the attack, or to at least call the police.

I wish more people knew about this-it's one of the first things we learned in my social psychology class-the more people present, the less perceived responsibility by any one person.
Y'all remember that..because now that I have told you this... you need to determine to be that one person who steps up and accepts responsibility.

You see something that doesn't look right, join me in being the PITA who checks it out, the busybody who says that crap doesn't fly here. You see someone in trouble, DO SOMETHING!

YOU may be the one person in the position to stop something horrible from happening or continuing. DO IT!

Make the world a better place.

(This public service announcement brought to you by one cranky aging dyke with lots of crap to do.)

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

This is one area where Canada could stand to be more like the US; there was a case recently of a young girl (13 years old) who killed her brother and her parents with the help of her boyfriend (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20070709/mh_murder_070709/). She was convicted of all the murders in the first degree, but as a Young Offender, her record of premeditated murder of her entire family will be sealed when she turns 18; her entire sentence is a maximum of 10 years, of which no more than six can be spent in custody. I understand she's been in intensive psychotherapy since her incarceration, but I think that a person who can kill her entire family is pretty much a defective human being, age irrelevant. On second thought, the psychotherapy is a great idea, to hopefully protect the rest of us from her.
I can't agree with the idea that Canada should be more like the US in terms of criminal justice. In fact, I find the current move toward harsher sentences really disturbing; it risks destroying one of the things I like about my country. There are no major crime problems here, I've never felt unsafe, and I feel that the emphasis on rehabilitation, especially of youth criminals (thanks Spoons) is largely responsible for how safe we are. So this new, tougher stance on crime comes completely out of left field to me; I think it's largely a scheme used by the current government to motivate their political base, and the more they succeed in putting it into policy, the less safe we will be. Or at least we will imprison for life people who could be productive members of society but happened to make a mistake.

What I feel we need is not tougher minimum sentences and less use of suspended sentences and parole, but rather more discretion for judges to impose sentences that fit the crime and the offender. People need to realize that "criminals" are not a different race that preys on normal people and must be separated from society forever, but often people like everyone else who made a mistake but can be readmitted into society after a time. But people are increasingly afraid, and they want to feel "safe", not to be presented with a solution that may actually work but sounds "weak".

Not to say that the current event is not a horrible crime, of course, but I tend to agree with BayouHazard's interpretation. Of course, we shouldn't decide policy based on isolated cases, but on hard facts. But when the government refuses to accept facts that contradict their ideology, such as the fact that crime rates are down (seriously, they said this statistic was wrong because supposedly "unreported crime" is up, however they manage to know that), I start weeping for what's happening with this country.

So do teenage rapists and murderers clean up their act once they reach their mid 20s?
Aren't most murderers first-time (and only-time) offenders? Rapists are probably different, although once again it depends on the specific offense and offender.

[BayouHazard]

...I find the current move toward harsher sentences really disturbing; it risks destroying one of the things I like about my country. There are no major crime problems here, I've never felt unsafe, and I feel that the emphasis on rehabilitation, especially of youth criminals (thanks Spoons) is largely responsible for how safe we are.
What I feel we need is not tougher minimum sentences and less use of suspended sentences and parole, but rather more discretion for judges to impose sentences that fit the crime and the offender. People need to realize that "criminals" are not a different race that preys on normal people and must be separated from society forever, but often people like everyone else who made a mistake but can be readmitted into society after a time.



Harsh sentencing turns the majority of criminals into hardened criminals-that is, it makes them worse, at least on this side of the border. Needlessly, in many cases. There are a small subset of people who are, well, just going to be predators, though, and it's hard to figure out who those are and respond appropriately. Our (U.S.) solution seems to be to treat most offenders, including nonviolent drug offenders, as if they are hopeless predators...
Prison is an environment of brutality. It is allowed to be. It should not be allowed to be. It should be unpleasant, yes, but prisoners should not be allowed to be brutalized by other prisoners or guards. Opportunities to improve oneself should be provided-the idea being that anything that turns a criminal into a good taxpayer is a good thing, even if it means (gasp!) spending money on jailbirds.
Prison as it is now is an environment where you become more psychologically damaged...and learn how to be more of a threat to others from other prisoners fairly often.

Prison culture-in which one is sorted into a hierarchy of victims and victimizers-is trickling out into the broader U.S. society, IMO. I think this is a Really Bad Thing.

Add in the fact that a convicted felon can barely get a job at the best of times-and you've created a permanent criminal underclass.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

There are a small subset of people who are, well, just going to be predators, though, and it's hard to figure out who those are and respond appropriately.
Oh yes, of course. Some people do need to be separated from society forever. But a good number of people who commit crimes, even serious ones, can be brought back into society.

Prison is an environment of brutality. It is allowed to be. It should not be allowed to be. It should be unpleasant, yes, but prisoners should not be allowed to be brutalized by other prisoners or guards.
This is what really scares me about US prison. The fact that it is brutal, and people seem to think it is a good thing. Even on this board I've seen the wish that such-and-such offender be raped in prison. Even non-violent ones: as an example, I've seen people gloating over the fact that Bernie Madoff (who certainly did something bad and should be punished, no doubt about it) would be sent to "pound-me-in-the-ass prison" and not "club fed". I don't get it and I find it disgusting.

Opportunities to improve oneself should be provided-the idea being that anything that turns a criminal into a good taxpayer is a good thing, even if it means (gasp!) spending money on jailbirds.
It's likely to be a good investment in the long run, but prisoners are probably the less popular group in our societies. Anything that is perceived as "pampering" them is going to be opposed.

ETA:
Add in the fact that a convicted felon can barely get a job at the best of times-and you've created a permanent criminal underclass.
Yes. One reason why I hope we don't import the sex offender laws that are so common in the US. (As I understand it there is a sex offender registry in Canada, but it's not open for everyone to see, people are not obligated to divulge that they are on it, they don't stay on it for their entire lives, and usually cities don't have these extremely restrictive laws aimed at having no convicted sex offender live legally on their territory.)

[RTFirefly]

When you(or I) are in a group, there's a perceived reduction of responsibility. If the people at the rave, later on in life, and sober, came upon a woman being assaulted and screaming for help; I suspect their response would be to either try and stop the attack, or to at least call the police.

I wish more people knew about this-it's one of the first things we learned in my social psychology class-the more people present, the less perceived responsibility by any one person.
Y'all remember that..because now that I have told you this... you need to determine to be that one person who steps up and accepts responsibility.The thing that gets me when I hear about this sort of thing nowadays is, it's easier than ever to call the cops without anyone knowing you did so. Pretty much everyone under 60 carries a cell phone these days, so all you have to do is step into the broom closet and call 911.

Hell, you could probably call 911 from right there in the room and manage your end of the conversation to make it sound like you were telling a buddy all about it, urging him to come over and join the fun. Nobody would blink an eye.

[Cat Whisperer]

You make an excellent point, BayouHazard. I can see the perceived individual responsibility going down like you said in a group like that. I can also see teenagers being more reluctant than ever to go against the group - in my opinion, teenagers are more friend and social focused than they've ever been.

I don't have too big a problem with harsher sentences and crappy prisons - you guys seem to be forgetting that the threat of going to prison is supposed to be a deterrent as well. It's not *supposed* to be a getaway at a country club - it's supposed to be something you avoid.

Hypnagogic Jerk, I don't actually live in fear, and I am aware that many types of crime have gone down, but I don't think the favourite crimes of young criminals (theft, vandalism, break-ins) have gone down, because they keep happening to me. Doing a bit of research, I see that I might be having a different experience than other people because living in Alberta does make us more of a target. (http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/columnists/frank_landry/2010/07/09/14666481.html) I'm sick to death of kids wrecking everything they can get their hands on here; I can't leave anything in my front yard because it will get stolen or broken; I'm thinking about putting a lock on the gate to my back yard to protect the stuff in there. We don't live in a bad neighbourhood.

[Snifit]

There was an article in my newspaper this morning saying that two of the girls' friends have come forward, denouncing the claims of rape. They say she likely came up with the story after the pictures of the incident became public, trying to save face. The father called this possibility "stupid".

[Palooka]

Sounds like another case where we don't get to find out who is actually the victim until after the trial.

[Cat Whisperer]

There's two things that could have happened here; either the friends are telling the truth, or they aren't friends, but rather girls who want to get their names in the news. At any rate, someone is telling an extremely nasty lie here.

The people who watched, took pictures, and posted them are all still pretty scummy, in my opinion.

[Freudian Slit]

Sounds like another case where we don't get to find out who is actually the victim until after the trial.

Why would we find out who she is even after the trial? Rape victims are (usually) protected.

ETA: Just read Snifit's post--are you saying that if the guys are found not guilty, we can find out who she is? Because even if they are, it doesn't automatically mean the victim is lying. Just that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

[FloatyGimpy]

Sounds like another case where we don't get to find out who is actually the victim until after the trial.

Why would we find out who she is even after the trial? Rape victims are (usually) protected.

If the victim is the accuser or the accused.

[Snifit]

Hmm--it looks like the article I read has been altered in the online version (http://www.nationalpost.com/Girl+father+angered+peers+dismissal+gang+rape+allegations/3544960/story.html).
The online version says:
Yet, the alleged gang rape of a 16-year-old girl at a techno music-infused rave party — and the viral distribution of photographs of the incident in cyberspace — drew surprisingly strident dismissals from some of the girl’s peers on Friday, with some saying the girl made up the rape story after pictures were posted on the web.

Having the dismissals come from 'peers' rather than 'friends', as in the print article, makes it less likely the dismissals are true, I think. The online version comes off as if it's gossip going around her school, whereas the print version made it seem a couple of her friends had a good idea of what was going on.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Doing a bit of research, I see that I might be having a different experience than other people because living in Alberta does make us more of a target. (http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/columnists/frank_landry/2010/07/09/14666481.html)
I didn't know that Alberta's crime rates were higher than the Canadian mean (and that much higher for that matter). I can't say for sure why that is, though the explanation favoured in that article ("we're richer so we attract outside criminals looking for a quick buck") doesn't ring true at all to me. And it wouldn't explain the petty vandalism you're complaining of.

[The Flying Dutchman]

The people who watched, took pictures, and posted them are all still pretty scummy, in my opinion.

I'll go further than that. I's like to wring their little necks. If it was my daughter who posted such, I'd wring her neck too.

Franky, I've heard about gang banging since I was a teenager 45 years ago. The assumption among us teenagers always was that it was with consent. She wanted it. There was a rumour that one of my sister's was gang banged . She is 10 years younger than me. I did approach her with the allegation and I was simply shut down without any further discussion. That was was 30 years ago and nothing since would suggest that she was some sort of nymphomaniac.

Whether the rumour is true or not, whether she was drunk or not, the fact remains that any boy who would participate in such an event is simply scum. If it was my son, I would take him behind the woodshed and make his ass bleed.

If he posted it on the internet, I'd wring his neck before I'd make him bleed.

God, I'm pissed off !

[The Flying Dutchman]

Doing a bit of research, I see that I might be having a different experience than other people because living in Alberta does make us more of a target. (http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/columnists/frank_landry/2010/07/09/14666481.html)
I didn't know that Alberta's crime rates were higher than the Canadian mean (and that much higher for that matter). I can't say for sure why that is, though the explanation favoured in that article ("we're richer so we attract outside criminals looking for a quick buck") doesn't ring true at all to me. And it wouldn't explain the petty vandalism you're complaining of.

Communities with some sense of long term stability in their population are far more likely to provide deterence to crime. I would expect, and you can prove me wrong if you wish, that the smaller cities and towns of Quebec experience far less crime than Montreal.

Alberta attracts people from all over the country, either young people who see no oversight from known elders or kids who do not connect their parent's values with the loosey goosey culture of a society in flux.

[Gatopescado]

A bunch more reasons to hate Canada.

[Muffin]

If a miscreant is over 14, the Crown can ask to have an “adult” sentence made, and the judge will decide whether or not to do so (YCJA s. 62(b) (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Y-1.5/page-4.html#codese:62) combined with s. 72(1)(b) (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Y-1.5/page-4.html#codese:72)). (There are also provisions for the most serious of crimes to presumptively attract an “adult” sentence.) So don’t worry about near-adults skating simply by virtue of their being a little under-age. It doesn’t work that way.

IMHO, the YCJA falls down in two places.

1. The first is that the YCJA is based on there being adequate child welfare services, including social work, psychological, and psychiatric services, available to help the miscreant get his life straightened out. Often these services are not funded to the degree necessary to make them available to the degree that they are needed. Without the adequate provision of services to make alternative sentencing successful, the law is sometimes toothless. As it stands, the sentencing provisions of the YCJA are good at keeping directionless youths from receiving real jail time for minor matters. This is good, for the last thing that we need is for directionless youths to develop in the wrong direction, which is a probability if they spend much of their teenage years behind bars. Where the sentencing provisions of the YCJA fall down is that is presumes that adequate resources will be in place to properly deal with youths who receive non-custodial sentences, but often these resources are not in place.

This is where one comes across young miscreants who know that if they stick to minor offences, they will only receive a slap on the wrist without significant jail time – essentially a badge of honour for them to brag about, rather than be required to participate in a custom tailored series of treatments, programs, and close supervision that might help them mend their ways.

2. The second is that the rules limiting disclosure of a miscreant’s youth criminal record sometimes stand in the way of letting the Court receive a full depiction of the miscreant’s past. The sections that deal with this are very complicated (which in itself is a problem), but in general, the YCJA has various restriction on when a miscreant’s youth criminal record may or may not be disclosed. Usually, the record will be buried after a few years, but there are provisions to dredge up the youth criminal record if the miscreant commits a serious crime as an adult within a few years of having committed a crime as a youth (e.g. s. 120(6) (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Y-1.5/page-5.html#codese:120-ss:_6_) combined with s. 120 (3) (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Y-1.5/page-5.html#codese:120-ss:_3_)), following which the youth criminal record will no longer be buried.

On its face, this sounds good. For repeat youth miscreants, the Court sees the full record. For repeat adult miscreants, the Court sees the full record if the matter was a serious one and took place within a few years of the offence committed when the miscreant was a youth. Miscreants who actually grow up and become good citizens do not wear a scarlet letter earned when they were young and stupid.

On a deeper level, however, there are problems with preventing youth criminal records from being disclosed when criminal law comes in conflict with family law.

In family law, no one gives a crap about the adults. Everything comes down to what is in the best interest of the child. Sometimes it is in the best interest of the child to know the full criminal record of the adult, including the criminal record of that adult when that adult was a youth. One runs into the problem of the adult miscreant’s youth criminal record being protected from disclosure to the detriment of the best interests of a child who is still a child. I think that this part of the YCJA needs to be cleaned up.

Here is an example. A couple of welfare bums had a baby. The baby was taken in by the maternal grandparents and ignored by the bio-dad despite efforts by the grandparents and by social services to involve him. After five years, the bio-dad hooked up with another welfare bum who wanted children, so he sued for custody. When he was 14 he had been convicted for buggering a couple of children. When he sued for custody, he was in his early 20s. I submitted that bio-dad’s youth criminal record was relevant in deciding if he should have custody, and the Court agreed, however, given the timing of the events in this scenario, the YCJA prevented such disclosure.

Here is another example along the same lines. In Ontario (a province of Canada, and subject to the YCJA), all the parties seeking custody or access must disclose their criminal records to the Court (Family Law Rules r. 35.1 (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_990114_e.htm#s35p1s1) via associated Form 35.1 (http://www.ontariocourtforms.on.ca/forms/family/35.1/FLR-35-1-Nov09-EN.pdf)). I have asked a couple of Family Court Judges how a person who’s YCJA record cannot be disclosed should answer the question: “I have been found guilty of the following criminal offence(s) for which I have not received a pardon,” and I have also asked how a youth should answer the question “I am now charged with the following criminal offence(s).” The local judges are kicking this around. The policy wonks that I spoke with in the Attorney General’s office down in Toronto are kicking it around. As it stands, I expect that because it is a conflict of law issue, the federal YCJA will trump the provincial Family Law Rules.

Similarly, there is a conflict between the YCJA and the FLR’s r. 35.1(3) (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_990114_e.htm#s35p1s3) when it comes to police record searches. If a person seeking custody or access is not a parent (for example, a grandparent or other relative, or a previous foster parent, or just plain old Jack the Diddler down the street), that applicant must have the police disclose to the court his or her criminal record. Again, there is a conflict between the YCJA and the FLR.

I truly hope that I am mistaken in my belief that the federal YCJA trumps the provincial FLR when it comes to youth criminal record disclosure, for if I am correct, then the system is protecting miscreants from having their youth criminal records disclosed at the expense of the best interests of children who may be subject to abuse by such persons.

The obvious solution is for the YCJA to be amended so that it does not put the interests of adults seeking custody or access ahead of children who’s custody or access is being decided potentially in favour of the applicant with the hidden youth criminal record.

[Muffin]

A while back, I defended a young fellow who was up on sexual assault charges for raping an unconscious older woman at a party of youths. In my conversations with the Crown Prosecutor, I was told that in certain communities, such as impoverished aboriginal communities, this was a very common problem. In fact, it was such a common problem that it had developed a colloquial term: sleeping beauty rape.

Over the years, I have spoken to many people from such communities about the problem -- ranging from discussions with elders to listening to women (very many women) who have been raped at parties while they were drunk. What it comes down to is that in some communities, it is simply the way things are. Youth (and adults) have a pattern of regular binge drinking at house parties, at which it is quite common to have sex. Unfortunately, when a group of very drunk people have sex, often not all of the people want to have sex, thus the problem of rape. (Why some women repeatedly attend such parties and repeatedly get raped while drunk is simply a result of the cultural tradition of binge drinking in some communities. When binge drinking is what one normally does with one's peers in one's community, to not binge drink is to isolate one's self from one's society.)

What is the solution? Stop the cultural tradition of binge drinking. How can that be done? Aside from trying to educate youth as to how to live as civilized human beings and treat all people, including women, with respect, the underlying problems of economic and social impoverishment must be met. That is not easy to do, and will take many years.

When a group of youths from non-impoverished communities act this way (e.g. group rapes at raves or frat parties), it makes the news, for it is not the usual course of events. What usually does not make the news is the staggering normalcy of sleeping beauty rapes in certain impoverished communities, such as impoverished aboriginal communities. The problem is very severe, and is tremendously harming a great many aboriginal women.

[Muffin]

If it was my son, I would take him behind the woodshed and make his ass bleed.You'd anally rape your own son? I don't know if that would help.

[Cat Whisperer]

Good information, Muffin. The YCJA still doesn't seem to address the victimization of adults by juveniles, but one step at a time, I guess.