And yet…
I think that admission makes it obvious it is speculation and is a way of soliciting other opinions. Thinking out loud as it were in the hopes others would point out flaws or offer other alternatives or whatever…
Fair enough. My equally unsupported guess is that there is no (or limited) proof that the defendants actually took the pictures, and the victim did not immediately report the rape (possibly, was not even aware of it until she saw the pictures) so there is no DNA evidence. My better supported guess is that budget cuts in the Kentucky state attorney’s office have forced it to offer plea deals even when there is ample evidence of guilt.
Maybe you can’t, but that doesn’t mean that the availability of legal alternatives has no bearing at all on the ethical angle.
Myself, I think it does. As you say, “we have good laws, bad laws, stupid laws, and rarely unethical laws”. However, the purpose of the law is not to define ethical standards (though the goal is to reflect them). Rather, the law is a social compact. If everyone just acts on whatever their own personal ethical guidelines are in every instance, what you get is complete anarchy and everyone is worse off. So society sets laws in place to establish some general adherence to some commonly held standards.
That doesn’t mean that some laws don’t fail in this regard, and are in fact stupid or unethical. But it does mean that there is a price to pay for breaking the law, in that you weaken the social compact that holds back the anarchy.
But that’s just a consideration. Sometimes the law is so unethical that it needs to be broken anyway. But if there’s a legal alternative, then that rationale is less compelling.
You can disagree if you’d like. But this position is at any rate at least rationale enough that someone who feels that legal alternatives have an impact on the ethics of violating the law cannot be accused of ignoring the ethics of the situation. As such, I believe your criticism of Bricker is unjustified.
Sourcefed on Youtube has outed the names of the two rapists, here’s a link if you are interested. Read the comments only if you are not afraid of having your faith in humanity shattered, a lot of guys are posting that she deserved it because she got drunk.
If that’s all they did I don’t think they should have their lives ruined over it. But would the case erally have been prosecuted if that was it?
You don’t think being stripped nude by strangers against your will is a big deal?
A possibility. That’s why I included the part about if the charges they plead guilty to were accurate.
Yes, stripping somebody when they’re unconscious is certainly a crime worth prosecuting and so is posting nude pictures that were taken without their subject’s consent. If that’s what happened, these guys were justifiably prosecuted and found “guilty”.
That said, I haven’t found any description of what specifically happened. Reports just say the victim was sexually assaulted which can cover a broad range of crimes. I will say it’s unfair to publicly label these guys as rapists (which the victim and other people are doing) if in fact they did not commit rape.
I don’t think it’s a good enough reason to ruin the life of someone who was going to be a doctor, no. That’s a really retarded result for society.
Edit: I would say the passing around of photos of that would be far worse actually.
Who said they were going to be doctors? That said, juvenile prosecution shouldn’t harm their chances of getting into med school. The record is wiped clean at 18 anyway.
You mischaracterize my intent. I was, and still am interested in what Bricker has to say about the ethics of the situation rather than the legalities. He is a solid reference and can be counted upon to provide factual legal information about a case. No sarcasm or critique was ever intended.
Perhaps Austin and Will should have thought about that before they stripped a girl without her consent.
You want some creep who thinks it’s fine to strip unconscious women and take photos of them and distribute them to others, and perhaps do more, to be a DOCTOR???
He did not think before he posted.
Ok, I am confused. because the articles I’ve scene say she may be held in contempt for identifying her attackers, giving their names. Yet your post suggests she was not allowed to speak about details that were revealed in the hearing, like such things as the proposed plea agreement. Which is it?
Would it matter if, for instance, she knew these guys and their names from outside of court, as kids in the same class or school or neighborhood? In that case she would be talking about information she had from outside the hearing. I understand she could conceivable be sued for libel and/or slander, though it would seem as if their acceptance of “responsibility” would pretty much negate that danger.
Interesting post. Thanks.
But she’s not a judge or attorney. Once the proceedings are over, she is no longer under the jurisdiction of the court. She can scream from the mountaintops…or so I believed.
What gives the judge the power to bind an innocent private citizen from speaking what she knows, once that private citizen is no longer in his court under his supervision? I agree with the analogy to the rape shield law. Should be held unconstitutional as all get out.
According to the story link in the OP, the proceedings aren’t over yet. the guys haven’t been sentenced yet. OTOH, it may well be that her part in the proceedings is over – dunno if that make any difference or not legally.
Notoriously, a lot of teenagers are idiots. I don’t think that having done that when they were 17 should still stick to them when they’ll be 40.