If they’re stupid enough to take pics of their crime and distribute them, the stupid is gonna stick.
Ah…that may, and I’m pretty certain it is, be a key point. She didn’t wait long enough…
What about when they’re 22 and apply to medical school or 18 and apply for college? Unless their parents are extremely wealthy they’re going to be asking the rest of society to trust them enough to subsidize years of expensive education.
Where do you draw a line?
I am willing to bet you know (or can point to) people in their 40’s who are idiots.
Any line we draw will be arbitrary.
That said my feeling is that while yes, teenagers are notorious for their idiocy some things, such as rape, they should be held accountable for.
I think back to the moron I was when I was 17 and shake my head in amazement but even at 17 I was crystal clear on why you do not rape (or sexually assault or even any kind of assault) women (or anyone for that matter). I absolutely knew right from wrong on this and I do not think I was somehow blessed with amazing intellect or enlightenment that few other 17 year olds possessed.
To be fair I still did a lot of things I knew to be wrong for any of a variety of reasons but even so some things were beyond the pale and rape easily fits in there.
This isn’t a case of throwing an unapproved party or taking the family car without asking. It’s not asking too much of our youth to expect them to not sexually assault other members of society and I see no reason why they shouldn’t have it stick as long as possible. If a sense of decency can’t compel people to behave then maybe shame will.
Yes, teens are idiots. Especially teen boys. This is why you need to tell them NOW they’re being idiots and let them know you’re very serious so they don’t turn into idiot adults.
The girl was stripped while unconscious and they took photos of her naked and distributed them on the internet.
That’s the kind of thing that will stay with her for the rest of her life. So why shouldn’t it likewise stick to them too?
I’m picking your post to answer, amongst many disagreeing with my statement.
It’s not about the youth. It’s about the man 20 years later who is unlikely to have the same mentality/views/personality/behavior than the teenager he once was. I think he has a right to his teenage self’s actions being put definitely behind him by society.
Also, I can see a 17 years old seeing undressing a girl and taking pictures more as a fun prank than as an awful crime. Even though there’s going to be exceptions, a 47 years old is likely to have more sense than that, if only a sense of the consequences this action will entail.
A third thing : if we are to assume a teenager should be held to the same standards an adult is, then why bother with juvenile courts? And while we’re at it, why wouldn’t they be able to drink, drive, vote, etc…? Either they’re exactly like adults or they aren’t. You can’t have it both way. If they’re responsible enough to suffer the same consequences for their actions (like being branded for life as sex offender), surely they’re responsible enough to benefit from the same rights too, like being elected as senator. Or to not require special protection (like statutory rape laws or work regulations).
If you think they should know better at 17 and as a result should suffer lifelong consequences for their actions, then lower the age of majority to whatever age you think kids can’t be really expected to know better. Say, give 12 yo the right to vote, to have consensual sex, to work for a living…and then only give them life sentences when they commit a crime. Rights don’t come without responsibilities, but the reverse is true : responsibilities don’t come without rights.
By the victim as well?
I’m fine with configuring the system so that society forgives, I’m not fine with requiring he same of the victim.
Nope. Everybody is entitled to his feelings. Not only the victim but also other people who might be aware of the crime. I’ve no issue with someone saying “I will never trust someone who commited such a crime, even if they were 15 at the time, even it it was 30 years ago”. I just don’t want people at large being told “this man commited a crime 30 years ago” each time he’s inteviewed for a job or move to a new place, for instance.
Anyway, you can hardly make people forgive by passing a law.
The entire point of punishment is to prevent someone from doing something again. If the results are the same whether he learns from his mistake or doesn’t, where’s the motivation not to do it again?
And that’s not even getting into the idea that teenagers have been scientifically proven to think differently than adults, to be unable to comprehend the consequences for their actions. This is just dealing with adults, and how we punish sexual offenders for life, never rewarding them for actually reforming.
Wrong. It is also to prevent someone doing it in the first place, because they don’t want to suffer the same fate. Hell, some people were arguing for this as a reason why the girl should be punished for defying an unethical order - that even though she did nothing wrong, they could make an example of her to stop others thinking it’s sometimes okay to defy a court order.
I think the boys are scum and need to have an enduring lesson taught to them. Of course, I’m also going to marvel at how much more punishment they get than those two girls who forcibly stripped that young boy a while back and posted it on YouTube.
She said she wasn’t aware of the plea deal until just before the sentence was handed out. I thought the prosecution gets a say in the plea deal?
The victim is not part of the prosecution. The victim is at best a witness. Involving the victim in plea negotiations is a sometimes a tactic to keep the victim cooperative, sometimes a courtesy, and sometimes a PR tactic to keep the public happy.
So how do we deal with the unfairness of the consequences of the perp’s act sticking with the victim for life, but oh, let’s let the perps off so they can learn from it? Are we indifferent to the suffering of the victim?
Your understanding of the news was correct.
My post was opining that the judge’s order went too far – that, consistent with the First Amendment, he could not order silence on the details of the attackers or the crime, but could on the details of the hearing and sentence.
I repeat, they should have thought about their futures before they started undressing her.
In a sane society (in which they would have been appropriately punished for this crime), the motivation is “this time, you’ll eventually get out of prison – do it again, and the only way you’ll ever leave is in a box (slightly smaller than the one you’ll be living in)”.
Because they’re minors.