Doesn’t the Constitution demand that trials be public so that these (and other) types of things don’t go on?
In other words, the public has a right to know how the judicial system works. If we have closed hearings and secrets, with judges on power trips ordering silence from everyone in the world, then we have defeated the purpose of public trials.
Yes, but we’re still talking about minors. The public interest in open trials must be balanced against minors’ interest in anonymity.
Presumably there are other people like you, so his life shouldn’t be “ruined.” It’s not that hard for a fourty year old to say “Hey, when I was young and dumb I did a really stupid thing and I got caught. I did my time, and I really feel horrible about what I did to that girl. I’ve had a lot of time in the meantime to mature, and I’m not that dumbass kid anymore.” Nobody is asking to ruin his life- but you should be able to take responsiblity for what you have done.
But the world is a competitive place. People lose out on jobs because they chose the wrong color nail polish. If something comes down to “a guy who committed sexual assault” and “a guy who never committed sexual assault,” I’m going to probably chose the latter every time and I don’t think that is unfair at all. None of us are completely free of what we did when we were 17. Some of us studied hard and some slacked. Some of us stayed healthy and some started addictions. Some of us used protection and some of us had kids. These choices all set the trajectory of our lives.
I really don’t care if they saw it as a “fun prank” or not. Luckily, we don’t decide how severe a crime is by the perpetrator’s perspective. The girl involved in this obviously throught it was a pretty aweful crime.
And well she should- could you imagine your life if your co-workers stripped you naked after a happy hour, distributed your pictures to people you know, and put it up on the net where it could take on a life of it’s own? Can you picture dread everytime someone says “I think I recognize you from somewhere?” Can you picture how you’d ever go back to your job after everyone saw you naked, knowing your assaulter’s friends were still around supporting him? And your job search after when Googling your name brings up nudie pics rather than your LinkedIn profile? And how do you think your SO is going to take all of this?
But a minor’s interest in anonymity is a statutory construct of modern times. Fifty years ago, if a 17 year old raped a woman, he would be hanged.
I don’t know how you take a fundamental right in the Constitution and presume to balance it against a modern way of thinking that somehow 17 year olds should be able to rape and remain anonymous. It tips so far to one side as to make it absurd.
I agree with this. Juvenile crimes should be reserved for general dumbassery as a result of youth. Sexual assault does not fall into this category. When I was 16, I might have drank underage or driven drunk or trespassed and played practical jokes. I can understand that being a slap on the wrist, don’t do it again, crime. But when I was 16, I knew not to murder, rape, or commit armed robbery. Those types of things should not be mitigated because someone is under 18. They are (or should) already be old enough not to do that type of stuff.
Most states adopted confidentiality requirements for juvenile proceedings in the first two decades of the century, starting with Illinois in 1899. Anyway, the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is the defendant’s right. Whatever interest the public has in open proceedings stems from common law, even though SCOTUS has characterized it as a First Amendment right.
Remember, I’ve already pointed out that under the law as it stands the judge couldn’t prevent Ms… whatever her name was from identifying the attackers. She was present at the proceedings legally, and there’s an end of it.
I should add that protecting the juvenile rehabilitation process is a compelling interest. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1.
Me.
I find extremely inconsistent to state that teens should know better when they commit a crime and at the same time that they’re too irresponsible to cast a vote or decide with whom they want to have sex. If they’re deemed unable to make a reasonable decision in those situations, how can it be expected that they will make a reasonable decision in other circumstances?
As I said before, if rights don’t come without responsibilities, then equally responsibilities can’t come without rights.
Does that mean that felons, who cannot vote and have other restricted freedoms, should be free to go commit more crimes?
I hear you, but the recidivism rate among sex offenders is extremely high, compared to other crimes.
If you rape someone you don’t deserve any polite consideration from the victim. Rapists deserve harsh penalties.
I’d contribute to the girl’s defense fund if she needed it to oppose the contempt charges.
No, the opposite–that once they’ve served their punishment, there shouldn’t be other restricted freedoms. Not being allowed to vote while in jail makes sense, but afterwards? That’s stupid.
I haven’t read the thread, but…
I think that if the judge wanted big scale public naming and shaming of the perps, he couldn’t paradoxically have done it better then by accusing the victim of contempt of court and later retracting it.
Such a thing is almost guaranteed to raise a huge shit storm these days. You’d think people suing for provacy would know this by now.
For more examples: