Story here. 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.
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.
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.
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+.
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.
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?
What I think are some pretty compelling reasons are given here:
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).
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.
Agree.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. 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.
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”)
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.
Is 17 different than 16? 16 from 15?
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?
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.