CNN: How dreadful. Teen rapists found guilty, sentenced, and committed

[WyattDerp]

"My life is over. No one is going to want me now."

I would hope so. I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Under Ohio law rape includes penetration with a finger.

it is certainly sexual assult just about anywhere, but that could be a problem for a medic.

I may be mistaken, but I believe all states essentially retain such records in perpetuity

that seems to be the trend... but I still wonder why?
murder and extreme torture records are not held for ever.

 

[Father Heathen]

that seems to be the trend... but I still wonder why?

Why not? Are you incapable of grasping just how horrific of a crime rape is?

murder and extreme torture records are not held for ever.

Maybe they should be.

 

[TheKnight]

It seems to me that having sex with a person who is in no position to either give or withhold consent amounts to rape.

Well of course it does. We're both sober. Driving while drunk also seems to be something one shouldn't do.

Being drunk doesn't justify doing either (raping or driving drunk), but it does play a role in a person's ability to make sound judgments.

I would agree with you that having sex with someone who is unable to withhold or give consent is some kind of sexual assault. However, for something to be a rape I think that the offender must know that he is forcefully raping someone against their will. Just like we differentiate between manslaughter and homicide depending on the offenders level of comprehension of the act (IE you kill someone in anger its manslaughter, but if you plan out someone's death over a week and then go kill them it's homicide), I differentiate between a sexual assault where a sober person willfully engages in a sexual act they know they do not have consent for vs a sexual assault where a drunk person and another drunk person both have little to no memory of the event yet one claims to have been raped.

To me the second case gives me reasonable doubt that a rape occurred. It doesn't mean one didnt happen, it doesn't mean the victim is to blame, it means that I believe there is sufficient reason to doubt that a rape has occurred.

What would you call it then, if it isn't clearly rape in your eyes?

It's definitely a sexual assault. I don't know if there is a legal term for something that isn't rape but is still a sexual assault.

She was passed out. How could she have any chance of giving consent if she's passed out?

How could she have denied any consent? Is there a legal definition of whether consent is implicitly given or denied? Is there a precedent regarding it? I don't actually know so I ask as a legitimate question.

If the answer is there's no legal precedent or definition regarding this, then I wouldn't go so far as to call it rape. Based on the Ohio definition of rape, even if she was asleep it doesn't explicitly count as rape (the Ohio definition neither mentions sleeping people nor says that sex without consent is included. Rather, it explicitly defines rape as sex by force).

I think where we part ways is where there's different classifications of rape,

We have different classifications of murder. Rape, being equivalent to murder in my opinion, should as well. There is a very big difference between sober person A coming to rape sober person B by force, and drunk teen A having sex with coming-in-and-out-of-conscious drunk teen B.

Both situations are deplorable, but they're certainly not equal.

that it isn't really rape unless she's screaming, fighting back, doing what she can to defend herself and repeatedly yelling NO NO NO NO. IOW, it isn't rape unless it's brutal rape.

In my personal opinion it's not rape without a deliberate and explicitly stated denial of the act. It could still be a sexual assault of some lesser class, but I don't equate all non-consensual sex with brutal rape. That's far too broad a category IMO.

I see it simply, non-consensual sex is non-consensual sex. We don't re-classify theft if some guy steals another guy's wallet while he's sleeping and it's just laying out, do we?

It might still be theft (I can think of examples where it isn't), but I guarantee you it isn't the same crime as the person who pulls a gun on you and takes your wallet.

They shared their crime over social media repeatedly. They joked about it. Repeatedly. The victim received death threats for pressing charges. It's too bad normally rational and decent people say things like she should be ashamed of pressing charges against such nice boys or send her death threats because she dared to attempt to find justice over what happened to her. [/sarcasm]

Never did I say it wasn't deplorable what they did. Simply that our reaction to the deplorable should not be to become deplorable ourselves.

And that utilizing social media to further demean and humiliate the victim repeatedly afterward is to be seen as sociopathic rather than simply silly boyish behavior.

It really depends. But that discussion is outside the scope of this thread.

I agree. But I come from a position of where her boundaries are clearly crossed by two other parties. She clearly did not give consent. I call that rape.

Not all sexual boundary crossing is rape. Suppose that person A and person B are having consensual sexual intercourse with vaginal penetration. Person B (the female) normally does not enjoy being penetrated anally and has made this clear. Amidst this session however, person A slips a finger into person B's anus.

Person A clearly crossed one of person B's sexual boundaries. Are you willing to put person A in the same category as the person who brutally rapes someone else? Because I'm not.

I have strong opinions concerning the use of the profit-driven prison system in our country, and that it is used as more punitive measures than rehabilitative. However, I think incarcerating the perpetrators is the best way to ensure that they will not repeat the same crime again to the same victim or another victim.

Statistically and logically incarcerating them does no such thing. All it does it temporarily and in the present remove the threat of them doing it to people outside the prison walls.

It says nothing about what they will do to the same or some other victim.

You have work in law enforcement. I am a rape survivor and have worked in peer groups with rape survivors. My experience was after I was raped, I didn't report it for fear of backlash, and other women were raped by the same man until one woman had the stones to press charges against him. He was charged with rape and served less than a year before he was back out on the streets. For all I know, he may know where I live and where I work, and that uncertainty prompted me to begin self-defense and martial arts training. I don't want to ridicule him or treat him like an animal, but I also don't want the same thing to happen to other people. I felt horrible learning that's exactly what happened after I failed to report the crime.

I don't wish ill will on rapists, personally, but I am on the side of educating the public to ensure that men and women, boys and girls, understand informed consent as a measure to engage in physical intimacy. I am also on the side of doing what can be done to prevent crime.

One way to prevent crime and/or to prevent the chance of being charged with rape is not to have sex with unconscious people.

I'm sorry to hear that you were raped. However, I am also glad that you seem to have recovered from it.

Personally, I don't think someone should engage in sex without explicitly given consent. However, I acknowledge that such a perspective is not socially pervasive.

I also agree that preventing crime is best accomplished through educating people. However, I think that necessarily involves a discussion of what we value. Consistently, I see society is more willing to punish someone for something when the person didn't necessarily think that it was wrong because society doesn't want to admit that by and large it is a culture of doing the said wrong thing. We all have flaws yet we publicly crucify those with the same flaws we all share while doing nothing to fix the society.

Personally, I believe that such a thing should be fought against. In this case, that means that I am against any harsh criticism of the boys, but would be all for a harsh criticism of their environment. After all, it is impossible to say they committed their offense despite their environment. Rather, given their environment, I would have been surprised if they didn't commit the offense.

Interestingly, it seems that ridiculing the victims of rape and throwing them in a metaphorical cage by blaming them (for wearing the wrong clothes, for being outside the house, for being in the vicinity of the rapists, etc.) doesn't seem to work either.

Interestingly, no one in this thread has advocated blaming the victims.

 

[TheKnight]

So what you're saying is that those who break the law and victimize the innocent (especially for a crime as heinous as rape) should not be brought to justice nor have their actions examined and exposed? If anything, they've gotten off way too easily.

That's not at all what I said. They should be brought to justice. Their actions should be examined and exposed. But last time I checked when we looked at a person's actions in a trial-like sort of way we look both at the action itself and a variety of other factors.


Ken killed Bob tells us nothing about whether or not Ken committed a crime. Why not? Because we don't just look at the action itself and say "Ha, you're guilty. To hell with you." We look at the situation, the environment, and the psychological factors which influenced Ken in his killing of Bob.

Similarly, many in this thread have been quick to condemn the boys without making more than an off the cuff remark about their environment. Having read more about the case now, I am more concerned about the environment they're in than I am about their individual action. It wouldn't surprise me if what they did happens all the time in Stuebenville. And no, I'm not at all for running through Stuebenville, locking up everyone involved or who's done something similar, and calling it a day.

I'd prefer a solution that came to an understanding about how an environment like that gets created in the first place and then worked to ensure not only that Stuebenville changes, but that other places change as well.

I thought a desire for proportionate punishment was an aspect of Judaism?

I should start by saying that the answer to this question is beyond the scope of this thread but I'd love to discuss it with you in another thread if you'd like.

In short, it is important to note that Judaism is more than just the punishments (even though most people only really seem to know that part of Judaism).

Judaism teaches overwhelmingly that we must constantly be aware of and watch for our own bias influencing our decisions. Especially when the fate of others is in our hands. Moreover, in Jewish law if your environment teaches you that something which the Torah forbids is OK, you cannot be punished by a human court for the offense. Even if it is something as grave as idolatry.

IE you grow up in a culture of idolaters and have never been told idolatry is wrong, you cannot be punished for your idolatry.

Jewish sages even go so far as to discuss "What about a crime that is rational?" The example they use is stealing. What if a person grows up among thieves and is taught all their lives that stealing is OK? That we shouldn't take others' property is considered a logical mitzvah (IE you don't need to be taught that). However, even in the case of an offense that it should be clear to everyone that they shouldn't do (like stealing), if the person was in an environment where it is unlikely that at the time they really considered their actions to be a moral offense, they cannot be punished.

The fact that you're so quick to defend them and to dismiss and downplay their offenses, I must ask; what have you done in your past?

Your question offends me. That I am slow to condemn these boys, who are still human despite their crime, does not mean that I am in league with them. Though what they did is vulgar and repulsive, I am unwilling to participate in or support forgoing the recognition of the fact that they are still human beings (kids even) who's situation should be looked at beyond just the fact that what they did was repulsive. I've spent a significant amount of time learning that even the most deplorable of criminals is humans and despite our disdain for them they also deserve a good and rational defense.

I am giving them no stronger a defense then I would anyone. I'd defend, equally strongly, the victim. However, no one in this thread is criticizing the victim in so vulgar a manner as to suggest sodomizing her (as some in this thread have suggested sodomizing the offenders).


Also, thank you dust1n! I was looking for a transcript and was unable to find one.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why not? Are you incapable of grasping just how horrific of a crime rape is?
.

Take a step back...and read my post again.
I was referring to ...

Originally Posted by Skwim
Under Ohio law rape includes penetration with a finger.

We and many others do not recognise that as rape.

In many places they would not have been charged with Rape...
Though what they did do wascertainlyl horrific. and they deserve their punishment.

 

[Father Heathen]

We and many others do not recognise that as rape.

In the civilized world forcibly penetrating the vagina or anus by anything is considered rape.

 

[TheKnight]

In the civilized world forcibly penetrating the vagina or anus by anything is considered rape.

It's always easier to attack someone then it is to give a logical argument isn't it?

Counter-example to false statement: A woman takes a knife and forcefully jams it into the vagina of her sister. Presuming her sister lives it's not considered rape but assault. Or would you people in the civilized world call that rape also?

 

[crossfire]

I would agree with you that having sex with someone who is unable to withhold or give consent is some kind of sexual assault. However, for something to be a rape I think that the offender must know that he is forcefully raping someone against their will.
<...>I differentiate between a sexual assault where a sober person willfully engages in a sexual act they know they do not have consent for vs a sexual assault where a drunk person and another drunk person both have little to no memory of the event yet one claims to have been raped.
<...>
To me the second case gives me reasonable doubt that a rape occurred. It doesn't mean one didnt happen, it doesn't mean the victim is to blame, it means that I believe there is sufficient reason to doubt that a rape has occurred.



It's definitely a sexual assault. I don't know if there is a legal term for something that isn't rape but is still a sexual assault.

How could she have denied any consent? Is there a legal definition of whether consent is implicitly given or denied? Is there a precedent regarding it? I don't actually know so I ask as a legitimate question.

If the answer is there's no legal precedent or definition regarding this, then I wouldn't go so far as to call it rape. Based on the Ohio definition of rape, even if she was asleep it doesn't explicitly count as rape (the Ohio definition neither mentions sleeping people nor says that sex without consent is included. Rather, it explicitly defines rape as sex by force).
<...>
In my personal opinion it's not rape without a deliberate and explicitly stated denial of the act. It could still be a sexual assault of some lesser class, but I don't equate all non-consensual sex with brutal rape. That's far too broad a category IMO.

It might still be theft (I can think of examples where it isn't), but I guarantee you it isn't the same crime as the person who pulls a gun on you and takes your wallet.
<...>

So, if someone sexually assaults someone who is paralyzed or in and out of a coma, it isn't rape, especially if the perpetrator has been drinking?

 

[McBell]

It's always easier to attack someone then it is to give a logical argument isn't it?

Counter-example to false statement: A woman takes a knife and forcefully jams it into the vagina of her sister. Presuming her sister lives it's not considered rape but assault. Or would you people in the civilized world call that rape also?

Interesting that in the very post you whine about attacking someone, you go back and edit it to add the exact same attack you whine about...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Far too often I've seen people use a victim's intoxication as a reason to excuse the victim from any sort of responsibility in a sexual encounter and yet the same intoxication means absolutely nothing when it comes to the suspect. The truth is that when two people are intoxicated (regardless of the gender makeup of the couple), sexual encounters can be tricky. Especially when it comes to consent and one's ability to interpret whether or not consent was received.

In my opinion is if alcohol is involved (IE both parties are drunk) then I am unwilling to condemn either party as a rapist. Irresponsible? Both are. Could have made better decisions? Both could have. A tragic situation? Certainly. But one person brutally raping another person? That's almost never how it happens when both parties are drunk. It's almost always a situation that's much more sticky and unclear. Even if one of the parties has a stupid and immature reaction after the event.

If you can't handle yourself while your drunk, then don't drink. It's as simple as that. And only a scumbag would have sex with someone while they are passed out drink. And it takes a sadistic monster to make the assault humiliating.
The boys deserve what they got. They knew what they were doing was wrong while they were doing it, and done it anyways. Had nothing been done, it would have gave precedence for defense attorneys to scream drunkenness was involved to get even more rapists off the hook.

 

[TheKnight]

So, if someone sexually assaults someone who is paralyzed or in and out of a coma, it isn't rape, especially if the perpetrator has been drinking?

Is it murder to pull the plug on someone in a coma if they didn't explicitly consent to that? What if it's the spouse of the person in the coma? After all, a spouse can terminate the life of someone who is in a coma. Why not also engage in sexual acts?


The answer is that it depends. Is there a legal definition of consent that precludes those who are paralyzed or unconscious? I

Please realize that just because I'm not calling it rape doesn't mean that I don't think it's horrible.

 

[McBell]

Please realize that just because I'm not calling it rape doesn't mean that I don't think it's horrible.

Seems to me that you are merely arguing that the situation does not meet with your personal definition of rape.

Which is rather irrelevant since the verdict has already been decided.

 

[TheKnight]

Interesting that in the very post you whine about attacking someone, you go back and edit it to add the exact same attack you whine about...

The criticism was about attacking instead of offering a logical argument. It says nothing about attacking alongside one.

If you can't handle yourself while your drunk, then don't drink. It's as simple as that.

I agree. Unfortunately the law doesn't.

And only a scumbag would have sex with someone while they are passed out drink.

Your opinion is appreciated but should hardly be the basis for a legal decision.

"Two boys were convicted today for being scumbags" is something that would disturb me.

 

[McBell]

The criticism was about attacking instead of offering a logical argument. It says nothing about attacking alongside one.

Ah, so personal attacks are just fine if presented with a "logical argument"?

Face it, you lost your higher ground when you revealed you hypocrisy about attacking.

 

[McBell]

Your opinion is appreciated but should hardly be the basis for a legal decision.

And yours is?

 

[TheKnight]

Seems to me that you are merely arguing that the situation does not meet with your personal definition of rape.

Which is rather irrelevant since the verdict has already been decided.

Based on that logic why even have a thread then?

Right right, the OP probably wanted to talk about the fact that CNN did a terrible thing in the spin they put on the story. Poor poor boys.

From what it seems almost no one has discussed that.

But given that, I see no reason to continue off-topic discussion any further. I apologize for entangling myself so thoroughly in a discussion that, while related, is most certainly not the intended point of discussion.

 

[crossfire]

Is it murder to pull the plug on someone in a coma if they didn't explicitly consent to that? What if it's the spouse of the person in the coma? After all, a spouse can terminate the life of someone who is in a coma. Why not also engage in sexual acts?

Is the spouse allowed to have sex with their comatose spouse?

The answer is that it depends. Is there a legal definition of consent that precludes those who are paralyzed or unconscious? I

Please realize that just because I'm not calling it rape doesn't mean that I don't think it's horrible.

In the trial, it was determined that the girl did not give consent, so there must be some sort of legal criteria.

 

[McBell]

Based on that logic why even have a thread then?

Right right, the OP probably wanted to talk about the fact that CNN did a terrible thing in the spin they put on the story. Poor poor boys.

From what it seems almost no one has discussed that.

But given that, I see no reason to continue off-topic discussion any further. I apologize for entangling myself so thoroughly in a discussion that, while related, is most certainly not the intended point of discussion.

Nice back peddle.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your opinion is appreciated but should hardly be the basis for a legal decision.

"Two boys were convicted today for being scumbags" is something that would disturb me.

I never said my opinion should be the bases of law. However, it stands that only a scumbag would have sex with someone who is passed out drunk. As far as the law goes, that being passed out drunk does not constitute as consent thus to have sex with a person who is unconscious (from intoxication or other causes) is considered rape.