This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
"Some discussion" by whom? Outside observers? Defense counsel? Someone else? If it's just water-cooler or message-board talk, who cares? And of course, the defense counsel would try any strategy at all out of desperation.
The boys were straight-up lying to save their skins -- their recorded actions belied them. The judge didn't have to guess about what happened.
That article wasn't about him. It was written years before he died.
What?OK. I'm going to chalk this up to you really don't know anything about the case and that's why you are saying such things.
The boy made that statement to the girl when she asked him what happened.
The acts committed went beyond "stupid" or "unintended". Way beyond. Alcohol doesn't do THAT to people.
You can't blame her for the rape, of course, because she didn't rape anyone.You can blame her for being drunk, but that's a much less serious offense. The penalty for drunkenness should be having penises drawn on her face with Magic Marker, not . . . what actually happened.
I always thought it was the hand-in-the-glass-of-warm-water trick
So? All that means is that the defense wouldn't concede that specific point. A grasping-at-straws, purposefully-lying defense, IMHO. You may feel free to take the stance that everything was an open question as the trial opened.
I'm so confused....
Yusuf Hawkins was a 16-year-old who was shot to death in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn in 1989. He linked to an article about the Howard Beach, Queens beatings in 1986, which he believes is similar.Again, this was 25 years ago. Yes, we were a whole lot more likely to blame black people for going into the wrong neighborhood then. And black leaders didn't respond very charitably to black kids being beaten to death for being black. That doesn't make them "the problem."If you want to draw a correlary, yes. I think assigning blame to women who get raped is similarly disgusting and is sexist rather than racist.
I can't. I watched the video where the kid bragged about what happened to the girl and it was easily one of the most uncomfortable things I've ever watched in my life. I cannot believe there are human beings alive so absent any compassion, morals or scruples to sink to that sort of vile, barbaric behavior. I'm with you, Otis. If those were my sons, I would be so violently ashamed of them and myself as a parent that I don't think I could live with myself. And again, I just can't imagine being the parent of the victim. Do we know how she is doing? I sure hope she is getting the right support. Animals.
Well there is a great helping of scientific fact. Go down to your local PD any weekend night and you can see the line up of people who are drunk and charged with assault.
Yea. I got all that. I just have no idea how it all fits together or what the point was. My original question wasn't really about the racial tensions in NYC in the 80s either. It was about why it seems like the female victims of rape are many times expected to share in the culpability of their assault, while this doesn't seem to happen nearly as often in other crimes.
I am from a big city. I watch the news and see lots of local reports on violent crimes against people. I can't ever remember someone reporting one of these crimes and saying, "Well, ya know, XX was violently assaulted, but what the heck was he doing walking around that neighborhood in North Philly by himself?"Actually I can remember a perfect story that was nationally reported. A guy was at his bachelor party at McFadden's in Philadelphia and he got into a skirmish with some thugs from Fishtown over a spilled drink and they beat him to death in the parking lot. The victim was very intoxicated. I don't remember any coverage of this at all that put any blame on the poor guy who died, only about the sadness of the story and disgust towards the guys who killed him.When it comes to rape or women being sexually assaulted, it seems like it is a common question what she could have done to avoid the assault. It seems to come up extremely frequently. And the fact that it is coming up in this case where there is no grey area that a crime was committed seems to confirm my opinions on how common this is. Curious.
No the article is about Micheal Griffith, it's relevancy is to show how the public (in this case the press) attacks others than the perpetrators; was this really so vague or are you being obtuse?
Why is that whenever someone wants to cite examples of a similar argument to their asinine perspective being made in another situation, they never bother to also point out that the people that were making those arguments are inarguably morons?
Thanks for throwing me a bone Nikki, now can you answer the question: could the DA of charged these boys as adults? Another question: do you feel 1 year in a JD Hall is a sufficient term for a rape conviction even for a minor? With Ohio's rather broad interpretation of rape (digital insertion) don't you think there would be a corresponding sentence with some gravitas?
What argument am I making except that other victims are also blamed?
I have no idea why the DA decided not to charge the perpetrators as adults. I don't believe it had anything to do with the fact that there was a substantial question as to whether or not the girl had consented, nor why that would even matter when the decision on the charges was made.
No. I do not. And I hope, at a minimum, they have to bear the registered sex offender label after they become adults. But I don't understand how that proves that there was a question as to the "consent" aspect of this case. If the judge thought she had consented, they should have been found not guilty with no sentence at all.
Isn't the age of consent higher than her age? If so, there is no legal way that she could have consented to any of it.
Where in that article did they blame the kid who was beaten to death for being beaten?
In most states, the age of consent is 16. And many states have their consent statutes written in such a way that it wouldn't be rape if the boy and girl were close enough together in age. And that's setting aside the obvious point that it would be unconscionable to sentence a high school boy to a year in jail for having consensual sex with a high school girl.
That's a good point!! But in a lot of states the age of consent is 16 AND the offenders need to be at least 18 to be convicted of statutory rape. That didn't come up in this case, as far as I know, and I'm not familiar with Ohio's laws.
The author blamed the representatives of the family for being rabble rousers. I take it you do not recall these murders but there was quite a bit of stories and interviews of the victims being in the wrong place. Sorry if I can't pull up YouTube videos of 25 year old newscasts, readily.
The judge could do no such thing once the defense counsel said that they aimed to demonstrate that the victim gave consent..
inconsequential. The boys were still straight-up lying to save their skins. "Convincing the girl not go to authorities" is but one of several ways their skins could've been saved.
Absolutely but they could also of been telling what they thought was the truth.
O.k., this being like the 5th time, you broke me. It's "have", not "of".
I know, old habit. Chet has corrected me on this several times.
Just trying to help. You seem to be expressing yourself relatively well otherwise (regardless of whether I agree with your sentiments or not), so it's a bit jarring to see that pop up repeatedly.Sorry for the mini-hijack.
I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, they (especially Mays) knew much of what was recorded ... I'm certain he didn't get a consent on video. I simply don't believe they addressed the victim, in the immediate aftermath of the criminal acts, with regret in their heart and the intention to heartily apolgize for a misunderstanding. You are free to see whatever honest intentions there may be in the rapists day-after actions.Are you arguing for the sport of arguing, or do you really believe the Steubenville rapists got railroaded? Or something else if it's not one or the other? I don't understand your tack here. I mean, if you're playing devil's advocate because you see this as Duke Lacrosse Part II, by all means say so.
I agree. I have repeatedly said that I have no issue with the verdict or how this case was prosecuted. I have no remorse for the two boys since I feel they should be grateful that they are not doing serious time. I've known guys that I readily suspect have done these very acts and I find them reprehensible; they are still in the community and with families, when I see them my blood boils. I still would love to know if they were eligible to be tried as adults under Ohio law and if they only would have to register as sex offenders up to the age of 21?
No. I certainly do not think they got railroaded, quite the opposite. I was making a point that the girl owed some responsibility to herself to not be in this situation; that statement has inflamed some to think that I am blaming the victim - I am not. She did not deserve (for lack of a better word) what happened to her but she made poor choices that led her to be in a bad situation; off of that point I've inquired, and have offered opinions, if those actions hurt the State's case. My conversation with Nikki was really an offhand remark that other victims get blamed too, not just rape victims.'Doug B said:
I remember the case. But the family didn't have "representatives" until AFTER the beating. That's my point. They aren't blaming him for being killed, they're blaming other people for the fact that this problem can't get solved. It's a big difference.'pittstownkiller said:
Really, that is how it is in a courtroom, you can bring up any defense no matter how ludicrous? How do trials ever come to an end; it would seem that there are infinite amount of ridiculous possibilities that could be thrown out.
It certainly seems that way sometimes.
It's not ludicrous, prima facie, for counsel to claim that that they can establish something like consent of sexual acts. Even when the defense attorneys know they can't ... the judge and jury doesn't necessarily know that the defense knows they can't. They will get a chance to demonstrate that consent was given.
I missed this, sorry. My question/contention is that the girls behavior contributed to the DA charging the defendants with a level of crime that he could prove; the sentence question is there to demonstrate that the charges these boys were facing are far beneath the crime - why?'Nikki2200 said:
Her being blind drunk helped, rather than hurt, the State's case.
See to me, this is logically inconsistent. If she bears responsibility, she shares blame -- full stop. The hair you're trying to split can only keep slipping off the blade.And, something others have pointed out -- getting blackout drunk is not a situation that invites "hey it's OK" rape. Since you say you're not saying that, the sentence I quoted from you above is all the more logically inconsistent.
This is text book victim blaming.
This is a good reminder to get home and watch my alma mater's first NCAA tournament game since I was a senior in college. Ah, nostalgia.'Maurile Tremblay said:
This is a tangent to the fact of the Steubenville case, but it's worth addressing. What I said exactly was this, back at post #464:
Now, I think you mean that if X gives the teenager a lot of booze, and the teenager drinks the booze under their volition, that X did nothing wrong. But my point was a little more subtle than that. What I was trying to get across (and I should have been more specific than "a lot of booze") was that it's all too easy for X to "drug" a novice teenage drinker with alcohol. I gave a specific example in a later post -- say the teenager had drunk some Applebee's margaritas in the past. One-shot margaritas, nothing special. Then she goes to a party with X. X asks "Want a margarita?" She thinks she knows what she's getting into, so she says "sure." X makes her a margarita with three shots of tequila instead of one. Then he makes her another one 30 minutes later. Maybe he adds an eff-it fourth shot this time. "Hey, it's only your second drink -- the night is young!" So anyway. To me, in the scenario I gave above, X did basically the same thing as slipping her a roofie. YMMV.
Grammar lessons is always welcome (yes I am kidding).'Gr00vus said:
