Rape Trial Coverage Fiasco

I'm just curious... is there anyone out there who thinks that CNN's (and other networks') coverage of the Steubenville rape trial verdict was appropriate? For those of you who weren't paying attention, the coverage of the verdict was dominated by a certain sympathy for the perpetrators and a total lack of sympathy for, or even mention of, the victim.

While it's all well and good to feel a little sorry for a 16 year old kid who will spend years in Juvenile Hall and the rest of his life marked by America's draconic sex offender laws - I mean, the rapists are human, and it's reasonable to feel sad that they've ruined their own lives and squandered their potential - but the coverage seems more than a little... skewed. The victim here is, well, the victim. Anyway, the Internet is exploding over it.

And what do you think?

The coverage you're referring to was pretty abhorrent. A whole bunch of news pieces didn't have anything to say for the victim at all, which is appalling. Yes, it's not pleasant for these young men, but, you know - maybe don't rape somebody.

All of the defences made for them by this sort of focus - concentrating on their lives, their pain, and not the rape victim's - just add up to a culture of permissiveness for sexual assault, especially if you're famous or "talented".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricPaladin

I'm just curious... is there anyone out there who thinks that CNN's (and other networks') coverage of the Steubenville rape trial verdict was appropriate? For those of you who don't live in America, the coverage of the verdict was dominated by a certain sympathy for the perpetrators and a total lack of sympathy for, or even mention of, the victim.

While it's all well and good to feel a little sorry for a 16 year old kid who will spend years in Juvenile Hall and the rest of his life marked by America's draconic sex offender laws - I mean, the rapists are human, and it's reasonable to feel sad that they've ruined their own lives and squandered their potential - but the coverage seems more than a little... skewed. The victim here is, well, the victim. Anyway, the Internet is exploding over it.

And what do you think?

---

Fixed. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildeybeast

Fixed. ;)

---

Oops. Durr... Thanks.

No worries. :) Is this thing news because of the age of the criminals then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildeybeast

No worries. :) Is this thing news because of the age of the criminals then?

---

Their age and... promising footballness. AMERICAN footballness - you know, the dumb one with the ovoid ball, not the awesome one with the sphere. And also because these douche-liners (like a douche-canoe, but bigger) compounded their jerkness by documenting the entire thing, producing hideous gut-wrenching photographs that you can find online, if you've got some free time and like to vomit.

What I've seen of it is two things.

The coverage is disgustingly pro-offender rather than victim.

But also, I think if what I've read is accurate it would have been a lesser charge here of sexual assault and voyeurism.
Still serious, but not the same as the common understanding of the word Rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychosplodge

What I've seen of it is two things.

The coverage is pro-offender rather than victim.

But also, I think if what I've read is accurate it would have been a lesser charge here of sexual assault and voyeurism.
Still serious, but not the same as the common understanding of the word Rape.

---

I believe that under the laws of the state in which the offenders were charged, digital penetration - and the various other things they did - count as rape.

The fact is that we're splitting hairs when we talk about exactly what they did.

There are grey areas in sexual assault. If a 30-year-old has sex with a 16 year old who convinces him that she's 18... well, he's sketchy, and legally speaking it's statutory rape, but is the man a rapist? Did he rape her? That's kind of up in the air. Some people are such heavy drinkers that they can seem to be more-or-less in command of their faculties, but actually be out of control and have no memory the next day of what happened. Does their consent count? Is that rape?

But in this case, they took a clearly unconscious girl and used her for their own sexual gratification - details aside. In my opinion, that's a pretty clear case regardless of the exact deeds performed.

We also all agree that it's abominable and inexcusable behavior. These kids didn't mistakenly take advantage of a deceptive minor or do something sexual with someone whose consent they thought was full. In cases where there's ethical uncertainty, I understand a greater degree of sympathy for the actor. There's no grey here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricPaladin

There are grey areas in sexual assault. If a 30-year-old has sex with a 16 year old who convinces him that she's 18... well, he's sketchy, and legally speaking it's statutory rape, but is the man a rapist? Did he rape her? That's kind of up in the air. Some people are such heavy drinkers that they can seem to be more-or-less in command of their faculties, but actually be out of control and have no memory the next day of what happened. Does their consent count? Is that rape?

---

Or perfectly legal here, if a bit icky(plus I remember what a pain the arse a 16 yo old partner was.... doing it again at 30? no thanks lol),

If I recall my pse lessons we have a three year age gap between statutory rape and the age of consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricPaladin

I believe that under the laws of the state in which the offenders were charged, digital penetration - and the various other things they did - count as rape.
The fact is that we're splitting hairs when we talk about exactly what they did.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricPaladin

But in this case, they took a clearly unconscious girl and used her for their own sexual gratification - details aside. In my opinion, that's a pretty clear case regardless of the exact deeds performed.

We also all agree that it's abominable and inexcusable behavior. These kids didn't mistakenly take advantage of a deceptive minor or do something sexual with someone whose consent they thought was full. In cases where there's ethical uncertainty, I understand a greater degree of sympathy for the actor. There's no grey here.

---

You're right, and they live in that state so know things like that.
I certainly didn't mean to sound like I was defending them especially as I've just condemned your news outlets for doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychosplodge

I certainly didn't mean to sound like I was defending them especially as I've just condemned your news outlets for doing that.

---

I didn't really think you were. I've just got a bit of a hair trigger. People are like rape culture and I'm like Heresy! *BLAM*