The death threats I believe came from a cousin of one of the rapists and her friend and I have read the too are now going to called to account for said threats and the coach will also be up before a Judge for trying to cover up the incident.
Printable View
The death threats I believe came from a cousin of one of the rapists and her friend and I have read the too are now going to called to account for said threats and the coach will also be up before a Judge for trying to cover up the incident.
I'm no talking about minimum sentences, I'm talking about sentences actually handed down in other crimes vs what was handed down for this one. You can get more jail time for driving under the influence or stealing money or any number of other third degree felonies. Crimes against property and to some extent men (violent assaults vs men have a higher prison sentence, usually, than rape) are punished more heavily than rape. When you take into consideration that only a fraction of rapes actually get investigated and fewer go to trial due to constant pressure from the authorities on the victims and that if they go to trial the woman is demonised and every aspect of her character is put on trial like she was the criminal you can see there is a situation that is grossly unfair to women. It makes a lot of us extremely angry. This case just highlights the kind of crap we have to put up with. I mean who gives a **** if it has ruined the perpetrators lives? To hell with them, they raped a girl, filmed it, filmed themselves laughing about it. One of the witnesses offered $3 to the first person to urinate on her, thankfully no one took him up on it.
All this and they get one year in a correctional facility and ten years on a registry.
Also remember that NONE of this would have happened if it weren't for a blogger from Steubenville who recorded the incriminating tweets and videos before they were removed and Anonymous who dug up a heap more incriminating evidence. It would have been covered up because the people in this town didn't take rape seriously.
Then you have CNN discussing how the verdict would hurt the rapists not the victim, FOX revealing the names of the victim but not the rapist and there are reports (unconfirmed to be fair) that there have been other rapes before and since by the same boys. Hardly surprising when they call themselves the 'rape crew'.
It isn't just the sentence (though why did they get the minimum sentence when they displayed no remorse to the victim and gross arrogance during and after the crime by boasting about it on social media), this whole things screams of how women are devalued and crimes against us considered less serious than crimes against property.
... they haven't been sentenced yet. Remember?
Well they have, they just may get more added later. We don't know how much and I don't feel any particular urge to hope it will be significant. Remember it isn't just about the sentence, the whole thing is completely rotten and all the media care about are the perpetrators.
Actually Nab, as a practitioner of the law can you explain (in laymens terms lol) just why rape in general does not carry higher sentences than it generally does ?
I am not trying to put you on the spot here, as obviously were all like minded in our views on rape and what an abhorant crime it is. You obviously have more experience in law and sentencing than most of us. I know judges have to abide by precedent and be objective and not let emotions get in the way of what they consider fair sentences. But as a member of the public who considers himself quite liberal I do sometimes feel that Judges are far too lenient in cases such as this one (as you say though a full sentence hasent been made) and I get the feeling the lighter sentences are passed because some judges don't want to be seen to allow emotions to rule their judgements.
I know nobody is defending any of the actions these young men made on these forums. I just want to understand why at the moment these guys seem to have gotten off lightly.
Lets also not forget that the rape and degradation was revenge motivated, and they also left her naked and unconscious on her parents front lawn.
This is more than the "typical" lack of prosecution for a rape case, it is an almost unilateral cover up by the town to protect their winning football team.
The blogger who initially championed the cause? They sued her for defamation. She eventually prevailed.
If it were not for Anonymous taking the steps to make sure this case caught national attention, I'm sure there wouldn't even be any charges filed.
I've not even seen those bits.
Did they have to pay the blogger compensation as well then?
Let me preface this by saying I'm not a criminal lawyer, and this is one of those areas where intimate knowledge of the way it works in the real world would definitely be helpful. But there are some things I can say with reasonable confidence. Second, let me also point out that I'm not an Ohio lawyer, although my best friend in law school was (well, is). When it comes to criminal law, each state in America is essentially its own sovereignty, and its criminal laws are heavily influenced by that state's culture. I don't know what the closest UK analogue is in this case. Maybe the difference between English/Welch and Scots law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadlift
So ... to shed what light I can.
First off, everybody should understand that sentencing and guilt are very often two separate (though obviously related) procedures. It is quite ordinary for a defendant to be found guilty/delinquent on one day, and sentence to be passed another day. From a media perspective, the moment of guilt or innocence is obviously the more dramatic of the two. However, audiences still want to know what the punishment is - and at the dramatic moment a defendant is found guilty, that is unknown. So reporters frequently substitute the statutory minimum sentence in their stories so they can sound like they're covering everything the reader wants to know. This procedure is frustrating as an observer, but there's a perfectly good reason for it. Sentencing is frequently subject to all sorts of factors that have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It makes sense for the court to schedule time to consider those in adequate detail, and it makes lawyering sense to give each legal team dedicated time to marshal their arguments. After all, there's only so much time an attorney has to deal with a case given the court's schedule. While they should certainly begin considering how to behave and argue at sentencing from the start, you wouldn't want your counselor spending too much time planning how to get you a reduced sentence before you're even found guilty (or how to get an aggravated sentence before getting a conviction). So to say that they have been sentenced at all is not really accurate.
But on to rape. I would point to three factors that cause American criminal law, in general, to view rape as a less serious crime than some. The first is that a rape victim is not dead (unless s/he is, in which case the solution is to prosecute for rape and some form of murder), and American criminal law has a long history of prizing life as far and away the most serious of the three fundamental rights. The second is a perception that rape is easier to fall into than murder. I should point out here that the history of American rape law has a direction I'm proud of - one can argue whether it's evolved far enough, but I think if you look at the evolution of rape laws even in the modern area pretty much all the developments are positive. However, as much as rape laws have shifted away from being defendant-friendly, I think American criminal law still has some feeling that rape is one of those crimes that people can commit almost accidentally (technically speaking, you can commit rape accidentally, since one of the major historical reforms was to place the focus entirely on the victim's consent - legally speaking, the intent of the offender is irrelevant). And thirdly, the right that rape really impinges upon - human dignity - does not have a long history of recognition in American law (as it doesn't in English law, though I get the impression that modern British jurisprudence follows the European fashion of giving dignity legal weight much moreso than does American law). The closest thing it impinges upon that does have a long history of recognition in American law is the right to pursue happiness, and rape only sort of impinges upon that right. I know plenty of rape victims intimately, and although I've never asked I feel pretty confident that they don't feel their right to pursue happiness was violated. It was their dignity - their sense of autonomy, of self-determination, of the sanctity of their will - that was violated. So to some extent I think American criminal law inherited a historical philosophy that is not well suited to rape, and while our laws have largely modernized, our generalized legal philosophical culture kind of hasn't.
That said, Ohio's rape laws do treat it as a pretty serious crime. The only crimes in Ohio that are more serious than rape (speaking from my read of their criminal code) are murder and aggravated murder. Not only is rape a first degree felony, it is a first degree felony with a mandatory minimum sentence greater than the normal minimum sentence for a first degree felony, and one that carries the additional penalty of the Ohio sex offender registry. If you use force (or the threat of force) or drug your victim using a controlled substance in the commission of your rape, the penalty is greater than that for murder. Whether the penalties Ohio prescribes for rape are sufficiently harsh is a matter of personal philosophy, but if you compare the penalty for rape to the penalty for other crimes under Ohio law, I think it's fair to say that relatively speaking Ohio treats rape as an extremely serious crime.
So there are two more things to consider, I think. One is whether rape convictions in Ohio tend to carry sentences at the lower end of the first degree felony range than do other first degree felony sentences. That I don't know; I'm not close enough to the Ohio legal world to speculate. I do know that Ohio (as a whole) takes its justice system (as a whole) unusually seriously for an American state, but of course there are always blind spots.
And lastly, why weren't these kids charged as adults? I think there are three possible answers to that, one more rage-inducing than the others. It's possible that the attorney general didn't want to throw the book at these kids because they're hometown heroes. It's also possible that the attorney general was simply concerned by the fact that they're kids, period. The third possibility I can think of is that the victim herself, or her family, didn't want them hammered as hard as the law allows. Certainly they've gone on the record as not wanting further prosecutions. That could be because they were just shell-shocked by how hard being the victim in a rape trial can be, but it could also be because of their own sense of mercy. Ohio is essentially part of the Bible Belt; it's not crazy to think that a rape victim could be moved by a religious sense of compassion towards her attackers. It's also not crazy to think that a rape victim of any persuasion could not push for minimum mercy from the AG. The rape victims I know very well are, honestly, much less hateful towards their attackers than I am.
As for how much weight any of those three possibilities held, or whether it was something else altogether ... I don't know, but my personal suspicion is that once the case went forward (and of course it almost didn't, for completely execrable reasons) the AG didn't push for adult charges because they aren't adults. I don't know if it seems crazy to non-lawyers. It doesn't seem crazy to me. I can certainly say from my own experience that law has made the concept of minor incapacity much more real to me. I think legal education will tend to do that, and I expect that criminal practice even moreso. I have to say that as a lawyer, I really don't think they understood what they were doing - and I doubt I would feel that way quite so strongly if I wasn't a lawyer.
Thank you Nab.
I think it's a general rule for most members of the public that some serious crimes don't seem to carry sentences to match or are just not taken seriously in the first place, looking further afield to India and what's happening there its obvious that its not just a western perception either. But to get some insight is always good.
Going back to your post and the final part where you say it's possible that both boys didn't realise they were actually committing rape. I had read that theory too elsewhere. Basically because these boys have been able to get away with whatever they like for such a long time, coupled with the fact the girl wasn't attacked per se and clothes ripped off etc they didn't realise they were actually committing rape. One of the boys fathers admitted in court that his parenting skills had been nonexistent and lacked any moral guidance. Now whilst I can "understand" this I think we can all agree at a certain age especially theirs we should have some moral responsibility for our actions. I don't think the fact the town, which tried to cover up this case either has really helped these boys or others in this lauded team to understand the heinous crime they have committed. It sounds like its not an isolated case either.
Personally I would like to see them both made an example of, but if you like it or not the law is the law.
Not sure if it works the same where you are but I have a friend who is a magistrate and as I understand it here in the UK when it comes to sentencing he has to have advice on what sentence he is able to pass down, to ensure he isn't either to lenient or harsh. But mostly we talk about bikes.
Once again thanks for the insight.
I think the boys understood that they were doing something sexual to a girl against her will. Perhaps they justified it by insisting to themselves that she was drunk, or that it didn't count as "really rape" because they weren't being violent. But really? I think they knew what they were doing. They obviously didn't have the moral center to take a different course. They clearly didn't think about the consequences of their actions until afterwards, when they tried to cover it up. But they did it, and they knew it was bad, or they wouldn't have tried to cover it up in the first place. In fact, I think that one of the heinous online videos involve one of the boys saying to someone else "she is so raped."Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadlift
I think when people say "I didn't know it was rape," they're talking about situations in which they were also drunk or high, in which case it's ambiguous who raped who. Or they're talking about a situation in which their partner was one of the rare people who can get black-out drunk without seeming black-out impaired. Or cases of statutory rape in which the minor managed to deceive the adult about his or her age.
But really? How often do these things happen? Were the law just, it would take them into account, certainly. While a 30 year old who has sex with a 15 year old pretending to be an 18 year old should probably get help to improve his or her judgment, this person probably doesn't deserve to be on a sex offenders list for the rest of his or her life. I've heard of a handful of cases in which two drunk people have sex and, in the morning, the man is arrested, because in some states the law is worded such that the man is always considered the rapist even if both are drunk. So, there are grey areas, and fuzzy lines, and perhaps a few people being punished more severely than they really deserve.
But I don't think these kids didn't understand that they were raping a girl. They knew what they were doing, and they knew it was wrong. They just thought that it was an ok sort of wrong, a relatively minor offense, like streaming Warhammer 40k pdfs. Because their moral centers were completely out of whack and they lived in a town that treated them like nobility because of their football skills.