Rape gets 1 yr, Murder gets life, Ohio get it right? (drug, accuse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have to draw a line somewhere, in this country, most children are concidered minors until the age of 18 and different laws apply to minors in regards to sentencing.
It sound to me as if you would treat all crimes the same, so if a 7 year old shoots and kills another person this child should be tried for capital murder. Yes, there are conditions that lead to gray areas in the law when it comes to minors and each one has to be looked at for what it is.
I don't know where to start. So you concede that under 18 means different laws should apply? Ok got it...
Then why did TJ Lane get punished as an adult @ age 17? So clearly, the line isn't drawn somewhere. It is drawn wherever the hell they want apparently.
You use an example of a 7 year old, which would be a much better contrast for debate. However, we have two criminal acts by two kids of the EXACT same age. From my understand, TJ Lane had no prior felonies and neither did the Steubenville kids.
If someone is age 17, they are literally less than 365 days from being 18. That means that raping between this window of time deserve literally a decade or more of punishment if you wait another 365?
This highlight the miscarriage of justice this is on both fronts. If we are going to have two sets of laws from those who are minors and adults, (which is ridiculous) and then have some consistency and at least be in the same universe on sentencing for similar acts.
Rape and Murder are like peanut butter and jelly, different but they belong together in sentencing.
What if, instead, it was a boy who got drunk and then the other boys with him proceeded to rape him all night long, pass him around, video it and post it on the internet? Would the drunk boy be told he put himself in a vulnerable position? Would people demand a greater punishment if a boy was raped in this way? I think so. I think on some level it's acceptable to rape women in certain circumstances or at least it's tolerable in the eyes of some.
What if, instead, it was a boy who got drunk and then the other boys with him proceeded to rape him all night long, pass him around, video it and post it on the internet? Would the drunk boy be told he put himself in a vulnerable position? Would people demand a greater punishment if a boy was raped in this way? I think so. I think on some level it's acceptable to rape women in certain circumstances or at least it's tolerable in the eyes of some.
In my opinion Rape is Rape no matter who it is inflicted upon, I'm not agreeing that these boys sentencing somehow dismiss the act of rape. I'm saying that the courts decided to try them as juveniles and not as adults, this does however change the sentencing of the crime committed because they are juveniles. Had the court seen fit to try them as adults then the sentencing would have been different.
Again, we have different sentencing laws in this country for adults and juveniles. If you don't agree with the courts then try and get the laws changed, until then there are sentencing guidelines set for adults and juveniles.
In my opinion Rape is Rape no matter who it is inflicted upon, I'm not agreeing that these boys sentencing somehow dismiss the act of rape. I'm saying that the courts decided to try them as juveniles and not as adults, this does however change the sentencing of the crime committed because they are juveniles. Had the court seen fit to try them as adults then the sentencing would have been different.
Again, we have different sentencing laws in this country for adults and juveniles. If you don't agree with the courts then try and get the laws changed, until then there are sentencing guidelines set for adults and juveniles.
The court has the option to try the Steubenville rapists as adults. They didn't, and leaving that kind of heinous leniency with people clearly cannot be trusted.
This wasn't a thread to flame on the technical aspect of the legal system. I'm asking you straight up, do you feel like justice was properly served to these two criminal cases?
Don't you feel like you are living in twin realities where in the same part of the same state two criminals that essentially commit the highest of offenses against society at the same age are treated as if they are worlds apart, with crimes equally as distant.
The court has the option to try the Steubenville rapists as adults. They didn't, and leaving that kind of heinous leniency with people clearly cannot be trusted.
This wasn't a thread to flame on the technical aspect of the legal system. I'm asking you straight up, do you feel like justice was properly served to these two criminal cases?
Don't you feel like you are living in twin realities where in the same part of the same state two criminals that essentially commit the highest of offenses against society at the same age are treated as if they are worlds apart, with crimes equally as distant.
Do I think justice was served in these two cases, again, one case was tried as juvenile and the other was tried as an adult.
First of all, in the case of the school shooter, this was a act that was thought out and then acted upon, yes he should have been tried as an adult.
As to the two boys that raped a young woman, these two boys, I think, didn't go to this party with the intent of raping this young woman. A condtion got out of hand that lead to the rape of the girl, neither boys had been in trouble before, therefore, the court decided to try them as juveniles because in my opinion, they acted like juveniles, had all parties involved been thinking like an adult, this rape most likely would not have happened.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,699 posts, read 41,737,988 times
Reputation: 41381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj
Do I think justice was served in these two cases, again, one case was tried as juvenile and the other was tried as an adult.
First of all, in the case of the school shooter, this was a act that was thought out and then acted upon, yes he should have been tried as an adult.
As to the two boys that raped a young woman, these two boys, I think, didn't go to this party with the intent of raping this young woman. A condtion got out of hand that lead to the rape of the girl, neither boys had been in trouble before, therefore, the court decided to try them as juveniles because in my opinion, they acted like juveniles, had all parties involved been thinking like an adult, this rape most likely would not have happened.
I would rather be murdered than raped. To me, rape is worse than murder if I just consider the most basic definition of each. Other than that, I completely agree with the OP.
For those who've commented in this thread that brutally gang raping an unconscious child is just "acting like juveniles", I would like to take this opportunity to correct you. That is not juvenile behavior. It is evil, criminal, deranged, deviant behavior unrelated to age.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,699 posts, read 41,737,988 times
Reputation: 41381
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9coach
I would rather be murdered than raped. To me, rape is worse than murder if I just consider the most basic definition of each. Other than that, I completely agree with the OP.
For those who've commented in this thread that brutally gang raping an unconscious child is just "acting like juveniles", I would like to take this opportunity to correct you. That is not juvenile behavior. It is evil, criminal, deranged, deviant behavior unrelated to age.
The thing here is juvenile sentencing is set up for juveniles who may not understand your final point. The capacity to understand should be taken into account in any case involving a juvenile.
Do I think justice was served in these two cases, again, one case was tried as juvenile and the other was tried as an adult.
First of all, in the case of the school shooter, this was a act that was thought out and then acted upon, yes he should have been tried as an adult.
As to the two boys that raped a young woman, these two boys, I think, didn't go to this party with the intent of raping this young woman. A condtion got out of hand that lead to the rape of the girl, neither boys had been in trouble before, therefore, the court decided to try them as juveniles because in my opinion, they acted like juveniles, had all parties involved been thinking like an adult, this rape most likely would not have happened.
Well, there is a thing in law called Specific intent or General intent crime. Specific intent means you have to have the intent to be convicted of the crime. For example, if you knowingly possess drugs you have to know you possessed them, as opposed to if I stuff a bag of drugs in your coat pocket and you happen to get searched and you truly didn't know and won't be charged with possession of drugs.
On the other hand, there is general intent, which means this qualifier isn't necessary. You can't rape someone unknowingly, it is kind of cut and dry. Did you get consent or not? No=rape, yes=consent.
So regardless of how slutty this girl was, or how often she got drunk, she was raped. While you cite mitigating factors (i.e. party, drinking, unsupervised) there were also aggravating factors (her age, she was out cold) that would increase the penalty. (if she was sober/not out cold, she could have resisted or physical fought back)
It doesn't surprise the OP poster is saying things like "juvenile court BS" and such. He is about as anti-government as you can get.
There is a saying that tough cases make bad law. However, the definition of rape is "sex without the consent of the victim". When the victim is intoxicated, she may not be in a position to verbally give or deny consent. That is what makes intoxication cases difficult. The victim came to a party and presumably consumed alcoholic beverages of her own volition.
It certainly doesn't make what these young men did right, but it is an extenuating circumstance that causes me to view this case differently than say the sort of case where a burglar breaks into an apartment and, at knife point, forces a woman to have sex with him.
Ultimately, the judge properly concluded that a person who is intoxicated cannot give consent to have sex and the legal conclusion is that what occurred was rape. I would agree with that analysis.
Absent a history of criminal acts, or violent acts, the appropriate forum for this case was juvenile court. The judge appears to have imposed about as long a sentence as he could under the law.
I think its more than hyperbole for the OP poster to make statements claiming this sentence is a mere slap on the wrist and that the young men will commit the same crime when they are older. He, of course, has no way of knowing. When offenders are young, a prison sentence seems longer than it does with older people. For that reason, it is likely to have a greater impact than he imagines.
I don't envy a judge in a case like this. He's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
