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.
In four years of posting on CDF, I've encountered some pretty forceful posters. You may in category of your own. You've called a number of people morons now you are telling another long-term poster that he has a closed mind and cannot balance common sense.
Let's take your statements here.
1. "I've never heard of a grown man (adult) getting such a slap on the wrist for rape".
Wrong. One offender was 16. One was 17. By legal definition, neither are adults. I don't think many people would regard a sentence of "at least one year" or "at least two years" as a slap on the wrist. Additionally, there is the stigma and repercussions of being a convicted sexual offender.
2. "Murder is considered the most heinous offense, but rape is 1A"
Wrong. Rape can be 1A. What your mind is unable to do is to wrap yourself around the notion that there are degrees of homicide and degrees of rape. If I run through a red light and drive into someones car and kill them, I may be guilty of negligent homicide. I am not in the same category that a serial killer is in.
By the same token, a rapist who breaks into a woman's home and rapes her at gunpoint is in a different category than someone who takes advantage of a woman who becomes intoxicated of her own volition. The age of the offenders makes a difference to most of us as well.
3. "Show me what society, world or person thinks a rapist should only spend 1-3 years in jail, disgusting".
Wrong. The problem with rape everywhere is that it is an under-reported crime. Some societies blame the woman for what happened. This kind of case wouldn't even have been brought in many countries. Sadly, they would have blamed the victim for what occurred. In Muslim countries, its the woman who would have been put in jail. In many Asian countries, shame would have kept the woman from reporting the crime at all.
I think what was done in this case was more appropriate. Cases like this should be brought and offenders should be convicted of rape. The age of the offender and the specific circumstances of the crime need to be considered and punishment should be proportionate with the gravity of the offense. This offense was serious, but not as serious as those I have described above.
Now, back to common sense. Perhaps, some day you may meet up with that. I see little evidence that the two of you have ever had a close relationship.
A serial killer commits murder, you committed involuntary manslaughter. Two different crimes, two different intentions (or unintended) and two different sentences. Are you really bring in non-existent crimes that have no correlation to this discussion? Apparently...
Actual murder by definition and rape were met and found by the courts in both cases. This isn't a debate, it was found and met. There are not degree of rape, I have no idea where you got that notion. Raping someone with a smile on your face doesn't change the charge. Rape is rape, murder is murder, manslaughter is manslaughter. They have these offenses separated to assess in the right circumstances.
These two cases involved Rape and murder, nothing less. So now you are up to speed, despite your repeated attempts to hijack, misdirect and bring in completely irrelevant examples outside of our country, laws and then mix in lesser charges that weren't even brought up in these two cases.
So unless you don't consider rape a 1st degree felony (however law does still) then maybe you are OK with lesser charges for rapist (akin to thieves), I guess that is your opinion.
So to recap, age of offenders in both cases = 16-17 (blows up one of your arguments)
Degree of rape = we've established there is no such thing (read the definition and law)
As for calling someone a moron, (What does being a LT poster on here matter? I didn't know you were above reproach after posting volume.) when they poo-poo rape and make excuses for them, I think it is a fitting description.
I wear your defamation as a badge of honor, being juxtaposed to someone that literally has the polar opposite views on almost everything top to bottom is the exact place I want to be in your eyes.
This is the proverbial miscarriage of justice in Steubenville, this is what tells the next batch of boys that if you essentially do the worst thing you can short of killing a woman, you will simple be out in time to get legally drunk on your 21st birthday.
Another sign of the times, another black eye on the justice system, another cancer cell infecting the USA's body.
Hi derosterreich--
The football players won't "simply be released". They'll be required upon turning 21 to register as sex offenders for life.
In short, their lives are ruined. They'll never be able to get a meaningful job, their college prospects are certainly gone (probably related to football), they'll be under a continuous duty to report their location and activity to law enforcement, everybody will be able to search public records and find out who they are and where they live, and most importantly, they will not be able to live within 1,000 feet of any school, preschool, daycare facility, or any other place that cares for children.
There's almost nowhere in the state (in any meaningful urban or suburban area) where you can be more than 1,000 feet away from a school as the crow flies. R.C. 2950.034
What's more, all agencies are permanently shielded from all tort liability they may cause to sex offenders via invasion of privacy or other injury. R.C. 2950.12
I could go on.
Yes, the rape was a heinous crime. But no, the kids did not get off scot-free.
The football players won't "simply be released". They'll be required upon turning 21 to register as sex offenders for life.
In short, their lives are ruined. They'll never be able to get a meaningful job, their college prospects are certainly gone (probably related to football), they'll be under a continuous duty to report their location and activity to law enforcement, everybody will be able to search public records and find out who they are and where they live, and most importantly, they will not be able to live within 1,000 feet of any school, preschool, daycare facility, or any other place that cares for children.
There's almost nowhere in the state (in any meaningful urban or suburban area) where you can be more than 1,000 feet away from a school as the crow flies. R.C. 2950.034
What's more, all agencies are permanently shielded from all tort liability they may cause to sex offenders via invasion of privacy or other injury. R.C. 2950.12
I could go on.
Yes, the rape was a heinous crime. But no, the kids did not get off scot-free.
I do not have the exact facts with me, but allegedly they will serve a minimum of 1 year, up to age 21 is the max. Additionally, I've heard that any juvenile offenses can be sealed and wouldn't show up like an "adult" committing a sex crime.
There lives are hardly ruined, if anything their lives have been ruined not by the legal system but by the media and hackers that brought infamy to this case by other means. So now that their names have been strewn about the news for months they will probably suffer more in that regard.
I'd love to think that the 1000 foot rule is actually enforced, but unfortunately it is not. I looked on Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed and saw a sexual predator, which is listed by the state of ohio less than 300 feet from a school in a town of only 700 people. (I'd challenge you to use that site and check your areas to see if this rings true as well.)
In my eyes they got off about as easily as the court could. They had the ability to charge them as adults, because lets be honest there is going to be very little difference between someone who is between 16-18, yet if they were simply 365 days old they would have been serving 10-15 years in prison like adults get treated.
Simply, they were football players in a small town, where in 2013 rape is not condemned in the same magnitude as murder or even theft.
I mean Bernie Madoff gets life in jail for a non-violent crime and ravaging a unconscious teen like pack of animals leave you out in time to celebrate your 21st birthday? The more and more I hear the cries of fairness and people attempting to highlight the difference I think more and more how many crack dealers, pot dealers, petty thieves and the likes lives are equally as ruined as these clowns and they probably spend more time in jail for non-violent crimes.
very sad state in societal outlook on rape, across the board sympathy for these offenders while TJ Lane is undoubtedly thrown to the wolves (and should be).
II'd love to think that the 1000 foot rule is actually enforced, but unfortunately it is not. I looked on Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowedand saw a sexual predator, which is listed by the state of ohio less than 300 feet from a school in a town of only 700 people. (I'd challenge you to use that site and check your areas to see if this rings true as well.)
I searched on that website for offenders (zip code 45402) and came up with just one offender within 1,000 feet of a school, at least in my immediate area. Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowedThis guy.
He's listed as being as 0.09 miles away from the nearest high school, or about 500 feet away.
But his address - 330 W Second St. - is the address of the Montgomery County Jail.
Sounds fine to me.
In addition to this, there are a few loopholes in the law - number one being that in some cases, offenders were "grandfathered" in their current address because they either (1) lived there prior to the establishment of the registry, or (2) the school came to the location only after the offender moved there.
Reason behind this is forcing somebody to move against their will due to a law taking retroactive effect would run up against some serious Constitutional challenges.
So, yes, there are some offenders who live within 1,000 feet of a school, but aren't in violation of the law.
Quote:
In my eyes they got off about as easily as the court could. They had the ability to charge them as adults, because lets be honest there is going to be very little difference between someone who is between 16-18, yet if they were simply 365 days old they would have been serving 10-15 years in prison like adults get treated.
If they got off as easily as the court could, they would be free men. The court - which consisted of a prosecutor appointed out of Columbus and a judge out of Cincinnati, both geographically distant from Stubenville if that tells you about their impartiality. I think the court threaded a middle ground here, although if it were up to me I would only have them register as offenders for some period of time - say, 5 to 10 years - at the end of which they would have an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves.
And there is a lot of difference between someone who is 16 and who is 18, just the same as there is between 18 and 21. I guarantee you learned a lot in the last two years of your life, not to mention the years between 16 and 18. Mike DeWine's office was wise not to prosecute these children as adults, as it would have only exacerbated the damage done.
The number one goal of criminal law is not simply to punish people. It's to balance justice with ensuring rehabilitation as well, and a permanent registry on a sex offender list does not accomplish the latter goal. By damaging their prospects now, you exponentially increase the chance of them turning into unproductive louts who resort to a life of crime simply to get by.
I searched on that website for offenders (zip code 45402) and came up with just one offender within 1,000 feet of a school, at least in my immediate area.Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowedThis guy.
He's listed as being as 0.09 miles away from the nearest high school, or about 500 feet away.
But his address - 330 W Second St. - is the address of the Montgomery County Jail.
Sounds fine to me.
In addition to this, there are a few loopholes in the law - number one being that in some cases, offenders were "grandfathered" in their current address because they either (1) lived there prior to the establishment of the registry, or (2) the school came to the location only after the offender moved there.
Reason behind this is forcing somebody to move against their will due to a law taking retroactive effect would run up against some serious Constitutional challenges.
If they got off as easily as the court could, they would be free men. The court - which consisted of a prosecutor appointed out of Columbus and a judge out of Cincinnati, both geographically distant from Stubenville if that tells you about their impartiality. I think the court threaded a middle ground here, although if it were up to me I would only have them register as offenders for some period of time - say, 5 to 10 years - at the end of which they would have an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves.
And there is a lot of difference between someone who is 16 and who is 18, just the same as there is between 18 and 21. I guarantee you learned a lot in the last two years of your life, not to mention the years between 16 and 18. Mike DeWine's office was wise not to prosecute these children as adults, as it would have only exacerbated the damage done.
The number one goal of criminal law is not simply to punish people. It's to balance justice with ensuring rehabilitation as well, and a permanent registry on a sex offender list does not accomplish the latter goal. By damaging their prospects now, you exponentially increase the chance of them turning into unproductive louts who resort to a life of crime simply to get by.
I agree with you that two years, especially between 16-18 gives you some wisdom and life lessons - no doubt. However, we are talking about fundamental right/wrong issues, not complex and difficult philosophical outlooks to grow into.
If a child is responsible enough to be allowed to drive a car on the road at age 16 and have the common sense, agility and understanding to negotiate all the complexities, laws and motor skills at that age, surely he is able to know something as basic as rape.
Additionally, why wasn't TJ Lane afforded the luxury of getting a chance at rehabilitation? What if he was abused, molested, bullied, etc and this was the breaking point? He is a lost cause at age 17 presumably yet the other kids are not? Again, I use these two cases because they are stemming from the same peers, in the same geographic region at the same time, with two very different punishments. My argument isn't over the juvenile/adult court, we all understand the technical nature of that.
Furthermore, lets say a 16/17 year old kid gets loaded with his friends and kills someone in a car wreck. Should he get a lesser punishment than a 45 year old guy that kills someone in the same fashion due to age?
There is a limit to where I buy the mental maturity card, this one is clearly not applicable. If this was a deeply complex, white-collar type crime or something could be attributed to lack of wisdom/intellect, then I would afford them that. I just don't believe these kids had "no idea" they were committing rape, or the consequences that will accompany it. I knew I wasn't supposed to commit crimes, I may have had less of an understand of linear Algebra and physics at 17 than I do now, but the most basic of law and order tells you from day 1 that you cannot do things to people without their consent. Period.
Additionally, why wasn't TJ Lane afforded the luxury of getting a chance at rehabilitation? What if he was abused, molested, bullied, etc and this was the breaking point? He is a lost cause at age 17 presumably yet the other kids are not? Again, I use these two cases because they are stemming from the same peers, in the same geographic region at the same time, with two very different punishments. My argument isn't over the juvenile/adult court, we all understand the technical nature of that.
Furthermore, lets say a 16/17 year old kid gets loaded with his friends and kills someone in a car wreck. Should he get a lesser punishment than a 45 year old guy that kills someone in the same fashion due to age?
Hi derosterreich--
There are a lot of factors that a judge must consider before imposing a sentence, and one of the greatest factors is the mental element - what was the person's state of mind when he committed the crime? A crime of accident is obviously punished less severely than one of impulse, which is punished less severely than a premeditated one. The logic behind this is that if you'd had time to think about the crime ahead of time, you had a chance to reconsider.
The rape in this case - a crime of impulse fueled by alcohol (in which neither party had the capacity to consent) is obviously going to be punished less severely than some chump who's been stalking a victim for weeks before committing the crime.
As to the car example (which is getting us away from rape; but I'll address it anyway), most car-based deaths are not punished very severely. If you hit someone by sheer accident - slide on some ice and hit a pedestrian and kill him - you'll be on the hook for involuntary manslaughter, and you'll probably do something like six months in jail, maybe even get probation and avoid a felony record if you have a good lawyer.
Similarly with a crash based on a DUI regardless of age 16 or age 45 - even the most egregious DUI crashes, such as hitting a church bus and killing 27 people only netted the guy eleven years of jail time. DUI simply doesn't meet the same premeditated mental element of the crime that TJ Lane clearly satisfied (by coming into court with a shirt saying 'killer' and flipping the judge off).
In both cases it's a far cry from the TJ Lane-style premeditated murder because in the accident/DUI cases, nobody intended to kill someone.
In short, while the football players may be salvageable, the shooter is much less likely to ever be a productive member of society.
Quote:
There is a limit to where I buy the mental maturity card, this one is clearly not applicable. If this was a deeply complex, white-collar type crime or something could be attributed to lack of wisdom/intellect, then I would afford them that. I just don't believe these kids had "no idea" they were committing rape, or the consequences that will accompany it. I knew I wasn't supposed to commit crimes, I may have had less of an understand of linear Algebra and physics at 17 than I do now, but the most basic of law and order tells you from day 1 that you cannot do things to people without their consent. Period.
I fully agree, and it's why I wouldn't support letting them off scot-free, despite everyone involved being drunk beyond comprehension.
Last edited by hensleya1; 03-25-2013 at 10:42 AM..
There are a lot of factors that a judge must consider before imposing a sentence, and one of the greatest factors is the mental element - what was the person's state of mind when he committed the crime? A crime of accident is obviously punished less severely than one of impulse, which is punished less severely than a premeditated one. The logic behind this is that if you'd had time to think about the crime ahead of time, you had a chance to reconsider.
The rape in this case - a crime of impulse fueled by alcohol (in which neither party had the capacity to consent) is obviously going to be punished less severely than some chump who's been stalking a victim for weeks before committing the crime.
As to the car example (which is getting us away from rape; but I'll address it anyway), most car-based deaths are not punished very severely. If you hit someone by sheer accident - slide on some ice and hit a pedestrian and kill him - you'll be on the hook for involuntary manslaughter, and you'll probably do something like six months in jail, maybe even get probation and avoid a felony record if you have a good lawyer.
Similarly with a crash based on a DUI regardless of age 16 or age 45 - even the most egregious DUI crashes, such as hitting a church bus and killing 27 people only netted the guy eleven years of jail time. DUI simply doesn't meet the same premeditated mental element of the crime that TJ Lane clearly satisfied (by coming into court with a shirt saying 'killer' and flipping the judge off).
In both cases it's a far cry from the TJ Lane-style premeditated murder because in the accident/DUI cases, nobody intended to kill someone.
In short, while the football players may be salvageable, the shooter is much less likely to ever be a productive member of society.
I fully agree, and it's why I wouldn't support letting them off scot-free, despite everyone involved being drunk beyond comprehension.
I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but that is not the proper understanding of the law. Crimes are one of two things, General intent or Specific Intent. Specific intent requires a qualifier to commit the crime. (i.e. Knowingly possessing drug XXX) The keyword is knowingly, this means that if someone plants something on you and you are unaware, even if you are possessing it you are not guilty of that crime.
Rape is a general intent crime, there is no specific intent. If you rape you rape, the only pieces to the puzzle are whether this sex was forced penetration or not. If so, it is rape, there is no degrees of it.
As far as alcohol, there is no defense of alcohol because the effects are not immediate. You realize and feel the approaching drunkenness and have the reasonable understanding of its effects and that they are encroaching. You have to continue to make the decision to further your drinking to reach a state of impairment, which is why you can't use being drunk as an excuse to get out of a drink-driving charge.
Think about it, by that logic; you should get a LESSER sentence the MORE drunk you are because you are less yourself/judgement/control with more alcohol. That isn't reality.
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are absolutely part of sentencing, but traditionally alcohol is not a mitigating factor. You can argue the alcohol should aggravate the sentence, because they coupled an additional crime of underage drinking (which they knew is illegal) and maybe even supplies to other minors to help contribute to the "rape environment" which led to this infamous case.
My usage of the car wreck was to see where you tolerance moves. I've supplied you with two cases which has only one true variable, the crime committed. They are high crimes, with huge variances in punishment.
Now when I set two hypothetical crime up set all things equal besides the age of the offender I want to know how you react.
car A has a 17 year old drunk driver who kills someone.
car B has a 45 year old drunk driver who kills someone.
Do the drivers of car A & B receive the same sentence in your eyes with all things being equal?
I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but that is not the proper understanding of the law. Crimes are one of two things, General intent or Specific Intent. Specific intent requires a qualifier to commit the crime. (i.e. Knowingly possessing drug XXX) The keyword is knowingly, this means that if someone plants something on you and you are unaware, even if you are possessing it you are not guilty of that crime.
Rape is a general intent crime, there is no specific intent. If you rape you rape, the only pieces to the puzzle are whether this sex was forced penetration or not. If so, it is rape, there is no degrees of it.
Hi derosterreich--
We'll just kindly ignore that I'm in law school and aced my criminal law class last year if you think I have an improper understanding of the law.
There absolutely is a "specific intent" rape (I tried to avoid the use of legalese in order to not lose everyone else who may be reading this conversation) and that happens when someone decides to rape a specific person ahead of time, which can and often does happen. That would be "purposely", or a higher level of culpability than "knowingly". Those are the rape crimes that often net ten-plus year sentences.
It's unlikely that the attorney general's office had enough evidence on the facts to go after a specific intent rape, which is why the resulting sentence seems so light to you. So they went after a lower level - joggling my memory from last year, purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently. Drinking and raping would be reckless - and thus not warrant the 10+year sentence you desire.
Quote:
As far as alcohol, there is no defense of alcohol because the effects are not immediate. You realize and feel the approaching drunkenness and have the reasonable understanding of its effects and that they are encroaching. You have to continue to make the decision to further your drinking to reach a state of impairment, which is why you can't use being drunk as an excuse to get out of a drink-driving charge.
Think about it, by that logic; you should get a LESSER sentence the MORE drunk you are because you are less yourself/judgement/control with more alcohol. That isn't reality.
No, it's not a defense to a charge, but it will often result in a lower punishment than if the prosecutor's office can prove you deliberately set out to kill someone. Few alcoholics go out with the specific intent to hit a church bus; they go out to get drunk. It's different than if someone deliberately rammed his car into the same church bus.
Again, it brings us back to the levels of culpability - a DUI death is reckless, a freak accident is negligent, and ramming your car into the church bus is purposely.
Quote:
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are absolutely part of sentencing, but traditionally alcohol is not a mitigating factor. You can argue the alcohol should aggravate the sentence, because they coupled an additional crime of underage drinking (which they knew is illegal) and maybe even supplies to other minors to help contribute to the "rape environment" which led to this infamous case.
As a general rule you are correct in saying alcohol is not a mitigating factor, and in this case (where the age of consent for sex is 16), alcohol arguably removes the ability to consent. But that brings us to a grayer area that hasn't been fully answered by courts (or more accurately has divided them): what happens when neither party is capable of consenting?
I'll give you a hypothetical of my own: drunk 16 year old female comes onto you, drunk 16 year old male, and you don't say no. You're both above the legal age of consent per state law, but the alcohol has removed both parties' ability to consent, but you both have sex anyway. You're charged with rape a few days later once she realizes what happened and didn't really like you after all. You've got several character witnesses who testify about the situation, the night involved, and her general character (tendency to fabricate stories).
Would you convict yourself of rape?
There is no easy way out for a court in this example - if they punish too harshly, then they unnecessarily bring the hammer down on two kids who made a mistake. If they go too light, then the "victim's" family (whether it be the male or female victim) goes up in arms.
Quote:
My usage of the car wreck was to see where you tolerance moves. I've supplied you with two cases which has only one true variable, the crime committed. They are high crimes, with huge variances in punishment.
Now when I set two hypothetical crime up set all things equal besides the age of the offender I want to know how you react.
car A has a 17 year old drunk driver who kills someone.
car B has a 45 year old drunk driver who kills someone.
Do the drivers of car A & B receive the same sentence in your eyes with all things being equal?
As a judge I would be more inclined to show leniency to the 17 year old. Going back to my earlier point about rehabilitation, you would cause immensely more damage to a 17 year old's future prospects than a 45 year old's (who in any case should have known better). Psychology has shown that the brain doesn't fully mature until the mid 20's, although it would be completely impractical to raise the age of majority, age of consent, or age of driving that high.
As a general rule you are correct in saying alcohol is not a mitigating factor, and in this case (where the age of consent for sex is 16), alcohol arguably removes the ability to consent. But that brings us to a grayer area that hasn't been fully answered by courts (or more accurately has divided them): what happens when neither party is capable of consenting?
I'll give you a hypothetical of my own: drunk 16 year old female comes onto you, drunk 16 year old male, and you don't say no. You're both above the legal age of consent per state law, but the alcohol has removed both parties' ability to consent, but you both have sex anyway. You're charged with rape a few days later once she realizes what happened and didn't really like you after all. You've got several character witnesses who testify about the situation, the night involved, and her general character (tendency to fabricate stories).
Would you convict yourself of rape?
Yes. I would.
I'm sure with your background you are well aware of how rape is defined. If you penetrated someone without obtaining consent, absolutely that is rape whether you were drunk or not.
Flirting is not consent to sex. Kissing is not consent to sex. Consent to oral sex is not consent to any other type of sex. The only thing that is consent to sex is a verbal confirmation of, "Yes, I would like to X, Y, & Z."
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.
