A "Guess The State!" love story.

[theweaselking]

Boy meets girl.

Boy recruits three friends, they kidnap girl and girl's friend.

Boy rapes girl.

Girl, 14, has PTSD, night terrors, and other psychological damage.

Boy is arrested, girl testifies, boy is convicted of kidnapping and rape.

Boy gets no jail time. None. Zero.

Guess the State.

Comments

[post-ecdysis.livejournal.com]

Culbert said jail was not considered as punishment since an investigation revealed that the boy was a minimal risk to re-offend.

What the hell investigation could conclude that? A Magic 8-ball?

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

All signs point to yes.

[atesh42.livejournal.com]

And he's fucking planning on appealing?

That idiot should think twice.

-D.

[icedrake.livejournal.com]

What's he got to lose? The only thing considered in the appeal is the guilty verdict. They can't alter the sentence on the existing verdict.

[glitteringlynx.livejournal.com]

o.O Yeah, really. I'm in total agreement. If a 16 year old and 17 year old had consentual sex... that's consentual!! They're only a year apart in age! I mean geez...

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The 17-year-old was black. Duh.

(Someone I really can't quite disagree with maintains that "In practice, rape is legal, unless the rape sufficiently offends an influential enough group of men.")

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

It's a country where one state is Texas and the other is Ohio?

[anivair.livejournal.com]

Wow. Good old Sandusky Register, making my home town look really nuts.

At least it was in Clyde, so you have to drive fifteen minutes for the crazy to kick in.

[chrisrw109.livejournal.com]

Reallllllllyyyyyyy.....

... and friends wonder why I fervently believe the U.S. Justice system has gone all but completely to shit.

'"I believe you've got the ability to be a good person, but you've got a lot of work to do," Culbert said. "Your behavior was way out of bounds. You can't afford to make a decision like this as an adult."'

Well at least he's gotten a good stern talking to.

[sivi-volk.livejournal.com]

Also, from the victim's mother: ""I think he (Culbert) is trying to give him a chance. Whether he takes it is up to him," the mother said. "It'd be nice if he could be a more productive person.""

I'm not generally an advocate of "tough on crime" stuff, but this is fucking ridiculous.

The quote you give though is the one that threw me the most. It's not like he accidently broke someone's window or smoked a joint on school property.

I'm going to stop talking now before I dissolve into incoherence.

[lurkerwithout.livejournal.com]

Ohio, because thats where Sandusky is. Stupid stupid humans. Hates them all...

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

Weak sentencing for heinous crimes?

I would have figured Ontario.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Contrary to popular belief, we are not actually a state yet.

(Besides, it's the nature of the crime. Heinous crimes happen everywhere. Examples of them which suggest that women aren't people tends to be Ohio, while heinous combined with general crazy tends to be Florida.)

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

That will be because he's a child. I can't overly disagree, despite a visceral hatred for his actions - a 14 year old in prison is likely to come out much more damaged than he went in, and is almost certainly going to have his feet planted firmly on the road of a life of crime. Hells, prisons for childrens replace schools - the lessons are just much more different but hey, at leats they'll USE what they learn in prison. Sadly.

There is a desire to see him suffer for the vile thing he did (which I'm taking as the main reason for your objections since you felt the need to describe irrelevencies like the problems the poor girl now has) - but in the end, do we really think sending a child to prison will help ANYONE?

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Very relevent for her - but not in considering whether the sentence was justified or not.

I mean, if the girl had come through her horrific ordeal with less terrible consequences, would a lighter setence be more justified?

I don't think that punishments for the same crime should vary because a victim in one crime comes out of the experience more traumatised than a victim in another crime.

Context Matters

[chrisrw109.livejournal.com]

While it's an interesting theory to say that the degree of traumatization to the victim shouldn't matter... it does. The justice system is built in such a way that the victim (and their families) *do* get a say.

As part of sentencing, in some cases/jurisdictions, the family describes the degree of damage, etc, which puts the crime into context and allows the jury/judge to consider the ramifications of the actions of the guilty party.

To the same degree things like remorse, prior criminal convictions, and possibility of repeating the offense in the future are also factored in.

The two factors are *both* supposed to be weighed. It seems apparent from the judges category that the latter was considered, but the former was not.

I agree that jail is hell for a child, and that 14 year old girl has been consigned to her own personal jail. A jail in which she can't trust anyone she doesn't know, where anytime someone touches her the memory of her rape will come back, a jail where even sleep is no escape.

There is no probation from that jail, no parole. Many rape victims never recover from the mental scars of what happens to them, particularly when it happen when they're young.

Let's also remember this, while jail is harsh on 14 year-olds, it's not like we randomly chose this boy off of the street. This boy *CHOSE* to rape this girl, he didn't trip and accidentally force himself on her. He acted, and actions have consequences.

If you want to argue with me that all of these cases are different, and that I'm bordering on arguing for strict sentencing guidelines and that those guidelines are even less fair than this kid walking away? Then fine, I'll have that argument.

But don't argue about how unfair jail would be, and how it would ruin his life and that the girls degree of torment doesn't matter. Because those aren't relevant when the boy *knowingly* breaks the law.

And if you think jail leads to recurrence of crime, you might consider how gang-raping a girl with your buddies and getting away with probation might not inspire someone to become a model citizen.

Re: Context Matters

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I am thankful that in Britain the idea of considering the victim's personal straits is only a very recent innovation and not yet widespread - it is not one I encourage.

If one has 3 brutal rapists, each of which commit similar, brutal crimes - but the victims endure in different ways, I do not think they should be treated differently. It is belittling to treat one victim's rape as less significant because she has less long lasting damage resulting from it than another victim's.

No-one doubts what suffering this girl will endure for the rest of her life - but the only reason that is being brought up is a desire for vengeance. I ask what use there is in throwing a child in gaol and people answer with how much she is suffering - it doesn't strike me as an answer unless you're saying "we want vengeance."

Actions have consequences. But I should hope that the consequences we wish the law to apply have reasons behind them. I am not arguing that gaol is unfair - the term is not really applicable - I am asking what it is supposed to achieve.

The girl's degree of torment doesn't matter when considering whether to throw him in prison because him being in prison will not change her torment. It is like 2 seperate conversations. "She is suffering. "granted. He is going to prison, why?" "Because she is suffering." "But it won't change her suffering" "But he chose to cause her suffering." "I know, but why send him to prison?"

I don't think it would inspire anything especially, but the sex offender treatment is supposed to discourage such further crimes - especially when he is already considered unlikely to reoffend.

Re: Context Matters

[chrisrw109.livejournal.com]

Here is my question:

If this boy were 18, then would you suggest he should only be put on probation? If this were an 18 year-old would you protest that jail will only harden him, it will not change him? If we take a 14 year old, an 18 year old, and a 40 year old and all of them commit rapes against women/girls who are of equal age, all unlikely to re-offend, will you argue that the 40 year old should also be spared prison time?

If so, then why have prison for first offenders at all?

If not, then why not? Is the 14 year-old less able to understand it when the girl says no? Is the 14 year-old less aware that the girl doesn't want to have sex, or that what he is doing is wrong? Obviously not, because if he wasn't aware it was wrong, he wouldn't have recruited a gang to grab her and her friend. He would not have had members of that gang restrain the other girl such that she couldn't be a witness.

There is an element of the judicial system that is oriented towards punishment. It is not simply a matter of taking the poor misguided individual who has committed a crime and improving their life and world view. There is an aspect of rehabilitation.. but there is also an aspect of punishment, else there can be no justice.

To truly punish fairly you must consider the entire scope of the crime, not merely the perpetrator. You *must* consider the act that has been done in full measure, and part of that are the echoes of that act, the lives the act affected.

'Actions have consequences. But I should hope that the consequences we wish the law to apply have reasons behind them. I am not arguing that gaol is unfair - the term is not really applicable - I am asking what it is supposed to achieve.'

What is jail suppose to achieve? Two things really. A punishment for a crime done in the first part. On the second part it stands as an indication that we, as a society, will not tolerate certain acts, no matter how youg the perpetrator.

If he had killed her, would you still be making this argument? After all, the ramifications that she no longer is breathing are irrelevant yes? What truly matters is that a 14 year old was convicted of a horrible crime and we should not do anything that might have resounding impact in his life as a result.

Re: Context Matters

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Naturally, age is always a given factor when considering sentencing, it always has been. Especially when we are considering the difference between a child and an adult.

A child is more able to change and develop differently. A child DOES have less control over impulses - if we aregue that a child is as capable of all understanding and consequences as adults then why do we have consent laws and age restriction?

There is an aspect of rehabilitation.. but there is also an aspect of punishment, else there can be no justice.

No, there is punishment for a REASON. Punishment can be for rehabilitation and it can be for public protection - it can be a myriad of reasons, but it isn't just punishment for the sake of punishment. What would be the point? We're going to make someone suffer and spend lots of money doing for no end? No benefit? Punishment for the sake of punishment is illogical.

No the correct word you're looking for here, the word that is used in jurisprudence, is not PUNISHMENT but RETRIBUTION. Vengeance. Making someone suffer because we're angry with them and want them to suffer.

You *must* consider the act that has been done in full measure, and part of that are the echoes of that act, the lives the act affected.

Indeed, but it is not fair on either the perpetrator OR the victim to consider identical crimes to be of lesser severity because one victim managed to cope better than the other. Just because oen victim didn't have develop PTSD or didn't collapse on the witness stand or any of the other tragic problems that can develop after such a horrendous attack doesn't make her attack any less terrible, what was done to her any less reprehensible or the crime any less severe.

Two things really. A punishment for a crime done in the first part.

Which achieves what? You are saying here that a gaol term produces... a gaol term. We punish to punish. That is not a result - that is an action for an action.

On the second part it stands as an indication that we, as a society, will not tolerate certain acts, no matter how youg the perpetrator.

You think we need to use gaol as a public messaging system to say we find rape unacceptable? Locking up children is the only way we can send this message?


Actually prison is meant to achieve many things. Deterrence, protection of society by isolating dangerous people from the general population and rehabilitation being the main ones. It tends to do these to a greater and lesser degree.

I don't think i'd include "for the sake of punishment" or "public service announcement" as either as the prime purposes.


If he had killed her, would you still be making this argument?

Yes. I would make the same argument.

we should not do anything that might have resounding impact in his life as a result.

Prison is the ONLY thing we can do to have a resounding impact on his life? That's it? That's the only way we have of dealing with this child? Because, this court seems to have other ways.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

I don't think you've quite gotten the basis of all of the objections--but thank you for your reasoned comment. I *do* see where you're coming from.

I will come back to this. Swamped right now.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Thank you :) I know that feeling i tend to return to posts after several days usually