Girl May Be Charged ForTweeting Boys Names Who Assaulted Her

[Krome]

When the court goes that way to protect the name of the retard who was clearly on the wrong end, the court is lost any credibility on me.

[psionicinversion]

have to remember shes 17 and 17 year old girls' emotions run high and they lash out without thinking about the consequences. Fair play to her i say, **** those lads they know what they were doing at the time so screw em. If i was those lads id be more worried about what her family will do to em cus i bet if shes got some hot head male brothers or cousins them lads are gonna get battered by em

[episode]

Yeah, lets ignore the fact that they are kids and the court specifically ordered that their names be suppressed.

Shrug. Shes going to get punished for it, they got off easy if the terms of the agreement are what she described.

[Dashel]

She should be held in contempt, and those boys should be castrated.

[Gnome]

There's something very wrong when the guys who raped her are out on the streets, sharing pictures of the rape and bragging. More sad is that the people in that community find this acceptable. Wasn't there a time when the parents and peers would "take care of" these sorts of situations?

[articuno1au]

Your sarcasm sickens me. EVERYONE should ignore those facts and name and shame the freaks of nature. Evil little a**holes. Sorry but in this instance, the law vs the people's thoughts should be in favour of the agreement of almost everyone... ie: drop the case and give those kids the beating they deserve. Btw, 17 year old's are not kids. They're fully able to be responsible for these abhorrent acts of sick behaviour.

Thanks for your opinion.

This is the system that we, as a society, view as the correct way to do things. Whilst the system is not perfect it is how we do it. When imperfections arise, we do our best to correct these issues.

"The people's thoughts" as you so arrogantly assert to know; Have not yet made to this system, and until such a time as they do the system must proceed as it does.

In all other regards America considers these two people children. They cannot vote, they cannot drink, they cannot drive and they cannot put their names to legal documents.

You can't play it both ways, either they are adults in all of those considerations or they are not.

Best solution is to just let it go through the usual legal channels. Everyone's up in arms over the fact that she'll get an unreasonable punishment, but that's not certain.

This. Whilst it doesn't always get the answer we feel is right it is the way we have chosen to deal with issues of this nature.

The decisions reached by a court are only as good as the people present on the day. For example, a good attorney could get the guiltiest man freedom. Doesn't make it right. On that basis, our legal system is flawed to say the least.

This girl was just making sure there was some consequence for their actions. Their right to anonymity means there would have been none. I am not suggesting we all take the law into our own hands and truthfully i could not be the man to say where we should draw the line on this but in my heart, i agree with her.

Then the system needs change, that means we must legislate to change it, not pick up pitch forks and take it into our own hands :\

Ignore the fact that she is CLEARLY biased on the issue, and the judge ruled that it wasn't in the public's interest to make the names publicly available; If we continue along the line of thought you are tendering, how long until the victim gets to lock the door for all eternity because that's how they feel about it?

The crime was against her. No court would stop me naming and shaming. No court has the right. When crimes are committed, even by so called kids (17 is not young enough to be able to get away with it), the person who was attacked should have every right to spread their names around all over the place. The guys sat in court making these decisions were sat in their lovely houses enjoying meals or whatever while that girl was abused. They felt nothing of her pain, and they have no say in it if you ask me.

The court has the right because We, The People, say it does.

That's why we don't ask you by the way. The girl in question is clearly not impartial. There is no way she should be involved in such a decision.

And it's good that you have an opinion. When you're called to jury, you can represent it. Until then, we define "right" using the law and not exclusively by the opinions of the people in this forum. It's not a perfect system by far, but it's the best we got. So we have to follow it, lest we devolve to something much worse.

This, oh so much this.

You cannot possibly think that tweeting the boys' names is anywhere as wrong or severe as what they did to her. Have some common sense, will you?

Yes, what she did is contempt of court, but it's nothing I can blame her for. Here's hoping she won't be punished too harshly for it.

I didn't think anyone would be sufficient an ingrate to read what I said that way. I said she was WRONG. As in, the opposite of right. I made not assertion as to scale or severity, I just said she was wrong.

You straight up disregarded the rest of my posts to call me out on that. Thanks for that.

[Matthew_Thepc]

More sad is that the people in that community find this acceptable.

who finds it acceptable? I think she should go to jail for violating a judge's order, but that doesn't mean I think what the rapists did was acceptable. They both broke the law, and they should both be punished. If anything, the boys will be punished less heavily because of her actions. If I were her, I'd look for some form of temporary insanity :)

[articuno1au]

Everyone has the RIGHT of a fair and unbiased trial and sentence.

Just because we think the crime is atrocious (and lets face it, there isn't a single person here defending the guys) doesn't mean that they lose the right to natural justice and procedural fairness.

Even if you wanted to suggest that they should lose these rights, that wouldn't be for you to decide, it would be for the judge to decide. The judge, in this case, decided that they had the right of anonymity.

The issue isn't even so much the rapists rights, but rather that she disregarded the directives of a judge. She won't be charged with "Releasing the names of a rapist", but rather with "Contempt of Court".

What she did was wrong. It wasn't as harmful as what was done to her, not by a long shot, but it was equally WRONG. There are no degrees of right and wrong. The terms are ABSOLUTE. They are either On or Off. Right or Wrong. White or Black.

What the rapists did was unforgivable, but that doesn't excuse her actions.

who finds it acceptable? I think she should go to jail for violating a judge's order, but that doesn't mean I think what the rapists did was acceptable. They both broke the law, and they should both be punished. If anything, the boys will be punished less heavily because of her actions. If I were her, I'd look for some form of temporary insanity :)

I wanted to say this but didn't want to create a storm of stupidity. The judge WILL likely take into account the fact that they have been outed during sentencing.

The judge will take into account all of these things during his deliberating and possibly her sentencing (she doesn't get a trial by the way).

[MDboyz]

They also should charge whoever hosted that party that allowed under-age drinking.

[argonite]

I just want to clarify my position on this issue, since tempers seem to be running high:

- I don't approve of what the boys did, because that is against the law.

- I don't approve what she did either, because that is against the law.

- I don't like what the boys did because it was morally incorrect.

- I do actually like what the girl did, I feel that is is correct, but then I don't fully understand the law in this case.

- When I am faced with "morals" vs "the law", I will always choose "the law". Morals are a fickle thing. Passion is dynamic. Even "common sense" is subjective.

- The people have the power to change the law, if they feel the law has erred significantly. This is a system of the people.

[OOOOOOOO]

"The people's thoughts" as you so arrogantly assert to know;

Arrogant? Get off your high chair boy.

[vanx]

What is she complaining about? If she thinks that her attackers have made a cushy plea agreement, she should ask her lawyers to petition the judge to modify its terms or reject it altogether. However, she does not have a right to disrespect authority.

[Vykranth]

What the rapists did was unforgivable, but that doesn't excuse her actions.

Sure but the original article is lacking the critical piece of information of the plea deal the boys were given.

On June 26, the boys pleaded guilty to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. Terms of their plea agreement were not released.

From her point of view, she felt that justice was not harsh enough.

Now her actions raise a very interesting question: should plea deals be allowed for rape or blood crimes or should such crimes be prosecuted without any arrangments?

[Southern Patriot]

- When I am faced with "morals" vs "the law", I will always choose "the law".

And you are a prefect example of the kind of attitude that is destroying this nation. Morality trumps law any day. Slavery was legal, but I doubt many would say it was moral. Extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany was legal, but certainly wan't moral. Forced sterilization of the mentally handicapped was once legal, but certainly not moral. In some Islamic nations, a man can legally kill his wife for adultery (or other reasons), but do you also think that is moral?

[argonite]

And you are a prefect example of the kind of attitude that is destroying this nation.

Please clarify.

[Southern Patriot]

Please clarify.

Please read the edited post, sorry.

[vanx]

From her point of view, she felt that justice was not harsh enough.

Now her actions raise a very interesting question: should plea deals be allowed for rape or blood crimes or should such crimes be prosecuted without any arrangments?

The judge who will be sentencing those boys next month has the power to accept, modify or reject the terms of their plea agreement. So there is potential to harsher justice.

Besides, no one is asking this question: why did the district/state/federal attorney propose such plea bargain terms? In Kentucky, sexual abuse in the first degree is a Class D felony. Has the prosecution not had enough evidence to charge them with rape in the 1st degree which is a Class B felony and carries harsher penalties?

[Gone]

Rape is an inexcusable crime, and I don't give a **** about their feelings or safety. They are on par to murderers and pedofiles. Useless to society, and only ruin other peoples lives.

I hope her charges get thrown out.

[articuno1au]

Arrogant? Get off your high chair boy.

Given that you both used the wrong term (you were after high horse) and reinforced my assertion as to your arrogance in one fel swoop, I have nothing more to say to you.

Sure but the original article is lacking the critical piece of information of the plea deal the boys were given.

From her point of view, she felt that justice was not harsh enough.

Now her actions raise a very interesting question: should plea deals be allowed for rape or blood crimes or should such crimes be prosecuted without any arrangments?

The judge has that information and he felt that it was reasonable to suppress their names.

I think it should be allowed. If the prosecutor has enough to get them for murder/rape etc there is no way he will let them walk with less in a plea.

Either way, the final check is the judge. Hopefully he makes the right call >.<

he pretty much did. You are choosing to hide under some rule of law, rather than reality and common sense.

law is often wrong.

edit, sorry i see he added more after you replied :p i thought you just ignored the rest of his post lol

To continue from the conversation you were involved in: Then the law must be updated to reflect the morals of our time. Then it will be both immoral AND illegal. Until such a time as society pushes to make it both, it is merely immoral.

I can't quite word this the way I wanted to, hopefully people understand what I mean :\

The judge who will be sentencing those boys next month has the power to accept, modify or reject the terms of their plea agreement. So there is potential to harsher justice.

Besides, no one is asking this question: why did the district/state/federal attorney propose such terms? In Kentucky, sexual abuse in the first degree is a Class D felony. Has the prosecution not had enough evidence to charge them with rape in the 1st degree which is a Class B felony and carries harsher penalties?

I agree with all of this. I do however think it's irrelevant to her actions.

Argh >.<

Rape is an inexcusable crime, and I don't give a **** about their feelings or safety. They are on par to murderers and pedofiles. Useless to society, and only ruin other peoples lives.

I hope her charges get thrown out.

Would you be ok with it if she had murdered them? How about if she murdered their parents? Surely they are as involved as the kids because they raised them?

It's an endless spiral. We can't condone what she did for the same reason we can't condone the above examples.

Also: Paedophiles. If you are going to hate them, know how to spell it so you can make your point.

[argonite]

And you are a prefect example of the kind of attitude that is destroying this nation. Morality trumps law any day. Slavery was legal, but I doubt many would say it was moral. Extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany was legal, but certainly wan't moral. Forced sterilization of the mentally handicapped was once legal, but certainly not moral. In some Islamic nations, a man can legally kill his wife for adultery (or other reasons), but do you also think that is moral?

In three of the four examples you posted*, the law was eventually changed to reflect new moral definitions. I think you're forgetting that while I have a solid belief in the law, the law itself is adaptive. You can and should criticize it, question it, and attempt to change it, but you should not disobey it because it represents the current rules for our society. If I've learned anything from sociology class, it's that society needs rules.

For this same reason I believe in democracy. I believe it is the right system to follow, even in times of wrong, because of its track record of success. In hindsight, we might look at it as being very stupid but we don't have that hindsight to say for certain now.

* the fourth, Islamic nations, are currently undergoing all sorts of turmoil and are too unstable to properly base an opinon on. One should hope that this turmoil is simply something required on the path to reformation of the law, but who knows for sure.

[articuno1au]

In three of the four examples you posted, the law was eventually changed to reflect new moral definitions. I think you're forgetting that while I have a solid belief in the law, the law itself is adaptive. You can and should criticize it, question it, and attempt to change it, but you should not disobey it because it represents the current rules for our society. If I've learned anything from sociology class, it's that society needs rules.

For this same reason I believe in democracy. I believe it is the right system to follow, even in times of wrong, because of its track record of success. In hindsight, we might look at it as being very stupid but we don't have that hindsight to say for certain now.

Well said. That's exactly what I am getting at.

[Gone]

Given that you both used the wrong term (you were after high horse) and reinforced my assertion as to your arrogance in one fel swoop, I have nothing more to say to you.

The judge has that information and he felt that it was reasonable to suppress their names.

I think it should be allowed. If the prosecutor has enough to get them for murder/rape etc there is no way he will let them walk with less in a plea.

Either way, the final check is the judge. Hopefully he makes the right call >.<

To continue from the conversation you were involved in: Then the law must be updated to reflect the morals of our time. Then it will be both immoral AND illegal. Until such a time as society pushes to make it both, it is merely immoral.

I can't quite word this the way I wanted to, hopefully people understand what I mean :\

I agree with all of this. I do however think it's irrelevant to her actions.

Argh >.<

Would you be ok with it if she had murdered them? How about if she murdered their parents? Surely they are as involved as the kids because they raised them?

It's an endless spiral. We can't condone what she did for the same reason we can't condone the above examples.

Also: Paedophiles. If you are going to hate them, know how to spell it so you can make your point.

I made my point, and my misspelling apparently didn't impede your ability to understand what I was saying, just merely grounds for you to attempt to bring discredit upon my opinion.

I would have been fine with her killing her rapist if she were awake at the time, but not her family. The only people responsible for their own actions is THEMSELVES. So nice try, I do not believe in punishing others for raising a failure and burden to society.

Apparently half the people in this forum support the criminal rather than the victim, because apparently the criminal doesn't have any wrongs. They just need to be "better understood" :rolleyes: . Same thing goes in the world.

[argonite]

Apparently half the people in this forum support the criminal rather than the victim, because apparently the criminal doesn't have any wrongs. They just need to be "better understood" :rolleyes: . Same thing goes in the world.

I don't think anyone has mentioned "better understood" yet. Pretty much everyone here disagrees with sexual assault.

The criminals have clearly done wrong. Their light punishment should be questioned. But I cannot approve of the people who are trying to use a crime to justify additional illegal activity. That's vigilante justice and vigilante justice leads to slippery slopes and chains of revenge.

Under our current system, both the girl and the boys have done wrongs, clearly of different caliber, and should be punished of different caliber as well.

[Southern Patriot]

You can and should criticize it, question it, and attempt to change it, but you should not disobey it because it represents the current rules for our society. If I've learned anything from sociology class, it's that society needs rules.

Sometimes the only way to change a law is to disobey it. Just ask Ghandi. You obviously learned nothing about him from your sociology class. Let me guess, it was probably taught by some idiotic liberal?

[articuno1au]

I made my point, and my misspelling apparently didn't impede your ability to understand what I was saying, just merely grounds for you to attempt to bring discredit upon my opinion.

I would have been fine with her killing her rapist if she were awake at the time, but not her family. The only people responsible for their own actions is THEMSELVES. So nice try, I do not believe in punishing others for raising a failure and burden to society.

Apparently half the people in this forum support the criminal rather than the victim, because apparently the criminal doesn't have any wrongs. They just need to be "better understood" :rolleyes: . Same thing goes in the world.

No, I was just correcting the spelling. I wasn't discrediting your point in the slightest, so I apologise if you felt I was attacking you.

I was trying to point out that everyone's line for where the punishment imposed by the victim should stop is different. I wasn't trying to suggest you were mad/unbalanced; I just took the mild/medium/hot approach to my example >.<

There isn't a single person supporting the boys (or the criminals as you refer to them) in this thread. The only people supporting criminals are the ones saying she should be let off. She committed a crime as much as they did.

It's not a case of "Girl vs Boys"; It's "The People vs Boys" for this very reason. The judge made a ruling. Like it or not she has to abide by it.

I just can't believe how willing people are to throw away the democratically implemented system we have :\

Sometimes the only way to change a law is to disobey it. Just ask Ghandi. You obviously learned nothing about him from your sociology class. Let me guess, it was probably taught by some idiotic liberal?

Oh be serious :\

Would you take that line if she murdered them in return?

Also, how does her disobeying a judges ruling going to change ANYTHING? More to the point, are you suggesting that they should change the law to allow people to disregard judges?

My god that's just.. I can't say what I think because mods get mad when I do :\