Rape victim might go to jail for....

[siead_lietrathua]

i'm not saying what she did was morally wrong. nor would anyone else. but morals and laws dont always match up. these guys get to slip under a blanket protection law and while it sucks, again, it's still the law.

[HEMI6point1]

Why do their identities need to be kept secret anyway? I think personally that right was wiped away when they took PICTURES of them raping her.

What's the worst that could happen? That their names get dragged through the mud and their lives ruined? Oh wait, that may not be such a bad thing....

[Rageaholic]

i'm not saying what she did was morally wrong. nor would anyone else. but morals and laws dont always match up. these guys get to slip under a blanket protection law and while it sucks, again, it's still the law.

And in this case, the law is wrong.

[bainsidhe]

Up until someone pleads guilty or is convicted, gag orders are in place to protect victims and minors. Don't forget the "innocent until proven guilty" thing too.

In this instance, the perps already plead out and are simply awaiting being charged. The victim wants things out in the open, I say go for it.

[Rapscallion]

I think this could fall under contempt of court, correct? I'd be leery of this sort of thing in cases that aren't open and shut, but in this instance I applaud her.

Rapscallion

[draco664]

if their names were not published anywhere else, including this article about their names being exposed, than it is safe to assume there is a blanket publication order, and that they are probably being tried as minors.

Yup. They are juvies and were charged with first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism

i do want to note she isn't being charged for speaking about it. she is being charged for publishing their names online/ in a written format. the boys also pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentancing, they knew what they did was wrong and are accepting punishment.

Pleading guilty and knowing what they did was wrong are two distinctly different things. One is a fact, the other is subjective and can't be determined with accuracy from reading news.

she also was informed by the courts to not mention their names, and she could have had an order put in that her name as a victim was not to be published as well.
so, she was warned something would happen, she did it (and even said to go ahead and lock her up for it) and is now fighting the consequences she was made aware of before.

Fighting the consequences? She's basically saying she'll go to jail happily for the right to name her attackers. How is that 'fighting the consequences'? Sounds to me like she's 'accepting the consequences'.

sidenote: the laws that protect these boys are the same ones that protect other juveniles that may have jsut been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and while it sucks they fall under it's protection, the laws itself are not bad things.

Unless I'm mistaken, it's a court order, not a law. Underage criminals do get named in the press, so long as the court agrees to it.

And the way I see it, these a-holes posted pics online of the victim and their dirty deeds, yet now are crying foul when the victim posts their names online. Serves them right.

Yeah, it's certainly hard to feel any sympathy for them.

Up until someone pleads guilty or is convicted, gag orders are in place to protect victims and minors. Don't forget the "innocent until proven guilty" thing too.

In this instance, the perps already plead out and are simply awaiting being charged. The victim wants things out in the open, I say go for it.

I think you may be a little confused there. They've been charged. They pleaded guilty. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" anymore in this case. They've agreed to be found guilty. The only thing they're waiting for now is sentencing.

I think this could fall under contempt of court, correct? I'd be leery of this sort of thing in cases that aren't open and shut, but in this instance I applaud her.

Whatever you think about her, you have to admit she's got bigger, heavier stones than the pair who attacked her ever will. Very few people are willing to stand up for their beliefs in the face of the legal system. She rocks.

[bara]

These two kids raped someone. Further, they took pictures to show to all their friends.

That doesnt sound even remotely remorseful to me. I hope they burn.

[siead_lietrathua]

Fighting the consequences? She's basically saying she'll go to jail happily for the right to name her attackers. How is that 'fighting the consequences'? Sounds to me like she's 'accepting the consequences'.

Except that her lawyers are fighting it in court.

Unless I'm mistaken, it's a court order, not a law. Underage criminals do get named in the press, so long as the court agrees to it.

that might be a diffrence between laws up here and laws down there then. up here it's covered as part of the Young Offenders Act and IS law. the people involved can give consent to media, but the automatic is a publication ban.

to the rest of it: i'm not defending these boys, i feel no sympathy for them or anyone who commits rape.
but the law that prevents publication is something that protects not only the kids that just do stupid shit like tagging, but also protects victims as well. that law needs to be defended because it does have good purpose. expecially in a state that convicts kids as young as six. (found that while i'm trying to hunt for the actual texts for juvenile defence laws in kentucky)
sometimes people doing good things break laws, and that is usually taken into account when sentancing. hopefully that will happen in this case as well.

edit:

arglebargle. i swear no matter how many variations of "kentucky juvenile laws" i search i only get articles and lawyer websites. not the actual chunk of law. maybe someone else's googlefu is stronger?

[SkullKing]

I think you may be a little confused there. They've been charged. They pleaded guilty. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" anymore in this case. They've agreed to be found guilty. The only thing they're waiting for now is sentencing.

Actually if you re-read what he said, you will see that is exactly what he is saying.

That the as a whole law is important, and the re is the "innocent until proven guilty" angle.

But in this particular case they were already shown to be guilty, and thus the decision should rest with the victim.

Personally I applaud her, She decided to accept the risks for doing what she thinks is right.

Fighting any court decision against her she judges unfair is right too. Just because she knew the risks does not mean she need to allow what she believe to be unfair actions against herself by the court.

And I am leery of plea bargains made without the victims's consent, in a case as simple as this one(where there is only one victim, and the victim is a person, not an institution).

Frankly, I think she is right.


That being said, how can so many people say they got away lightly if they are yet to be sentenced?

[siead_lietrathua]

That being said, how can so many people say they got away lightly if they are yet to be sentenced?

true. kentucky isn't exactly renouned for light sentancing, even with minors.

FWIW i do agree she was right (by which i mean justified) in outing them. but right =/= legal. :/

[Andara Bledin]

The reason for the "got away lightly" comments have to do with the maximum sentencing for the crimes to which they admitted and the terms of the plea, which are more than likely going to be upheld.

Why they would possibly give a plea on a case that's so open and shut (doing anything with someone who is unconscious is rape, and the fact that they, themselves, posted evidence of their crime online makes this case about as slam dunk as it gets) I cannot say, however. Honestly, the fact that they went for it makes me wonder about the motivations of the prosecution.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

I've been wondering that, myself. Could it have something to do with them being minors? "Give the boys a break", stuff like that?

[TheHuckster]

I've been wondering that, myself. Could it have something to do with them being minors? "Give the boys a break", stuff like that?

It could also have to do with avoiding a trial for the sake of the victim, who would have to provide emotional testimony and "relive" the incident in a sense, not to mention have the jury review the taped evidence and other details of the case. Even if it's a slam-dunk, they still have to go through the motions of evidence and testimony.

[Duelist925]

It could also have to do with avoiding a trial for the sake of the victim, who would have to provide emotional testimony and "relive" the incident in a sense, not to mention have the jury review the taped evidence and other details of the case. Even if it's a slam-dunk, they still have to go through the motions of evidence and testimony.

Thats a fair point, but if that is the case, they should have consulted hte victim before any plea was made--it should have been her decision, not the courts, wether or not she went through a full trial.

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe:

I've been wondering that, myself. Could it have something to do with them being minors? "Give the boys a break", stuff like that?

Since, especially in some of the "Good ol boy" States there is still somewhat of a "boys will be boys" kind of attitude, along with entirely too much slutshaming for some. -_-

[ngc_7331]

Except that her lawyers are fighting it in court.

Good. I hope they fight it and get it splashed all over the news as much and as long as they can, even if they lose. This girl has been victimized once, there's no reason for her to lay down and be victimized again without one hell of a fight.