Why are liberals so g-d d-mn st00pid sometimes?

Post Reply New Topic

I have trouble with the supposition that there have been no consquences for this young woman's rapists. We don't know--and frankly, I'm not sure that we should know.

She is angry at what she perceives to be lenient treatment--and she may well be justified in that anger. But her anger does not excuse her breaking the law. The injury that was done to her does not entitle her to visit a similar injury upon her rapists. One of the purposes of the law is to put a stop to vigilateism--and that's precisely the kind of behaviour that she is engaging in.

We wouldn't countenance her pulling out a firearm and shooting them. We wouldn't countenance her burning down their houses. But we would countenance her breaking court ordered confidentiality? While the consequences are less grave, the behaviour is no less illegal.

I'm not on the side of the rapists here--I'm on the side of the law.

Not sure what this specifically has to do with liberals...I think it's stupid they wouldn't charge people who have committed rape even if they are minors.

I am not so extreme to think 'punishment' and 'social consequences' are the best way to solve all things I think it kind of depends on the nature of the crime, but letting people off for rape is another extreme I don't agree with either.

Well visagrunt, the law is not a moral authority! It is a coercive authority. That being said, it is unacceptable and ethically indefensible to defend the law regardless of what it does.

I am not talking about the way things are, I am talking about the way things SHOULD BE AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED WHEN IT COMES TO THE LAW. I mean, it's asinine to defend the law in this case where you derive no benefit from it because you personally can be adversely affected by it. Are you on the side of Iranian and Saudi law which punishes the victims of rape and lets the rapists off Scott free???

The bottom line is that just because her actions were not legally approved does not imply that they were wrong.


And the idea that just because someone inflicted illegal injury upon you does not give the right to inflict injury on them in return(it's the whole "2 wrongs don't make a right") is a BIG REASON why violent crime continues to be a problem in the United States! This mentality is not civilized, it is naive stupidity.

Why do you post conflicts you have with people on other boards or article comments that you disagree with. Go argue with the person, you're not going to start a circle jerk here, nobody cares man

Dude, I did not post comments on that board but quoted that comment to make a point. Now suck it.

As far as I can tell, they were charged and they went to court. The evidence might not have been strong enough to "get them" for the most serious charge, so the prosecution said they would drop that charge if they would plead guilty to a less serious charge.

No, the justice system is primarily suppose to prevent crime. This is a three step process.

1) Deter people from committing crimes
2) Reform those who do commit crimes
3) Protect society from anyone who it is not possible to reform, or deter from committing violent crimes.

Sometimes protection and reformation go together.

"Punishment" and "retribution" have no place in a healthy justice system.

I am not sure about the ins and outs of this plea deal, but I am fairly sure that in the UK, they are usually made between the defence lawyer and the CPS (i.e. the prosecution). The judge just gives out sentences and makes sure the trial is run properly.

When have I ever suggested that the law had anything at all to do with morality? Quite the opposite. I maintain that the law is--and must be--an amoral instrument.

Now the law protecting the identity of juvenile offenders might be wrong--but the places to make those arguments are in the Courts and in the legislature. A citizen who makes a deliberate choice to flout the law does so in full risk that she will incur the penalty for doing so.

To my mind, the protection of the identity of young offenders serves an important societal purpose, and anecdotal cases like these do not demonstrate that this purpose is invalid or improper.



But what you have failed to do is make the case that the law should be changed. Young offenders are treated differently, and they are treated differently for paticular reasons. I see nothing in this case that demonstrates to me that the law, as it currently exists, has produced a perverse or an unwanted effect.

We have an angry victim of crime, to be sure. But the law must look to the legitimate interests of all parties--not just one.



I never suggested that they were wrong. I only stated explicitly that they were illegal.



It has been a moral teaching of the christian church, since its earliest days. In the sermon on the mount, Christ explicity rejected the notion of an eye for an eye and called upon his followers, "but whosoever shall smite the on the left cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak." If we are going to move into a discussion of the moral aspect of this, then it seems to me abundantly clear that there is nothing even remotely moral about this young woman's behaviour.

On the other hand, if we are going to have a practical discussion about escalating violence, then perhaps we might have to turn our attention to the unrealistic expectations on the part of both government and victims of crime that the criminal justice system is in any way a proper forum to provide satisfaction to those victims. Perhaps what is necessary is for government to take the burden off the criminal justice system and to create better mechanisms for helping (and compensating) the victims of crime.

AR, at this point, I can't figure out if you're saying it is or it isn't about politics parties. You wrote "This is" but your reply about "partisan politics" implied it is not. i.e. your subject heading is a rhetorical question, and you don't actually want anyone to debate the point, just agree. Clarification?

First of all, SHE is also a minor and yet she was going to be jailed for contempt of court as if the ADULT legal standard was being applied to her!

I see plenty of reason to change the law. The #1 reason why the law should be changed is to prevent situations like this from occurring: Where the victim of a sexual offense is punished instead of the perpetrators. I brought up Saudi Arabia and Iran because the law in both those countries does this very thing to victims of rape. In this case, these boys do not deserve their reputations protected. In fact, in a crime committed by a minor that results in someone else being a victim where the defendant is found guilty, judges should be prevented form imposing a gag order on the victim to speak about what happened to them in order to protect the offenders.

Trying juvenile offenders as adults for heinous crimes has taken a bite out of extreme juvenile delinquency by sending the message to teens that they cannot get away with violent crime just because they're underage. The plea deal that was struck with the judge was entirely do to the fact these boys families were wealthy and highly respected. And THAT is what has to be stopped! All people are equal under the law according to the US constitution; so rich people and their children escaping justice through the use of their money is in conflict with Rule Of Law.

The damage to their reputations is the price they must pay for raping a girl and violating her privacy on the internet. As it turns out, what one the battle for her against the legal system was the media exposure this case generated causing the boys' attorney to withdraw the motion to hold her in contempt of court. He knew that his reputation was at stake and that his career as a lawyer was in jeopardy. I am not saying that the boys should have no rights whatsoever, what I am saying is that criminals who inflict harm on a victim nor the courts do not have a right to silence victims and the law needs to be changed to stop judges form being able to do this.

And she deserves to be treated as any other young offender would be treated. She is the one who took this story public, not the prosecutor and not the courts.

And young offenders are not subject to reduced legal standards so far as substantive offences are concerned. Their enhanced protections extend to procedural protections and alternative sentencing. She is just as much subject to the confidentiality order as any other person, and her tender years do not exempt her from compliance.



She is not being punished for being a victim of sexual assault. Indeed, she's not even going to be punished for violating a court order.

Just how far would you see the protection of young offenders eroded? You are allowing one case to colour your entire perspective on youth criminal justice--if that's not the anectodatal tail wagging the policy dog, I don't know what is.



I think you will find that the only thing that trying young offenders as adults has accomplished is to slake some of the bloodthirstiness of the mob. You are going to have to do far better than that to make the claim that there is a causitive relationship between legislation that allows for transfer of juveniles to adult court and a reduction in violent crime perpetrated by juveniles.



I disagree with you entirely.

Before trial, the state had the oppotunity to transfer these cases to adult court. It either decided not to do so, or it failed to do so. Once the trial took place in juvenile court, the legal protections around these two offenders remained solidly in place.

And bear in mind--it is not these two offenders who are silencing their victim. It is the legislature and the courts that have mandated her silence. If you are going to advocate for a change of the law, you are going to have to do better than get angry about a single case. You're going to have to demonstrate a pattern of perverse outcomes.

We get it, some guys comments on a completely different site hurt your butt and you want to express that rage in such a manner as to not have to suffer the potential humiliation of arguing with the person in question and losing. Congratulations, I'm sure the internet is sending your trophy right now

This isn't your thread. It's posted on a public message board, on a public server where the rights are owned by WP.

By posting a thread here, you also open for other people to voice their opinions.

OKAY, I'll concede about *that*. Speaking of American political partisanship, it is the Democratic Party that caters to the interests of legal professionals and the whole legal biz whilst the Republican Party is in bed with the insurance industry. Most lawyers, even prosecutors, vote democratic and support democratic candidates even though some judges vote Republican.

It decided not to do so because these white boys came from rich families that were highly respected and hired defense attorneys with inside connections who were able to convince the DA to try them in juvenile court. If there were black boys from the ghetto, do you REALLY think they'd be tried in juvy court? HELLS NAW! The gag order was knowingly imposed by the judge for the benefit of the rapists whilst the victim herself had no benefit from it whatsoever simply because these boys came form families with more money and more power than hers! People need to know what these boys did in order for other girls to avoid becoming victims like Savannah Dietrich.That's the whole point of exposure in cases like this.





If you were better informed, you'd realize that less than 50% of reported rapes result in a successful conviction and prison sentence. Even with forensic evidence! Many rapists never even make it to court even when their victims report the rapes to the Police. Victim blaming is a dirty trick that trial lawyers use to help rapists get off, or at least get light sentences. And this attitude results in victims being punished instead of rapists. This case happens to have gotten a lot of publicity but thousands of rape cases like this DO NOT because the victims are too ashamed or scared to speak up.

The American Conservative/Liberal dichotomy is why America isn't a true democracy.

You have in effect a tweedle dum tweedle dee system of demagogues exploiting the ignorance and misinformation of their own people to create a climate of fear and hostility towards potential alternatives. Thats why they dont need to imprison or shoot political dissidents in the nations they are so fast to criticise.

In practice there is less seperating the US republican and democrat [sic] parties than there is the opposite ends of the ruling parties of their ideological enemies.

I would rather be a citizen of a direct democracy than one with a sham parliamentary system with redundant binary option of candidates where the outcome has already been decided before its even begun.