Sexual Assault Victim Faces Jail Time

[Tekania]

.......

really?

SAY SOMETHING!!!

I think you should pull out the yellowpages and look under the title SERVICE & REPAIR, SARCASM METER

[Dyakovo]

So, they shouldn't have rights, because?

They plead guilty. There's no jury pool to taint at all. And sentencing is not phoned in like American Idol or Dancing With The Stars.

Pleading guilty does not mean you give up your rights.

[Dyakovo]

The Sixth Amendment gives the judge the right to close the trial. Gag orders are temporary, it would have been lifted once the case was finished (i.e. the defendants were sentenced.

Gag orders are not by definition temporary, they are more and more becoming parts of settlements. I disagree with the interpretation that the 6th amendment supersedes the first amendment in cases like this. The girl is bitching about the prosecutors and judge not just the rapists. But can't have anyone bitching about the systematic screwing she is getting, while its happening now can we?

Your opinion is over-ruled by SCotUS.

[Dyakovo]

When they violate a court order in the course of their bitching we indeed cannot have that.

gag orders have no place in a public trial. (national security is a different argument).

Bullshit. The gag order was in place to protect all parties involved as they are all minors.

[Dyakovo]

Am I the only one gonna say that I don't give a fuck that she broke an unjust court order? The guys are rapists and deserve any trouble that gets handed to them.

Really? Show the proof you have that they are rapists...

[Dyakovo]

No they are not.

They have taken the plea deal. Yes they are rapists, they have admitted to being rapists.

Since they were charged with sexual assault (a lesser charge than rape), it seems unlikely that they plead guilty to the more severe charge...

I'm beginning to think you didn't bother reading the article...

[Samuraikoku]

Am I the only one gonna say that I don't give a fuck that she broke an unjust court order? The guys are rapists and deserve any trouble that gets handed to them.

Really? Show the proof you have that they are rapists...

Obviously they pled guilty. Admission of GUILT! *nods*

Never mind that the process wasn't about rape in the first place.

[Dyakovo]

... I'm usually not one to defend somebody who blatantly violated a court order.

But the evidence against the "children" charged in this crime is overwhelming. I don't see why a plea bargain was necessary.

The courts of Kentucky have spit in the eye of justice in this case.

And who are you that you have seen the evidence available against them?

[Yuktova]

The judge is a bitch.

Too angry to make a proper reply.

[AiliailiA]

Yes, but it appears you didn't.

According to the article they pleaded guilty to "first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism".The legal definition in Kentucky of "first-degree sexual abuse" is available here. The section of that law that would be applicable here would be 1(b)(1) - a person is guilty of an offence where "He or she subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he or she is physically helpless"

Kentucky law also includes rape in the first, second, and third degrees. In contrast with first-degree sexual abuse, first-degree rape that would potentially be relevant here is that a person would be guilty of an offence where "He engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent because he is physically helpless"

The law is quite clear that they are "sexual abuse" and "rape" are different. They consist of different things, they have different definitions, they cover different standards of behaviour, and they have different punishments. Since the definition of first-degree rape includes sexual intercourse and they have not been found guilty of this but specifically of an offence that does not include sexual intercourse, we can reasonably conclude that their offence did not include sexual intercourse.

They, therefore, are by definition not rapists. They are, however, guilty of sexual abuse.



Yeah, I'll note you claiming that they are rapists despite the contrary being the only deductible answer from the information we have and ask you the very same question.

This guy knows what's up.

Made of win. But Nadkor isn't a guy.

[Dyakovo]

The judge is a bitch.

Too angry to make a proper reply.

And apparently to angry to bother reading the article...

[Ethel mermania]

They have taken the plea deal. Yes they are rapists, they have admitted to being rapists.

Since thy were charged with sexual assault (a lesser charge than rape), it seems unlikely that they plead guilty to the more severe charge...

I'm beginning to think you didn't bother reading the article...

Yea, my bad here, it is first degree sexual assault, which is different then rape.

I would like to tell you the specifics, but I can't. Onky the girl here can, but there is a gag oreder you see...
Greed posted a link that sums up my opinion on this travesty, much better than I can. And again I don't believe gqg orders in public cases. Silence only benifets those who want a cover up.

[Tekania]

Since thy were charged with sexual assault (a lesser charge than rape), it seems unlikely that they plead guilty to the more severe charge...

I'm beginning to think you didn't bother reading the article...

Yea, my bad here, it is first degree sexual assault, which is different then rape.

I would like to tell you the specifics, but I can't. Onky the girl here can, but there is a gag oreder you see...
Greed posted a link that sums up my opinion on this travesty, much better than I can. And again I don't believe gqg orders in public cases. Silence only benifets those who want a cover up.

This wasn't a public hearing..... the hearings have been closed, juvenile cases generally are. The only ones who have a right related to its public showing are the defendants.

[AiliailiA]

Yes, but it appears you didn't.

According to the article they pleaded guilty to "first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism".The legal definition in Kentucky of "first-degree sexual abuse" is available here. The section of that law that would be applicable here would be 1(b)(1) - a person is guilty of an offence where "He or she subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he or she is physically helpless"

Kentucky law also includes rape in the first, second, and third degrees. In contrast with first-degree sexual abuse, first-degree rape that would potentially be relevant here is that a person would be guilty of an offence where "He engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent because he is physically helpless"

The law is quite clear that they are "sexual abuse" and "rape" are different. They consist of different things, they have different definitions, they cover different standards of behaviour, and they have different punishments. Since the definition of first-degree rape includes sexual intercourse and they have not been found guilty of this but specifically of an offence that does not include sexual intercourse, we can reasonably conclude that their offence did not include sexual intercourse.

They, therefore, are by definition not rapists. They are, however, guilty of sexual abuse.



Yeah, I'll note you claiming that they are rapists despite the contrary being the only deductible answer from the information we have and ask you the very same question.

So you're splitting hairs because the Commonwealth of Kentucky decides to split hairs when it comes to rape?

By the base definition of the term rape:
: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent, they're guilty of, that's right, rape.

Kentucky can dumb it down all they want but it's unwanted and non-consensual sexual content and acts. Ergo, it's rape.

No, this goes right to the basis of our own beliefs about what happened. As Nadkor said, that they were charged with sexual assault, when the pictures would provide plenty of evidence for a more serious charge if a rape had happened, tells us that a sexual assault other than rape was what happened and what they have admitted guilt of.

You can't reply to a citation of the actual law with a quote from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. The correct reply for you here ... the ONLY correct reply ... is "Oh, I was wrong. There is no reason to believe a rape occurred after all. Thankyou Nadkor for setting me straight on that."

[AiliailiA]

So you're splitting hairs because the Commonwealth of Kentucky decides to split hairs when it comes to rape?

By the base definition of the term rape:
: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent, they're guilty of, that's right, rape.

Kentucky can dumb it down all they want but it's unwanted and non-consensual sexual content and acts. Ergo, it's rape.

I'm sure we can all imagine someone in Kentucky getting leniency for touching and exposing an underaged child as opposed to actually raping them.

Apparently the age of consent in Kentucky is 16. Unless this took a LONG time to come to trial, she wasn't underage.

Not so sure about the boys though.

EDIT: Just to be clear: 16 or 17 is "underage" in a sense, but not in the commonly used way of referring to age of consent to sex.

[Kaylea]

male-centric The law isn't messed up enough.

Corrected.

men disproportionately benefit from the standard of proof required by law and rapist anonymity (for minors) as it stands. both in regards to tribunal statistics and estimates of rapist demographics (including prison rape) men are more likely to be rapists and women are more likely to be survivors of those crimes. until that changes it is male-centric.

or can you explain otherwise? rape reporters are all liars and it's not really rape anyway, right?

you clearly love dishonest tautological arguments.

you can rape and be a rapist without being convicted of rape. to the majority of people non-consented sex is rape. they admitted to that, so they're rapists. perhaps not by legal definition? but certainly by popular definition and no amount of your weasel-wording changes that.

You do realize that people can be made to admit doing things they didn't do?

that is relevant to what i said, how? do you argue that we can't call people who are convicted of crimes, criminals as well? Mr Not a Rapist coddler.

She shouldn't have disobeyed the judge's order. On the other hand, the order was really unnecessary. If the boys want a clean record for the rest of their lives, that sucks. They sexually assaulted her and they need to live up to that, minors at 16 or not.Especially considering that they recorded the event and passed that around. I would like to think the judge will throw it out, but I doubt it because most are harda--es on this sort of thing.

This stupid thinking is what causes the US' high recidivism rate.

absolutely, we should all be extra nice to them to convince them not to rape again. it's society's fault. we just didn't coddle these rapists enough. why not give them a job in a playschool? they served their time and they're lovely people now, right?

who cares about victims anyway?

Why do you coddle rapists?

Snarl word is snarly, dude. Use an actual argument.

that's rich coming from you. your entire post was "I DONT LIKE IT!" and irrelevant points. you even failed when you tried to be a pedant with spelling.

dear rapist sympathisers, if you don't want to be punished... don't stick your dick in something that doesn't consent.

also, it helps not to make disingenuous arguments over "what is really rape" if you're pretending to care about rape. just saying.

[Greed and Death]

I'm sure we can all imagine someone in Kentucky getting leniency for touching and exposing an underaged child as opposed to actually raping them.

Apparently the age of consent in Kentucky is 16. Unless this took a LONG time to come to trial, she wasn't underage.

Not so sure about the boys though.

EDIT: Just to be clear: 16 or 17 is "underage" in a sense, but not in the commonly used way of referring to age of consent to sex.

16 and 17 is underaged for having lewd picture taken of you.

[Adafdfadfasdf]

Corrected.

men Innocent people disproportionately benefit from the standard of proof required by law and rapist anonymity (for minors) as it stands. both in regards to tribunal statistics and estimates of rapist demographics (including prison rape) men are more likely to be rapists and women are more likely to be survivors of those crimes. until that changes it is male-centric.

or can you explain otherwise?

that is relevant to what i said, how? do you argue that we can't call people who are convicted of crimes, criminals as well? Mr Not a Rapist coddler. Mr. Rational

Should all accused criminals be stripped of their rights, or just the ones accused of crimes you have an extraordinary hatred for?

absolutely, we should all be extra nice to them to convince them not to rape again. it's society's fault. we just didn't coddle these rapists enough. why not give them a job in a playschool? they served their time and they're lovely people now, right?

who cares about victims anyway?

dear rapist sympathisers, if you don't want to be punished... don't stick your dick in something that doesn't consent.

Nobody here is sympathizing with the rapists. Wait, they aren't rapists, they haven't been convicted of rape, or even accused of rape. That notwithstanding, nobody is sympathizing with their crime.


Take a deep breath, calm down, and think. If this woman would have violated a court order concerning any other case than a sex crime, would you be so rabid? Or would you actually think, "Gee, there was a better avenue to take than violating a court order?"

[Tekania]

men disproportionately benefit from the standard of proof required by law

Even if they did, it would be irrelevant. Standard of proof exists for all crimes equally. You don't get to move the goal posts around simply because it's not convenient. The goal is set to reach a standard for conviction, and you can either reach it, or you can't.

[Terruana]

They have taken the plea deal. Yes they are rapists, they have admitted to being rapists.

Since they were charged with sexual assault (a lesser charge than rape), it seems unlikely that they plead guilty to the more severe charge...

I'm beginning to think you didn't bother reading the article...

I don't really get how this works. They're admitting what it was they actually did, they're just contesting the definitions (ie, if it's rape or sexual assault). Shouldn't the legal system have pretty clear definitions for crimes by now? Shouldn't the criteria being used to judge what crime they're guilty of be based on the facts of what happened, the legal definitions of the crime, and legal precedents, rather than the opinion of the perpetrator(s)?

[Tekania]

Since they were charged with sexual assault (a lesser charge than rape), it seems unlikely that they plead guilty to the more severe charge...

I'm beginning to think you didn't bother reading the article...

I don't really get how this works. They're admitting what it was they actually did, they're just contesting the definitions (ie, if it's rape or sexual assault). Shouldn't the legal system have pretty clear definitions for crimes by now? Shouldn't the criteria being used to judge what crime they're guilty of be based on the facts of what happened, the legal definitions of the crime, and legal precedents, rather than the opinion of the perpetrator(s)?

How this works is that they plead guilty to charges which are defined under Kentucky law, and that these charges don't include "rape" as defined under the law. There is really nothing to be confused about..... some people in here have been painting them as "rapists", which they are not under the law, and they have no plead guilty to rape, because that is not violation they plead guilty to.

[AiliailiA]

that is relevant to what i said, how? do you argue that we can't call people who are convicted of crimes, criminals as well? Mr Not a Rapist coddler. Mr. Rational

Should all accused criminals be stripped of their rights, or just the ones accused of crimes you have an extraordinary hatred for?

While I lean to your side of that argument, I urge you not to do "hostile edits" like that.

I'd like to still be able to do a "fixed" for comic effect, but this kind of usage brings us closer to the day "fixeding" is banned outright.

[Terruana]

I don't really get how this works. They're admitting what it was they actually did, they're just contesting the definitions (ie, if it's rape or sexual assault). Shouldn't the legal system have pretty clear definitions for crimes by now? Shouldn't the criteria being used to judge what crime they're guilty of be based on the facts of what happened, the legal definitions of the crime, and legal precedents, rather than the opinion of the perpetrator(s)?

How this works is that they plead guilty to charges which are defined under Kentucky law, and that these charges don't include "rape" as defined under the law. There is really nothing to be confused about..... some people in here have been painting them as "rapists", which they are not under the law, and they have no plead guilty to rape, because that is not what they were charged with.

Okay, so ignoring the calls of rape, why does the plea bargain mean they're not pleading guilty to the same crime they were originally charged with, when they're admitting the same events happened? Is it just legal loopholing? Shouldn't a plea bargain just work by giving people who plead guilty a lesser sentence whilst admitting the same crime?

And coming back to the whole "rape" thing, I don't think it's fair to say without knowing exactly what happened. Many people, myself included, don't agree with the legal definition of rape. I think it should be as simple as "sexual activity without consent", which may or may not be what happened in this case. Either way, it's somewhat irrelevant to my question.

[Tekania]

How this works is that they plead guilty to charges which are defined under Kentucky law, and that these charges don't include "rape" as defined under the law. There is really nothing to be confused about..... some people in here have been painting them as "rapists", which they are not under the law, and they have no plead guilty to rape, because that is not what they were charged with.

Okay, so ignoring the calls of rape, why does the plea bargain mean they're not pleading guilty to the same crime they were originally charged with, when they're admitting the same events happened? Is it just legal loopholing? Shouldn't a plea bargain just work by giving people who plead guilty a lesser sentence whilst admitting the same crime?

And coming back to the whole "rape" thing, I don't think it's fair to say without knowing exactly what happened. Many people, myself included, don't agree with the legal definition of rape. I think it should be as simple as "sexual activity without consent", which may or may not be what happened in this case. Either way, it's somewhat irrelevant to my question.

I don't know the particulars, they could have plead guilty to the same crimes they were originally charged with, there seems to be no indication otherwise. A plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecution and defense for an admission of guilt before the court (typically also requiring the defendant(s) to allocute, abrogating the need for a full trial in trade for a sentencing recommendations to the court.


And yes, arguing what rape definition you would like (or I would like) is irrelevant.... feel free to advocate it's change to your government... it has no bearing here, and never would since even if it were changed it would be immaterial as their crime would have taken place before the change and thus would be tried still under the previous definitions given our general prohibition upon implementation of ex post facto laws.

[Kaylea]

men Innocent people disproportionately benefit from the standard of proof required by law and rapist anonymity (for minors) as it stands. both in regards to tribunal statistics and estimates of rapist demographics (including prison rape) men are more likely to be rapists and women are more likely to be survivors of those crimes. until that changes it is male-centric.

or can you explain otherwise?

you ignored my point about the gendered characteristics of the current situation.

i don't mean to sound "man-hating", i'm simply stating the facts according to records and the most cited estimates.

most people who report crimes do so in good faith. no matter the crime (but ofc, including rape) or the demographic of the person. so when we have a standard of proof for some crimes that means most people who report never even get to see the person taken to court, then clearly it doesn't benefit everyone equally.

that is relevant to what i said, how? do you argue that we can't call people who are convicted of crimes, criminals as well? Mr Not a Rapist coddler. Mr. Rational

Mr Rational? if i'm irrational for calling a criminal a criminal, then you should talk to the mainstream media (and most people, for that matter) who do this as standard. also, presumption of innocence is a legal statute, it has no bearing outside of the courts.

Should all accused criminals be stripped of their rights, or just the ones accused of crimes you have an extraordinary hatred for?

it's not extraordinary to hate rapists or any serious criminals. they're not the same as normal people. they don't deserve the same rights. it's disgusting that we extend liberties that these people chose to deny others, at the expense of their victims and the public IMO.

we're not even talking about accused people. they've been sentenced for that crime. therefore they're guilty. or are we picking and choosing when we can use the law to define people's status?

Nobody here is sympathizing with the rapists. Wait, they aren't rapists, they haven't been convicted of rape, or even accused of rape. That notwithstanding, nobody is sympathizing with their crime.

Take a deep breath, calm down, and think. If this woman would have violated a court order concerning any other case than a sex crime, would you be so rabid? Or would you actually think, "Gee, there was a better avenue to take than violating a court order?"

this is ridiculous, they had non-consensual sex, it's rape. saying otherwise is just an attempt to use euphemisms and downplay their crimes. blatant minimisation. no one else is even having this argument except on NS.

all crimes are not of the same severity, so i don't understand why i should have the same views for all. it's a false equivalence. /

sorry to hear about your experience.