GUILTY OH - Steubenville Rape Case, 11 Aug 2012 #2

New Posts

Tsunvirtual said:
Repectfully snipped for space

To follow your argument you would have to assume that one of the newlyweds would claim the other raped them. Also the newlyweds would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Their sexual encounter would not be filmed, tweeted about spread all over the internet. If one of the newlyweds digitally penetrated the other in their inebriated state and posted it on the internet it might very well result in an annulment as well as a rape charge.

You are comparing apples to oranges. :twocents:
Click to expand...

It has been legally established that a man can rape his wife. I am not saying anyone would cry rape or report it, unless they actually WERE unconscious during the act. But "if a tree falls in the forest..." Is it NOT rape if it isn't reported?
 
bexlex said:
What is wrong with me that I wasn't shocked? The behavior in the tape was all too familiar to me... except there weren't cell phones in my day to record the conversations. Those kids remind me of the scummy guys at the dorm who would never shut up. I always thought those jerks were lying through there teeth....but I guess they weren't.
Click to expand...

Yep, the ɖ!¢ʞhead who was filmed giggling about her rape reminded me of every dumb, amoral frat boy I knew at uni. They're probably all running corporations now.
 
Hey, I am new to the thread just wondering if there is a link to the text messages found on the seized cell phones.
 
I've been to/ spent time in Steubanville, many years ago..

Just walking down Main street you can feel the history, feel the ghosts of intolerance from generations past, ramshackle remnants of an era in which things were easily hidden behind closed doors.
Knowing families in the area in those days, I know of the....
I can't say what I want to say with-out sounding ..insulting.
dang.

and.. it repeats itself endlessly around the world.
Lord love a duck.
 
LisaB said:
I know I am just pushing people's buttons here, but... most wedding receptions include alcohol, and many a bride (and groom) celebrates to excess. One would assume that, LONG before the date of the actual wedding, she "implied consent" to have sexual relations with her groom on that occasion, and in fact, fully intended to do so even if she consumes enough alcohol to be unable to "legally consent". Would the newlyweds be expected to abstain from sexual relations on their wedding night if one of them had too much to drink?
Also... each state specifies a BAC that is considered "intoxicated" for legal purposes (i.e. operating a motor vehicle), however the "limit" varies from one state to the next. Which state is "right"? What is "impaired"? Is it determined by behavior, or blood alcohol content? Is there a specific BAC that is universally considered to be "too high to consent to sex"? Similarly, each state has a minimum "age of consent". Again, the age varies from state to state. Why is a 16 year old in one state too young to consent while a 14 year old in another is not?

The world gets smaller every day. Interstate travel is quite common, and it seems a NATIONAL limit should be enacted concerning both age of consent and the definition of intoxication as indicated by BAC. I realize neither of these issues is directly relevant to this case, but it made me wonder how these arbitrary standards that AREN'T actually "standard" at all have evolved.

Finally, in the case of these two boys... upon turning 21 and being released from detention, they could legally change their names, provided they register under the new names as (child) sex offenders. Assuming most people do not recognize them (or won't in 5 years), if they relocate with new identities, they could PROBABLY pass the entire incident off as if it was a "statutory rape" case, by stating (truthfully) that they were 16 and the "victim" was also 16, without revealing that they are the "Steubenville Rapists."
Click to expand...

I had a bit too much to drink at my wedding and was exhausted from a very long day. I told my husband that I just wasn't into it and wanted to go to bed. If he had tried raping me, I would have called the cops and regretted marrying him. But he didn't. He said OK and went down to the bar at the hotel and met up with some of our guests and hung out for a bit longer while I slept.

I guess I really don't understand this train of thought. Are you just trying to look for a loophole when it's OK to rape someone?
 
LisaB said:
I was discussing two different issues, age of consent and level of blood alcohol, as two issues that seemingly SHOULD be governed by a national standard. I may leave a party with a BAC of .09 in a state where the legal limit is .10, then cross into a state where the limit is .08. In the first state I was not breaking a law. In the other, I was. It seems that there should be some basis in reason for age of consent AND (separate issue) legal BAC. It sounds as if we (as a nation) can't come to an agreement on what constitutes "old enough" or "too drunk."
Click to expand...

I dont know that national standards would really make any difference. I think most states prefer to be able to set their own. I know that are or at least were incentives for states to set certain BAC standards for DUI, but I dont think the federal governement can out right set a level.
 
OMFG I can't believe some folks are making this about binge drinking, or about JD putting herself in a dangerous situation. How about exchanging the "dron't get raped" discourse with the "do not rape" one? :furious:

Seriously. :facepalm:
 
Yoda said:
Malik Richmond is appealing the verdict.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ping-Steubenville-girl-16-appeal-verdict.html
Click to expand...

I think they said they would appeal right after the verdict was read.

I think he should at least be able to appeal the lifetime sex offender status. A year in Juvie would be no picnic, but it won't ruin his life the way a lifetime sex offender status would. It seems way over the top, to me. I can't see that society is helped by making a young man virtually unemployable for life for his part in this.

it's also unfair, as the article states, that some were given immunity who participated in the way Malik did. I can't see that will stand up in court.
 
I apologize if this has been asked already, but did they two guys go straight to juvenile hall? Also, what determines if they serve more than a year? Thanks!
 
JeannaT said:
I think they said they would appeal right after the verdict was read.

I think he should at least be able to appeal the lifetime sex offender status. A year in Juvie would be no picnic, but it won't ruin his life the way a lifetime sex offender status would. It seems way over the top, to me. I can't see that society is helped by making a young man virtually unemployable for life for his part in this.
Click to expand...

I thought the lifetime sex offender status would be determined later.
 
If the two defendants in Stuebenville are sorry for their actions, why appeal the verdict?

http://fox8.com/2013/03/17/guilty-verdict-reached-in-steubenville-rape-trial/

"According to Richmond’s attorney, Walter Madison, the defense was stunned by the judge’s decision.

There are plans to appeal."

I'm not asking for nuts and bolts legal reasons, I'm questioning the morals (or lack thereof) behind the double-speak we witnessed at the end of the trial in the defendants words spoken as apology. I know many people have their ears wide open when hearing the content of the apologies from T.M. & M.R.. Although "sorrow" was expressed, there was clearly not an admission of rape from T.M. and has already been expressed thoroughly, M.R. seemed to be over-abundantly sorry about what was about to happen to him, rather than what he had done to Jane Doe.

I've been curious about the non-court related actions of the Steubenville defense over the last few weeks. The attorney general's office did not seek media, make statements about the defendant's character, or create heart-warming portraits of the victim to be viewed by a national audience. Jane Doe's representation focused their energies on the court trial which, since it was ruled by judge and not jury, could in no way have the outcome influenced by the types of media the defense presented in the run up to the trial.

The defense, in their use of media interviews and appearances by the defendants wasn't trying to influence the trial. They were trying to influence the general population, as were the non-apologies by T.M. & M.R. after the verdict. T.M. & M.R. say they are sorry on camera, vans drive away, cue the appeal.
 
Yoda said:
I thought the lifetime sex offender status would be determined later.
Click to expand...

The articles I read - and the Candy Crawley piece that seemed so objectionable to some, pointed out the lifetime offender status as being really the tougher part of the sentence.
 
PalmettoGirl said:
I apologize if this has been asked already, but did they two guys go straight to juvenile hall? Also, what determines if they serve more than a year? Thanks!
Click to expand...
They went to some processing center so it could be determined where they will be placed. The judge said good behavior and how they did in the sex Ed/rehab program would determine early release.
 
erik28 said:
If the two defendants in Stuebenville are sorry for their actions, why appeal the verdict?

http://fox8.com/2013/03/17/guilty-verdict-reached-in-steubenville-rape-trial/

"According to Richmond’s attorney, Walter Madison, the defense was stunned by the judge’s decision.

There are plans to appeal."

I'm not asking for nuts and bolts legal reasons, I'm questioning the morals (or lack thereof) behind the double-speak we witnessed at the end of the trial in the defendants words spoken as apology. I know many people have their ears wide open when hearing the content of the apologies from T.M. & M.R.. Although "sorrow" was expressed, there was clearly not an admission of rape from T.M. and has already been expressed thoroughly, M.R. seemed to be over-abundantly sorry about what was about to happen to him, rather than what he had done to Jane Doe.

I've been curious about the non-court related actions of the Steubenville defense over the last few weeks. The attorney general's office did not seek media, make statements about the defendant's character, or create heart-warming portraits of the victim to be viewed by a national audience. Jane Doe's representation focused their energies on the court trial which, since it was ruled by judge and not jury, could in no way have the outcome influenced by the types of media the defense presented in the run up to the trial.

The defense, in their use of media interviews and appearances by the defendants wasn't trying to influence the trial. They were trying to influence the general population, as were the non-apologies by T.M. & M.R. after the verdict. T.M. & M.R. say they are sorry on camera, vans drive away, cue the appeal.
Click to expand...

You can be sorry for your actions and still want to be able to have a life, IMHO. IMHO again, sex offender status should be for those who simply can't be trusted to be around society but we don't want to pay for locking them up. In my opinion again, it's the worst thing that can happen to you in the courts besides the death penalty. People who torture children to death over months or years get off much lighter than what Malik and Trent were sentenced to yesterday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 156 more.
Total: 2,323 (members: 157, guests: 2,166)

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
2,166
Total visitors
2,323
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,153
Messages
18,020,132
Members
229,586
Latest member
C7173
Back
Top