Oh dear god - Steubenville Ohio footballer rape case

[StuffezLaBouche]

Christ.
My heart leapt when I saw they'd been found guilty.
Ten I saw the sentence.
A fucking YEAR!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21823042
It's like the whole world conspires against victims of rape...

The article doesn't explain the reason for the preposterously low sentence. I find it hard to believe the boys' ages were taken into account given this is a country that executed minors for murder until a few years ago.

Is it horribly cynical/misguided of me to say I think a large part of their insane sentencing was down to the fact the girl was drunk and agreed to accompany the boys to the parties?
The original story and subsequent stories that emerged about various community officials trying to hush it all up were appalling.

I can't get my head around the age thing and this has really got to me. Surely any man entering you against your will is enough to earn a significantly long sentence?? That boys wanted to hurt, humiliate and violate that girl, and it seems they've managed to do exactly that with very little come-back

A fucking year. Is that all?? I would like to see the fuckers who covered for them in court as well and any bastards who filmed and distributed it.

I can't even begin to imagine how the victim will ever get over such an horrific ordeal.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294748/Ohio-rape-Trent-Mays-Malik-Richmond-guilty-raping-teenage-girl.html

Love how the article says in court the men's remorse was "overwhelming." No, they were crying because it had finally struck home that actions have consequences.
Also, trust the fucking Mail to reprint one of the photos of the ordeal, albeit pixelated.

That is appalling and truly chilling.

I was plesaed and surprised they'd been found guilty, I'd assumed the low sentences were becauseo f their age but I'd forgotten America executes minors. Could it be lower because they were found guilty of digital penetration rather than with a penis? (not that this is necessarily right, I just don't understand why so low)

It is interesting that the judge sat alone, and not with a jury.

When I was a young law student I believed that the jury system was the cornerstone of justice. That it was unquestionably the right way of doing things.

The older I get, the more I realise how many prejudices people bring into the jury room. I doubt that conviction would have occurred with a jury of the small town peers based on some of those reports about the culture in the town.

It divides me, it really does.

It is good that they were found guilty but the sentences passed were pathetic.

Agreed that the guilty part were tears of self pity and not genuine remorse.

I am shocked by the sentencing. But, I am actually relieved that they were found guilty at all, as I feared they would walk away Scot free.

Yes, I have very low expectations of the legal system viz rape. Sadly.

A year

First of all - the reporting is off on this, and secondly the juvenile justice system in the US is significantly different from that of the UK, where anyone over the age of criminal responsibility (10) is tried in a normal court.

In most states, you are tried in a juvenile court up to the age of 18 (the age does vary a bit). Sometimes if the case is serious enough it can be heard in an adult criminal court, but that did not happen in this case - it was in a juvenile court (hence no jury). In juvenile courts, the proceedings are civil, not criminal, but the court can have broad powers over the offender if they are found delinquent (guilty). So the sentencing guidelines are different because it is not an adult criminal court - rape is a category 1 felony in adult court, but is a lower category offence in a juvenile court. And the sentence was not one year, it was one year and two years minimum, maximum until they are both 21 - which is what they will probably get. That decision is up to the state youth justice service. And it looks as though further charges may be brought against more people.

I do wonder whether the State went for a non-jury trial in a juvenile court on the basis they were more likely to get a conviction than with a jury trial in the adult system.

They have not been sentenced yet, 1 year is the minimum they have to serve.

A panel will set the term at a later date.

I think that it is great news they were found guilty.

It also shows the power of social media for good.
From the BBC website :

'The case was thrust into the national spotlight after attention by bloggers and the hacker activist group Anonymous.

Some claimed that the community - including local police - had sought to cover up the crime to protect the accused, who were members of a celebrated high school American football team'

Without that, they could well have got off scot-free as the case was tried in Steubenville. Incidents like this must have been swept under the carpet for years in so many towns.

The trial took place in the county, but it was not a jury trial, and the prosecutors and judge were not local. The local ones recused themselves and a very experienced judge and prosecutors from out of town were brought in. I think these things were probably key to securing a conviction, and I am very relieved they were found guilty.

Awful. Plus the town is 'divided' meaning some obviously think she 'asked for it' actually going to a party and getting drunk. That poor girl. And in my view the article attempts to buy sympathy for the accused by leading with the fact they were crying in court.

It's the BBC - what do you expect?

I took the crying in court to be pity for themselves rather than any sign of remorse.
I approve of the way that the net has made it more difficult to keep certain things 'in house'

Literally just stumbled across the article. Am shocked.