Punishing the victim

[Skybird]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/savannah-dietrich-contempt-charege_n_1696303.html

A girl gets sexually assaulted, then pictures of the deed get posted oin the web and the perpoetrators boast with them, the two attackers confess guilty, at court there is a deal made, and the victim of the crime never got asked, while her attackers got away with a mild clap on their fingers.

As if that is not already disghustign enough and shameful enough, she then reveals the identity of her attackers via twitter, to expose them to public shame at least, doing this in frustraiton or despair over a court that obviously has put the interests of her attcakers over the claim of justice for the victim. Since the court has mandatorily demanded that the parties should not talk about it at all, the girl now faces a maximum penalty of up to 180 days in prison.

If you lie on the ground and get kicked and hit, expect others to also spit in your face afterwards.

This is what I mean when I say our legal systems are not worth the name, have too many laws, to many rules for rules for rules, and a too desintegrated underatanding of this old term that once was called "justice" and the meaning of the difference between victim and perpetrator.

Brave young woman. Shame on the judge. While in principle gag orders in juvenile caes can be understood, I think it should not lead as far as punioshing the victim of a serious crime when it acts over a court failing in its duty to actually punish the perpetrator and putting the perpetrators's longtime interests over the responsbility for the deed he did, ignoring the victims suffering and demand for justice being done.

Forgiveness is nothing that can be demanded or is to be expected. It is given by the victim voluntarily- or not. There is no moral obligation to forgive, even if some religions claim it to be ethically desirable - it still is no obligation.

Before forgiveness, there must be honest regret.
Before there can be honest regret, there must be confession of guilt.
Before honest confession of guilt, there must be clear and full insight.

[Platapus]

What the victim wants really is not appropriate. This is why criminal charges are levied in the name of the start or the country. The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Joe Smith.

It is the state's decision what crime to choose to prosecute and they are supposed to make this decision impersonally and objectively based on the law.

Involving the victim only brings emotion and subjectivity into the mix.

I think she should have been charged with contempt. She was order, as were all the participants in the case not to publicize details about the case.

She chose to break that order. It is NOT up to the victim to decide whether a punishment is sufficient. I do not believe any victim can make such a decision objectively and unemotionally.

[Skybird]

Attackers, evil_doers and perpetrators shall have no right for anonymity. A gag order for the victim of a crime is seen as a violation of the first amendement. The girl fell victim to a terriblöe crime, she got sexually assaulted which probably means she was raped, and pictures of her distress were put online. But putting the ID of her attackler sonline is worse a crime?

You must be kidding, Platapus.

Original quote by the girl:
"So many of my rights have been taken away by these boys. I'm at the point that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it. If they really feel it's necessary to throw me in jail for talking about what happened to me…as opposed to throwing those boys in jail for what they did to me, then I don't understand justice"


From a psychologist's perspective I have a principal issue with too mild penalties or even suspended penalties anyway. They fail to acchieve the effect that a penalty should have as a sanctionising of unwanted behaviour. A penalty should create such an aversive stimulus that it makes the subject wanting to avoid what could repeat being exposed to that aversive stimulus. A suspended penalty or a too mild one is a non-existent such stimulus, and thus it is inefficient. The attackers seem to have gotten away with a very mild penalty, the victim of their attack is left with the memory, the shame, and psychological trauma. Game set and match for the attackers. They got away with it. The likelihood of them repeating it, is increased also, because they made the experience od learned that they can get away with it.

If you want to send an edczuating message to soembody, subject him to a penlkty nevertheless - but do noit make it lasting too long. A painful but short wanrign shot. But this is only an option for mild and minor crimes, first incident of shoplifting maybe. Sexual assault - that is something very different already.

The article also mentions this detail that the gag order is valid only for information based on court files. As a victim, the girl had nevertheless independent knowledge about the case, and here is where the first amendement gets touched upon.

However, the charges against the girl have been dropped, uncondtionally. Court speakers say the pettioning of many people did not have anything to do with it. That is probably true, because sentencing the victim of a serious crime for speaking out about it would have send a totally wrong message.

-----

If it were in my power, I would immediately introduce two drastic changes to Western criminal law codes. There would be no more suspended penalties, never, and there would be no "mitigating circumstances" possible to be taken into account for perpetrators who drank alcohol or were on drugs. You are responsible for how much you drink or fix, and when you are an addict, then you were responsible for having drunken so much that you turned into an addict. And thus you are responsible for what you do when you are drunk. My family - first my Mom, then myself - suffered two terrible tragedies and lost loved ones due to drunk azzholes, and in both cases the court was very understanding and mild - in favour of the bloody bastards who wiped out lives while drinking - and in one case repeated the same crime just short while after the court hearings were over. The lives that got killed, did not mean much. I am not forgiving on any court taking alcohol as a "mitigating circumstance", and I respect no according law. Because drinking is no mitigating circumstance. If you cannot handle it, don't drink at all. That simple. All that talking about social functions and cultural interaction patterns, are pseudo-paedagogical bull - and this I also say from a former psychologist's perspective.

[JU_88]

Agree the victim should not have taken the law in to her own hands but....
The Law these days tends to go far in protecting the human rights of criminals, why? did the criminals care about the victims human right to not be attacked in the first place? Nope.
Human rights like the right to anonimaty should be privilage not an entitlement. In this case the criminals certainly didnt care for the victims when they posted the video online.

And theres somthing to be said for zero tolerance laws sometimes, look at Dubai, if you steal you can have your hands chopped off, Its inhumane, its uncivil and the puishment doesn't fit the crime. -But then again it actually works, no one dares steal AT ALL, you can leave your laptop at a bus stop, come back a hour later and it will probably still be there.

[Takeda Shingen]

What the victim wants really is not appropriate. This is why criminal charges are levied in the name of the start or the country. The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Joe Smith.

It is the state's decision what crime to choose to prosecute and they are supposed to make this decision impersonally and objectively based on the law.

Involving the victim only brings emotion and subjectivity into the mix.

I think she should have been charged with contempt. She was order, as were all the participants in the case not to publicize details about the case.

She chose to break that order. It is NOT up to the victim to decide whether a punishment is sufficient. I do not believe any victim can make such a decision objectively and unemotionally.

Bingo. I don't know how things are run in Skytopia, but here in the United States of America we have this little clause where the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The court imposed this gag order. The young plaintiff violated said order. The stance of the law is forced in this case. Whether said defendants were guilty or not, the law was upheld.

[Thomen]

Bingo. I don't know how things are run in Skytopia, but here in the United States of America we have this little clause where the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The court imposed this gag order. The young plaintiff violated said order. The stance of the law is forced in this case. Whether said defendants were guilty or not, the law was upheld.

And that IMHO is one of the reason why the justice system is failing. It becomes more important to protect the criminals from society, then vice versa.

I have read about it a couple of days ago and I seem to remember that the two perps were already found guilty (don't you love plea deals) and were awaiting sentencing.

Add to that their records will be sealed and purged after they turn 18 or 21 and they can go on no one will be the wiser. Except, the victim that might suffer for the rest of her live.

[Skybird]

Bingo. I don't know how things are run in Skytopia, but here in the United States of America we have this little clause where the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The court imposed this gag order. The young plaintiff violated said order. The stance of the law is forced in this case. Whether said defendants were guilty or not, the law was upheld.
They WERE guilty, if only you would have read the full story, and they confessed to that. And it seems the penalty was so lenient that they got away with their deed. The victim of that deed felt sold and betrayed. And from what i read, correctly.

Sexual assault, rape in other words, is no minor crime. Destroying the public respectability of a person (the girl I mean, by posting photos of her martyrdom), is no minor crime either. But the perpetrators indeed get protected from the shame, anmd walk freely. The shame is all on the victim. That is insane.

Again this simple quote:

So many of my rights have been taken away by these boys. I'm at the point that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it. If they really feel it's necessary to throw me in jail for talking about what happened to me***8230;as opposed to throwing those boys in jail for what they did to me, then I don't understand justice

Laws are bureaucratic rules only. They must not at all lead to justice. I know for sure that often they don'T, and often favour the perpatrator over the victim.

Blind obedience to the law can open the gate to hell. Study German history a bit. My point is that laws can be wrong and can be abused in themselves. In this case, it looks like an abuse to me. And it seems that quite some American law experts question it, too.

What the girl did, was ozutting the two attackers up for display, she pilloried them. And I wish the pillory on the market place would not be banned from our law codes indeed. The extravaganzas we allow so that a perpetrator just can protect his ID and must not face the public, sometimes borders insanity. But the victim often is fully expüosed for all sensationalist media to exploit her shame and misery.

Crime pays off.

[August]

I don't normally agree with anything Skybird says but in this instance I do share his belief that our courts shouldn't be placing gag orders on rape victims.

The right to free speech should always trump backroom deals.

[kranz]

@Skytopians
The faster you'll grasp the difference between a proper punishment and a public stigmatization the better. For all of us.

Why should a rapist be stigmatized and a shop-lifter should not?
Maybe stigmatization for both?
In Poland, if you drink n drive the judge may decide to reveal your name to the public. But if you beat your wife, he cannot.
Agreed, some laws and regulations are stupid but raising the "free speech" argument if you don't like sexual abusers misses the point and moves us back to the Middle Ages with all "hanging not punishment enough" (http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/waleslaw/hanging.htm)

Laws are bureaucratic rules only. They must not at all lead to justice
by Preacher Sky.
yup, they must not...
as if justice was achieved by violating them and tweeting ppl's names

my favorite:
But the victim often is fully expüosed for all sensationalist media to exploit her shame and misery.

Crime pays off

yes, crime pays off and the victim has become a perpetrator and exposed herself to all sensationalist media BY HER OWN choice.

I have no idea how it works in the U S and A but in Bangladesh-like Poland, the victim may become a public prosecutor i.e. basically someone who helps to decide what type of prosecution would be made and whether a deal with the prosecuted side should be reached.

[Sailor Steve]

Having read the article several times through I have to agree with Skybird on this, with the exception of one statement.

Shame on the judge.
Unless I missed something it wasn't the judge's doing. The gag order is automatic in juvenile court cases. It was the rapists' attorneys who pushed for the contempt charge, and have now dropped it.

I agree with Sky because, as said in the article, the order is aimed at preventing court records from being made public in juvenile cases. The "boys" had already posted pictures of the attack itself online. Did she violate the law? Yes. Did the judge cite her for contempt? No. He still could, but it seems unlikely. In my opinion these "boys" got away with far less than they deserved. Having people know them for what they are is still less than they deserve.

[Hottentot]

Is it just me, or did one of Takeda's posts just vanish into thin air from this thread? :06: