Freedom of speech, protection of juvenile delinquents etc etc

Remove all ads!

So you keep telling me, but is a reformed rapist to you someone who quietly goes on with his life (and of whom you probably never hear of again) or someone who comes forth to the media to tell about his reform? In any case I'm afraid I need a bit more solid statistics about these. I would really love to see a statistic which shows the actual chance of a rapist to to repeat his crime while he gets out, preferably one that would compare the percentage from country to country showing if there are major differences in the statististics. Some people do keep telling that the rate is a lot higher than in other crimes which I certainly can believe but I'd like to know exactly how much higher it is.

I do think that therapy and this sort of thing is part of the prison sentence atleast around here. I certainly do not think that people found obviously dangerous should be let free to society.

 

A lot less than you think. I'd go so far as to say suprisingly few. You need to do more than say "I want a DNA test" if you've already been found guilty. You have to go through an appeal process, and it is quite possible that your appeal will be denied. I will fully admit that DNA evidence is always provided in modern court cases whenever it exists, but there are many people in prison for rapes that were committed in the 80s and 90s when there was no DNA testing, or when the testing did not have the specificity which it has today.

Modern forensic DNA analysis is so good that you can go back to samples that were taken 20 years ago and still get results on them. However, that assumes that someone wants to go back and test the evidence. The police hold on to the evidence, and they certainly aren't going to spend their own man hours in the lab going back and making sure they put the right guy away. Similarly, there aren't that many rapists in prison who have the money to pay for an outside lab to run the results and that's with the assumption that the police are willing to release them to an outside lab, which they usually won't. So in answer to your question, if we were systematically going through old cases and re-testing the DNA evidence, maybe a lot of people previously convicted of rape would be getting out of prison, but the fact is this isn't happening. Modern DNA testing has prevented a lot of people who have been falsely accused of rape of even having to go to trial - much less prison - but there have been very few cases where someone is convicted and then later has his case overturned.

And I think the boys fit that criteria. I think it is reasonable to say that if they hadn't done what they did, she may not have killed herself. Of course, if they go that route, they are going to have to bring up more evidence. For example, say the girl was seeing a psychiatrist for clinical depression, or has had suicidal thoughts and tendencies in the past. In that case, it may be much harder to convict the boys, because it can be argued that her suicide may have had little or nothing to do with the boy's actions.

NOG kind of referenced this already. A lot of it has to do with what kind of rape it is. There have been plenty of cases where a 20-something guy picks up a girl who is under 18 (but in possession of a fake ID) at a bar and gets busted. There are times when things go too far but the guy wasn't attempting rape. I've also heard of cases where a woman changes her mind after the fact, and claims rape when she actually consented at the time. These type of people are surely able to reform their ways.

Unfortunately, there is another type of rapist. This is the type that commit violent rape, or even serial rape. These people usually have mental problems (I don't mean they are dumb - in fact many are pretty damn smart - I mean they are flawed in some way psychologically i.e., psycopaths and sociopaths). These people a lot of times can't be reformed because it goes beyond the physical act. It's a power trip for them, to the point that it's mentally addicting. They can no more easily stop raping than a kleptomaniac can stop stealing. I think reform in these cases is much more difficult, and at times impossible. I'm still not sure if I'd agree with castration for even the most violent rapist, unless they actually consented to it. I think that would fall under cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th Amendment.

 

@NOG:

That's what I'm talking about. Judges and juries who pretend to imprison people rather than let a guilty one out by accident. The rape cases you describe are an example of conviction largely based on the supposed victim's account. Witnesses like you describe cannot be the lone base of a conviction, either. If something is enough to put a person in jail for a couple of years, it's enough to put him one a register.

Oh, and why don't we hear more about trials of false rape accusers? False accusation is a crime, after all.

It's recorded on one of them's mobile phone. That's so much conspiracy as you could get.

I've heard of three and that between my theological and legal interests. Otherwise I wouldn't have known any, I guess.

As for the other students, it's really surprising. It's possible the class consisted mostly of girls and the five were the brunk of the male force in that class. But still... Looks like other kids didn't take it so seriously. I'd be running to get a teacher, whacking them with a chair, throwing desks at them, whatever. It really looks strange they didn't do much.

@Aldeth: What about judges... do they always admit DNA test evidence if requested, is it mandatory, or can actually a judge deny it in trial? I've heard of cases of blood test evidence being denied here, although not recently.

Unfortunately, we don't have that in our law. You either want to kill (and throwing a grenade into your neighbour's barn without checking if he's here counts as wanting to kill him - dolus eventualis - "conditional will"), or you unwillingly cause death. I'm sure a prosecutor could construct such a charge if the boys were adults, but I doubt it would hold in the court.

Are you talking about statutory rape or real rape? I don't think statutory rape should be regarded as a subdivision of real rape.

I think you're forgetting one thing: if a woman changes her mind after the act, there was no rape. No matter what feminists and others may say, a woman doesn't have the privilege to withdraw her consent retroactively. If she gave willing and informed consent at the time of the act, it wasn't rape. We may be talking about a rape convict but not about an actual rapist if the guy is sentenced.

It would. And it would defy a number of international treaties. At least if you mean physical castration. Chemical wouldn't, I believe.

Some people will say those rape-maniacs are citizens like us and they need to be embraced into the society and it's just a couple of normal women have to pay the toll. I say rubbish. Let those people bend over for the rapist if they are so generous when it concerns other people.

 

I am aware of this and these cases can very well be determined in court with analysis from psychiatrics etc. However I'm not convinced that these boys fit into that cathegory I'm not ruling out completely that they would not be sexual predators as I don't know enough about the case to make such conclusions. If they show signs of significant regret and remorse I do think that there is a chance for these boys in the society and while they should be punished I don't think they should be tried as adults.

I do think that you are twisting the words of these people now because I'm pretty sure there is not a significant group in any western society claiming such things. However what they do believe is that a rapist is still a human being and while he has flaws he can be given a new chance once it has been determined that he is no more the risk to society as he used to be. I also believe that the prison systems main goal is to try to rehabilitate the prisoners, it might not be possible in all cases but that is what it should allways strive towards. Plenty of people seem to think that the goal of inprisonment is retribution a philosophy I could not disagree more with.

 

Yes. They are putting it into nicer and less offensive words, but the end meaning is what I say. They just don't have the guts to say they are willing to sacrifice the good children to bring up the bad ones.

As for rehabilitation of criminals, it may well be the main goal of the prison system. It probably should. But the criminal system, criminal justice, should be aimed at, well, justice. Protection of the weak from the bullies. I don't believe in prison for retribution, but I don't believe in blurring guilt and letting out dangerous people. Lock them in prisons or in psychwards, wherever you do it, just lock them.

New facts:

The tragedy happened on Friday, a week ago. It actually lasted between 10 and 20 minutes what the boys did. The teacher had been called to the headmaster's office along with other teachers. One teacher was supposed to check out on classrooms with open doors. One of the boys stood guard to prevent detection.

As for the boys, they don't all show remorse. If any. One says the girl provoked them with provoking attire (it's true she wore clothes I wouldn't let students wear if I were a teacher, but she was a sensitive girl with a strong sense of dignity, from what people say). That one or another even said the girl laughed in the beginning, he was pretending only, it was a joke etc. One of the boys' advocates (chartered criminal defence lawyers) said it was stupid juvenile courting (equine courting we call it in Poland, but it really doesn't go as far as to include rape attempts -- it's the rash, persistent hitting on without subtlety that some people do). One boy said he didn't know what had made them do it. Yet another claims he only watched. All the advocates wanted the case to be dismissed. The judge, however, put the young criminals in a correctional facility for three months while evidence is being collected, so that they couldn't obstruct this process.

As for the headmaster, he says he got to know only on Monday. He informed the higher educational authority (the equivalent of education boards in the US) that one of the students had committed suicide and didn't give any reasons, saying it was a family matter. No mention of the event that caused it. Then, he had the tomb candles the other students lit removed, saying school was not cemetery. He tried to silence it down. He also said there were no reports of bad things going on in the class in question. However, female classmates of the dead girl say they had been reporting (anonymously, into a box destined for that purpose) the bad treatment the girl had already been suffering from the boys for a long time before, but there had been no reaction. The boys came back to school as if nothing had happened. Cops just came and took them on Wednesday, on their own. The headmaster has resigned resigned and his resignation has been accepted immediately.

So far, the headmaster is probably going to face charges of dereliction of duty (up to 3 years), but he and the teacher are also likely to face charges of exposing the student to danger to her health and life, incurring a much harsher punishment if they are found guilty.

 

It's almost always admitted. The only way it would be denied is if the police could not confirm a chain of custody. That means the sample was collected properly, handled properly, wasn't contaminated in any way, and tested properly. So basically as long as you can produce a "clean" sample, it will be admitted.

I thought it was obvious that I was talking about statutory. "Things going a little too far" doesn't really qualify as a proper description for real rape. I do agree that even the name of "statutory rape" is a bit misleading. It usually isn't even close to real rape, and I don't see why they need to include "rape" in there. Unless it was a kid who was so young that they could not have productive sex, but in those cases, they are tried as real rape or child molestation anyway, so I agree that a different term should be used.

You are correct, and I certainly was [edit] NOT [/edit] clear in what I wrote. It was poorly worded on my part. All I was attempting to do was to give examples of people that may be charged with rape, but are very, very, different than violent or serial rapists. Obviously, I agree that if a woman wants to withdraw her consent retroactively, all I can say is, "Tough luck."

If that's the case, then all the adults involved - headmaster, teacher, whoever was supposed to check in on the class - are all screwed, and will all probably face charges and be found guily - you just described a textbook example of negligence - they knew there was a problem, they did nothing, and it got worse.

On this we actually agree. I was attempting to answer your question on the likelihood of reforming convicted rapists, and I was saying it depends on what they did. I agree with you that neither of us know nearly enough about the boys involved to determine which of these categories they fall into. Given their young age, I am more inclined to think (or at least hope) they fall into the category where reform is not only possible, but likely.

[ October 27, 2006, 18:01: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Good. I hate it when judges deny evidence in rape cases basing on whatever psychological problems or feelings of the victim. You know, previous sexual history bad because it inflicts bad feelings on the woman. Sexual behaviour before alleged rape bad because the mere claim it implies anything is offensive. Etc etc. Here, they sometimes allow the woman to deny blood test of her own and the child's in fatherhood cases and still let her win the case, even though she's obviously blocking evidence.

They say kids can't consent validly, so it's rape because the consent expressed was invalid. That's bull**** and it leads to understanding sex as a civil contract to the point that vitiating factors make rape.

Ah, okay. Well, we can't work on our legal systems with the presumption that some people are going to be judged wrongly.

Yeah and it's also a classic example of dereliction of duty. They were what we call "gwarant" in our law speak, which means they guaranteed something (in casu the safety of the kids) but failed to protect it.

Possible, I agree. Likely... well, not really. I mean, maybe they won't even reoffend, but I hardly see that as always being good citizens from now on.

However, from a moral point of view, which should also be a legal one but unfortunately isn't, the real culprits are the fathers of the boys. If they say such things, it's obvious they brought up their boys to think rape is no big deal for a girl, they deserve all they want, even if others are harmed in the process. Wonder if they have always been consensual with the boys' mothers...

 

More news:

The idiots have inspired kids from another school. The teacher left, the boys grabbed a girl, put hands under her blouse, groped her breasts, pretended to be raping her with a broom. She is afraid to come back to school, but the boys laugh and say it was a joke. The school headmistress says it was a joke and nothing alarming. And that's a woman saying...

 

This may be another difference between the U.S. and Poland. All minors are not handled in the same way. There's a big difference between someone between the ages of 13-17 and someone under 13. A teen can consent for example, although you still may face statutory rape charges instead of actual rape. In the case of pre-teens though, what you described is correct. If you're 12 or less in the state of Maryland, any consent given is invalid, and the charge is either rape or child molestation.

 

Its a joke I fail to find amusing. I doubt the headmistress would laugh if it happened to her or her family.

 

Like father like son...

What can I say that hasn't been said already?? Hang them up by their thumbs...or better yet, their testicles...

 

@Aldeth:

This is actually what I was talking about. Sorry if I wasn't clear. There have been a number, though not a large number, of cases from the 80's and early 90's where DNA testing either wasn't performed or was inconclusive and there was a conviction, but modern testing has proven the DNA was not from the convict. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. It isn't a lot, but enough that I'd feel awefully bad if all of them got castrated for it.

@Morgoroth:

Most of these cases (the seriously mentally ill) aren't on a binary spectrum (though some like sociopathy are), but rather on a kind of addiction or advancement spectrum, going through various stages of predatory behavior. Something like this would be considered an indicator of danger, not evidence of the final stage. It's like saying they're on the path but haven't arrived yet. Psychological intervention at this stage can have drastic effects on the progression.

This is just stupid (and sick). What do the other people in the class do? If I were in the classroom, I'd be putting the kids in headlocks and choking them if I had to. Breaking desks and the like is certainly an option. Are teachers leaving classes like this common over there?

 

Unfortunately yes, but sexual abuse is new, I think.

IMHO even a dead rapist is a better alternative to successful rape.