'She didn't affirmatively say no'

[Rocketman]

My anger isn't with the defense lawyers... as morally repugnant as their "defense" is... it's with the half of the town who defends these boys, and believe having sexual intercourse with an inebriated, unconscious minor isn't really rape.

The worst part is, I image there are jurors in this trial who are Stuebenville alumni who have already decided they aren't about to put their alma mater's sports jocks in jail. As for the poor girl, I don't blame her for not attending the trial. She can't add anything because I guaran-damn-tee that she doesn't remember a single thing that happened to her that night, never mind the finger pointing and hateful looks she'd receive from these rapists' "supporters." As long as she lives in that town, she'll be a pariah.

Imagine being that girl's father

 

[nota bene]

As odious as these crimes are, a pillar of our legal system is the right of every defendent to a vigorous defense.

 

[Gathomas88]

They may go forward with a lousy defense hoping to get a deal, too. There's games being played every day in the courtroom.

That's what I was thinking. By forcing a silly issue, they might be trying to go for a lesser sentence.

To play devil's advocate here (in a stance that I'm sure is going to be controversial), I frankly don't have that much of a problem with it if the defense attorney succeeds. While I agree that the boys deserve to be punished, I'm not sure that the maximum sentence is necessarily called for here.

For instance, something like the following calls for the maximum sentence and then some:

7 men gang rape bus passenger in India

These boys, on the other hand, were drunk themselves, didn't physically harm the girl, and (allegedly) only penetrated the victim digitally. She also reportedly refused a friend's request to leave the party earlier in the night because she wanted to keep partying with the boys who later raped her.

Given their own intoxication, I can see how the defendants might've been confused by the circumstances. She might've very well given consent earlier in the night, and they might've felt that this was sufficient justification for their later actions. We won't really know until all the facts come out.

I'd say that they should get at least a year or two in Juvie to cool their heels and rethink their life choices (followed by a lot of probation time), and that people should leave it at that.

I basically look at it as being like the difference between robbery and armed robbery. One gets you a few years, the other gets you twenty-five to life.

 

[BmanMcfly]

'She didn't affirmatively say no': Silence means consent according to defense in Ohio high school rape trial where passed out, drunken teenage girl was 'sexually assaulted' by multiple football players | Mail Online

This Steubenville thing just keeps on getting creepier and creepier.

What defense Atty in his right mind would use this kind of defense. The chick is passed out drunk, maybe on some kind of rufies or something, and gets raped....a lot. Then you have video of one of the kids making "she's so dead" jokes and now the defense attorney is saying "Well, she never said no". I mean this is worse than the Mike Tyson attorney who tried the "Well, my client has a big unit" defense.

Hey, I understand that it's his job to try and get these kids off but damn....what a moron. Is there a jury anywhere that's going to be sitting there thinking "Hey, good point!"?

Well, the fact that these guys were witnessed taking this girl to multiple parties... The lack of remorse also makes me think these kids are sociopaths.

I approve of the defenses tactic, these kids are going to wind up looking appalling in front of a jury, and they are going to be convicted, and because of their lack of remorse and the heinousness of their crimes, these kids will get a maximum sentence where they will get their "fill" of rape.

Oh ya, and this is the generation raised by overbearing mothers and distant fathers, who more often than not take the simple approach by putting their children on drugs, so let's not be too shocked as this type of senselessness starts becoming more common...

The one nice thing that most of these psycho kids are not all that smart and start bragging about their crimes on the Internet.

 

[Paschendale]

This. I understand sometimes the defense gets a pretty tough client to defend, but this is one of those cases where you plea. You don't sell yourself into rape apologetics, for ****s sake.

Whatever they're paying him doesn't even begin to approach the true value of having some basic integrity, but he sold it anyway.

It's not up to the attorney whether or not to plea, or even what kind of defense to put on. And it certainly isn't up to an attorney to drop a client because you think he's guilty. Now, we all know that silence does not mean consent, but there's also more to his argument. But it doesn't matter. His client is probably guilty. But he still has to defend him to the best of his ability. That's integrity. Protecting the system of justice is integrity. Not robbing a possibly innocent (though probably not) defendant of a skillful defense is selling your integrity.

This is one of the uglier parts of the job. But it is part of the job. You really can't have a fair system of justice without each defendant getting to exercise their full gamut of rights and controlling their own defense. And you can't skimp on the defense of some just because they look guilty at first glance.

The argument is obviously wrong. You don't need affirmative refusal to constitute rape. That's black letter law. But don't take it out on the poor lawyer that his scumbag client wants to fight to the bitter end and all his nasty ways. The lawyer is legally and professionally obligated to comply.

 

[X Factor]

It's not up to the attorney whether or not to plea, or even what kind of defense to put on. And it certainly isn't up to an attorney to drop a client because you think he's guilty. Now, we all know that silence does not mean consent, but there's also more to his argument. But it doesn't matter. His client is probably guilty. But he still has to defend him to the best of his ability. That's integrity. Protecting the system of justice is integrity. Not robbing a possibly innocent (though probably not) defendant of a skillful defense is selling your integrity.

This is one of the uglier parts of the job. But it is part of the job. You really can't have a fair system of justice without each defendant getting to exercise their full gamut of rights and controlling their own defense. And you can't skimp on the defense of some just because they look guilty at first glance.

The argument is obviously wrong. You don't need affirmative refusal to constitute rape. That's black letter law. But don't take it out on the poor lawyer that his scumbag client wants to fight to the bitter end and all his nasty ways. The lawyer is legally and professionally obligated to comply.

Although, in the same way that we're often told cops chose their profession (as a way to dissuade any empathy or understanding for them) so is the same true for defense attorneys.

 

[AmericanWoman76]

Although, in the same way that we're often told cops chose their profession (as a way to dissuade any empathy or understanding for them) so is the same true for defense attorneys.

many people become cops or defense attorneys because they love justice. has it occurred to you that these sleazeballs' lawyer is letting them pick this line of defense so as to "give them enough rope to hang themselves"?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

It's not up to the attorney whether or not to plea, or even what kind of defense to put on. And it certainly isn't up to an attorney to drop a client because you think he's guilty. Now, we all know that silence does not mean consent, but there's also more to his argument. But it doesn't matter. His client is probably guilty. But he still has to defend him to the best of his ability. That's integrity. Protecting the system of justice is integrity. Not robbing a possibly innocent (though probably not) defendant of a skillful defense is selling your integrity.

This is one of the uglier parts of the job. But it is part of the job. You really can't have a fair system of justice without each defendant getting to exercise their full gamut of rights and controlling their own defense. And you can't skimp on the defense of some just because they look guilty at first glance.

The argument is obviously wrong. You don't need affirmative refusal to constitute rape. That's black letter law. But don't take it out on the poor lawyer that his scumbag client wants to fight to the bitter end and all his nasty ways. The lawyer is legally and professionally obligated to comply.

I don't think it would be that hard to talk a couple of teenage boys who are probably pissing their pants into going for a plea bargain.

And even if I'm trying to be objective, that is obviously the only right decision. As you said yourself, the defense's argument is legally worthless. It is, in fact, the letter of the law that not saying "no" doesn't mean someone consented. The evidence is extremely damning -- even just the things we can see displayed in the article. If I were that lawyer -- from a purely practical view -- what I would say is this. "Look. You're going to get convicted. You taped the crime, for ****s sake. It's up to you if you'd rather go to prison for the greatest possible sentence, or whether you want to have a shot at a little bit less. Those are really your only two options."

If I were going to argue the case, I would argue the impact of the boys' intoxication level, not that a girl who's obviously passed-out drunk consented to being gang raped when she took her first swig. It's not gonna work, but if the client was dumb enough to insist on fighting the case, that's what I'd do.

If the lawyer had done either of those two things -- which are objectively far more logical than what he really did, and ethically much less offensive -- I would be saying "Wow. Tough gig, dude."

But he didn't choose either of the logical or more ethical options. He chose to go for the classic "the slut was asking for it" angle. Not only is that legally meaningless, but it's a bad reflection on the character of his clients.

I don't think the way he's arguing the case can be entirely chalked up to "tough gig." There are ways he could have handled this without being so offensive. He's done nothing but hurt his own case, and really, if I were him, I would take a long, hard look at myself in the mirror, and ask whether I've been doing this too long and maybe I should hang my tie up before I lose whatever shred is left of my sense of ethical direction.

 

[Gathomas88]

I don't think it would be that hard to talk a couple of teenage boys who are probably pissing their pants into going for a plea bargain.

True. Then again, however; the problem might very well be the defendants' parents. If they're under the delusion that they can beat the charges, they might pressure the boys to keep their plea as "not guilty."

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

True. Then again, however; the problem might very well be the defendants' parents. If they're under the delusion that they can beat the charges, they might pressure the boys to keep their plea as "not guilty."

True. Thus the more ethically acceptable and also legally stronger defense option I listed above.

But that's still a moronic decision, under the circumstances.

 

[Gathomas88]

True. Thus the more ethically acceptable and also legally stronger defense option I listed above.

But that's still a moronic decision, under the circumstances.

You never know. These kids are pretty much screwed for life either which way you want to look at it if they plead guilty (which, they quite frankly are). Their names are going on the sex offender registry for sure and they're probably going to wind up sweating out the rest of their highschool years in Juvie. Furthermore, with all of this bad media coverage hanging over them, their chances of ever getting into a decent school once they're released are more or less nil.

People can have a tendency to be quite irrational when it comes to their children.

 

[Muhammed]

When I was 17 years old, I was invited to a college party in somebody's basement. I went with my boyfriend. 'Course we got somewhat separated at the party -- the last thing I remember was sitting at the basement bar and one of the college guys playing bartender told me I really ought to just do a shooter. I did two. Stupid-stupid-stupid. I woke up several hours later in a bed upstairs surrounded by a couple of girls who'd apparently agreed to stay with me until I regained consciousness. They threw the guy out of the party. I consider it mostly my fault though. This personal story, however, could have a completely different ending if those assholes were there.

So. That story is completely believable to me because it could have happened to me.

It's possible that he drugged you.

At one of the local bars here they had a barmaid who would slip a roofie into unwitting customers' drinks, then when they passed out her boyfriend would rob them. It almost happened to me, but somebody saw her do it and yelled "Don't drink that, she just put something in your beer!" She denied it and dumped out the beer. So I know she put something in there and that's why she got rid of the evidence. That explains why so many people passed out at the bar while she was working. And I had just cashed my paycheck, so they would have got whole weeks pay.

The lesson here is never leave your drink unattended. If you have to go to the restroom take it with you. If go to the dance floor finish your drink or take it with you. If you're at a party pour your own drinks and open your own beers. Never accept an already opened beer from anyone. If you're at a bar always order your beer unopened. Personally I don't order mixed drinks at a bar, but if you do, make sure you sit where you can watch the bartender make your drink.

 

[Northern Light]

AFAIK, in many districts around the world, a person who is in an altered state of consciousness cannot legally consent to a sexual act. I'm not sure what U.S. law has to say about it though.

The rape apologetics by the DA are unfortunately common and part of the standard parlance of rape culture. It speaks volumes about the district this case is being tried in, that a DA doesn't believe his argument would alienate a jury. In a much more liberal area, he could risk losing the case for such a ridiculous line of reasoning.

In relation to that, I agree with Dianna that it's pathetic and disgusting that the township is defending the boys. I realize parents can be blind to their own children's misdeeds but the victim blaming has got to stop. This a pretty clear cut case.

Any bets though that the assailents will get light sentences on account of being male, white and privileged?

 

[Muhammed]

These boys, on the other hand, were drunk themselves, didn't physically harm the girl, and (allegedly) only penetrated the victim digitally.

They did a lot more than that. They raped and sodomized her repeatedly while she was unconscious. And yes being raped and sodomized can be physically harmful.

 

[MaggieD]

That's what I was thinking. By forcing a silly issue, they might be trying to go for a lesser sentence.

To play devil's advocate here (in a stance that I'm sure is going to be controversial), I frankly don't have that much of a problem with it if the defense attorney succeeds. While I agree that the boys deserve to be punished, I'm not sure that the maximum sentence is necessarily called for here.

For instance, something like the following calls for the maximum sentence and then some:

7 men gang rape bus passenger in India

These boys, on the other hand, were drunk themselves, didn't physically harm the girl, and (allegedly) only penetrated the victim digitally. She also reportedly refused a friend's request to leave the party earlier in the night because she wanted to keep partying with the boys who later raped her.

Given their own intoxication, I can see how the defendants might've been confused by the circumstances. She might've very well given consent earlier in the night, and they might've felt that this was sufficient justification for their later actions. We won't really know until all the facts come out.

I'd say that they should get at least a year or two in Juvie to cool their heels and rethink their life choices (followed by a lot of probation time), and that people should leave it at that.

I basically look at it as being like the difference between robbery and armed robbery. One gets you a few years, the other gets you twenty-five to life.

I have no sympathy for them. They showed no remorse. In fact, they were exactly opposite.

I posted earlier about having had two shooters and passing out...unconscious for several hours. I mention that again only to mention this: I have been "blind drunk," too. While drunk, I've never engaged in any behavior that hurt another living creature. Being drunk may be their convenient excuse, but it's not a defense (in my opinion).

Part of punishment is deterrence. She's not the first girl to be gang-raped while drunk; and she won't be the last. I think there needs to be a loud-and-clear message sent to every college campus. If I had to wild-ass-guess a suitable punishment, it would be ten years in prison and 10 or 15 years' registration as a sex offender.

 

[calamity]

You never know. These kids are pretty much screwed for life either which way you want to look at it if they plead guilty (which, they quite frankly are). Their names are going on the sex offender registry for sure and they're probably going to wind up sweating out the rest of their highschool years in Juvie. Furthermore, with all of this bad media coverage hanging over them, their chances of ever getting into a decent school once they're released are more or less nil.

People can have a tendency to be quite irrational when it comes to their children.

So? **** them. They threw their lives in the garbage the minute they began taking advantage of an unconscious victim. I hope they have the worst lives ever.

 

[Gathomas88]

They did a lot more than that. They raped and sodomized her repeatedly while she was unconscious. And yes being raped and sodomized can be physically harmful.

Do you have a source for this? From what I've read online, the only penetration which took place was digital, and it was apparently so minor that she wouldn't have been known anything had happened at all if someone hadn't told her the next day.

Don't mistake me here, wrong is wrong. However, I wouldn't put this kind of act on anywhere near the same level as the kinds of "break in and broomstick handle" rape cases we usually tend to hear about in the MSM.

I have no sympathy for them. They showed no remorse. In fact, they were exactly opposite.

Can you provide any specific examples of this besides the DA's idiocy?

They hardly look like a bunch of hardened sociopaths.



They look like a couple of teenagers who made a mistake and are now scared out of their wits.

I posted earlier about having had two shooters and passing out...unconscious for several hours. I mention that again only to mention this: I have been "blind drunk," too. While drunk, I've never engaged in any behavior that hurt another living creature. Being drunk may be their convenient excuse, but it's not a defense (in my opinion).

If you passed out after only two drinks, he probably did a lot more than just get you drunk. It's very likely that he spiked your drink with a roofie.

That displays a certain degree of premeditated "intent to rape" which I'm not necessarily sure was present in the Steubenville case.

I might be wrong, of course. We'll simply have to see what comes out of the trial.

Part of punishment is deterrence. She's not the first girl to be gang-raped while drunk; and she won't be the last. I think there needs to be a loud-and-clear message sent to every college campus. If I had to wild-ass-guess a suitable punishment, it would be ten years in prison and 10 or 15 years' registration as a sex offender.

Nearly every study I'm aware of has concluded that "zero tolerance" policies which focus more on revenge than rehabilitation tend to do anything but "deter future crime." You need look no further than the war on drugs if you want proof of that.

As I said before, I certainly believe that the boys deserve to be punished. However, I think the degree of punishment should match the degree of guilt. I can't really get behind the idea of essentially using a couple of clueless 16 year olds as "fattened calves" to be offered up for the greater glory of the womens' rights and anti-rape movements.

There are simply much more serious offenders out there.

So? **** them. They threw their lives in the garbage the minute they began taking advantage of an unconscious victim. I hope they have the worst lives ever.

They (most likely) did the crime and they're going to have to live with the consequences of that fact. However, keeping in mind that the defendants are just a couple of 16 year old kids, I wouldn't quite "throw the book at them" if there didn't appear to be a pressing need to do so.

 

[penn1954]

Imagine being that girl's father

I'd be in jail right now-maybe for murder 1.

 

[MaggieD]

They hardly look like a bunch of hardened sociopaths.

View attachment 67144230

They look like a couple of teenagers who made a mistake and are now scared out of their wits.

Nearly every study I'm aware of has concluded that "zero tolerance" policies which focus more on revenge than rehabilitation tend to do anything but "deter future crime." You need look no further than the war on drugs if you want proof of that.

As I said before, I certainly believe that the boys deserve to be punished. However, I think the degree of punishment should match the degree of guilt. I can't really get behind the idea of essentially using a couple of clueless 16 year olds as "fattened calves" to be offered up for the greater glory of the womens' rights and anti-rape movements.

There are simply much more serious offenders out there.

They (most likely) did the crime and they're going to have to live with the consequences of that fact. However, keeping in mind that the defendants are just a couple of 16 year old kids, I wouldn't quite "throw the book at them" if there didn't appear to be a pressing need to do so.

I'm glad you posted that picture. I had no idea they were that nice looking. They look just like anybody else -- better than a lot, in fact. Well, that settles it. I've changed my mind. Dismiss the charges.

*Maggie rolls her eyes and falls over backwards*

 

[Gathomas88]

I'm glad you posted that picture. I had no idea they were that nice looking. They look just like anybody else -- better than a lot, in fact. Well, that settles it. I've changed my mind. Dismiss the charges.

*Maggie rolls her eyes and falls over backwards*

C'mon now. There is absolutely no similarity between the defendants in this case and Ted Bundy. Be serious. You might as well throw up a picture of young Hitler for all the sense the above comparison makes.



Again, I agree that both of these boys are probably guilty as sin and should be charged as such. I simply think that a lot of people in this thread need to keep things in perspectve and stop acting like an angry lynch mob based off of nothing but a few vague interweb articles concerning a case that has nothing to do with them. :lol:

 

[MaggieD]

CI simply think that a lot of people in this thread need to keep things in perspectve and stop acting like an angry lynch mob based off of nothing but a few vague interweb articles concerning a case that has nothing to do with them. :lol:

You're new here, huh?

Here's a photo you may like better:

 

[nota bene]

I won't post the link, but I've seen/heard the video that the jerk, Michael Nodianos, made bragging about what his buddies had done to this girl.

 

[calamity]

Do you have a source for this? From what I've read online, the only penetration which took place was digital, and it was apparently so minor that she wouldn't have been known anything had happened at all if someone hadn't told her the next day.

Don't mistake me here, wrong is wrong. However, I wouldn't put this kind of act on anywhere near the same level as the kinds of "break in and broomstick handle" rape cases we usually tend to hear about in the MSM.



Can you provide any specific examples of this besides the DA's idiocy?

They hardly look like a bunch of hardened sociopaths.

View attachment 67144230

They look like a couple of teenagers who made a mistake and are now scared out of their wits.



If you passed out after only two drinks, he probably did a lot more than just get you drunk. It's very likely that he spiked your drink with a roofie.

That displays a certain degree of premeditated "intent to rape" which I'm not necessarily sure was present in the Steubenville case.

I might be wrong, of course. We'll simply have to see what comes out of the trial.



Nearly every study I'm aware of has concluded that "zero tolerance" policies which focus more on revenge than rehabilitation tend to do anything but "deter future crime." You need look no further than the war on drugs if you want proof of that.

As I said before, I certainly believe that the boys deserve to be punished. However, I think the degree of punishment should match the degree of guilt. I can't really get behind the idea of essentially using a couple of clueless 16 year olds as "fattened calves" to be offered up for the greater glory of the womens' rights and anti-rape movements.

There are simply much more serious offenders out there.



They (most likely) did the crime and they're going to have to live with the consequences of that fact. However, keeping in mind that the defendants are just a couple of 16 year old kids, I wouldn't quite "throw the book at them" if there didn't appear to be a pressing need to do so.

They repeatedly sexually assaulted her, including anal penetration, and then urinated on her.

The upside is those boys look like they will make for good meat in an adult penitentiary. What goes around comes around. They better pray to their maker that they get acquitted.

 

[nota bene]

I dislike Anonymous and its tactics, but in this case, I wonder if this would've all been swept under the rug if not for its effort.

 

[Gathomas88]

They repeatedly sexually assaulted her, including anal penetration, and then urinated on her.

Do you have a source for that?

The upside is those boys look like they will make for good meat in an adult penitentiary. What goes around comes around. They better pray to their maker that they get acquitted.

Rape is funny when it happens to men!