|
Post by MacBeth on May 8, 2011 11:27:02 GMT -5
We can also equally assume that there was some evidence that he was not to initiate his arrest, but that what they had would not lead on its own to a conviction, and DAs love to protect their conviction record....the sad reality of many such cases where a criminal commits a crime where the only witness was the victim
This may not apply to this case, but it might.
As citizens, we will never know if anyone is truly innocent or truly guilty. We can only hope that the legal system got it right.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 8, 2011 15:03:13 GMT -5
Wheel, you SHOULD have "bothered" with the rest of my post, I am sorry if the prospect of reading through the whole thing made you uncomfortable for reasons I can't begin to fathom.
As I said later on in the post that you didn't bother to read, your position has led you into a number of logical traps.
And I'd still be interested to know whether your position is that the school would have been WRONG to sanction the boy in any way for ASSAULTing the girl (not RAPE... ASSAULT), or if you simply feel it should be left to their discretion, without judging them for it either way. I'd like to know your opinion on whether the girl would be WRONG to mention as often as she likes to anyone willing to listen that which is in the public record, that the boy ASSAULTed her (not RAPE), including, should she so desire, his college admissions boards; and whether she'd be WRONG to mention to parents of the school's prospective students that the school didn't sanction him for ASSAULTing (not RAPEing) her. That is, I'm asking you if all that is something that you believe it would be WRONG for her to do, or if you feel that that is something that she can can do at her discretion, without you judging her for it.
I'd still be interested to know your opinion on where the justice was in OJ Simpson's being acquitted of murder in his criminal trial but convicted of murder in his civil trial. Which was right? Which was the truth? Should OJ be punished, or not? We have two court verdicts that are in conflict with each other, and you have defined justice as that which a court decides. Have fun with this one.
Finally, I'd be interested to know your opinion on the case of Al Capone, who almost certainly was responsible for the murders of dozens of people, but the only charge that was ever brought was tax evasion, and that is the only charge that he was ever convicted of. That's justice, in your opinion -- all Al Capone ever was, was a tax evader, and we know that not only because that's the only thing that he was convicted of, it's the only crime that he was ever charged with.
And I'd be interested to know your opinion on those who are innocent but convicted anyway. Charges were brought against them; they were convicted; it is an indulgence to go further with it. That is your position.
As I said, your position, as uncomfortable as it makes you, has led you into a number of deep logical traps. Good luck.
I'd be willing to accept that you're not saying that this is justice, it's just that courts decide what they decide, and whether people are satisfied with the verdict or not, people need to move on. Which probably is what you're saying, and from the standpoint of the legal system as remedy, I agree with you up to a point. But you're even (as far as I can tell) putting a box around what people have the DISCRETION to do. You're calling this girl who believes she was raped "indulged" for seeking justice, and as far as I can tell, you're going further and saying that anything -- ANYTHING -- she does other than simply quietly accept the court's judgment would be wrong on her part and an indulgence on her part. This has serious consequences. What about court cases involving, say, an insurance company versus a cancer victim? The insurance companies have much better lawyers than the cancer victim... if we feel for the cancer victim... if we fund her appeals... are we "indulging" her? Or seeking justice for the weak against the strong? Logical traps. I'm mystified that you've taken this position.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on May 8, 2011 15:59:02 GMT -5
Wheel, you SHOULD have "bothered" with the rest of my post, I am sorry if the prospect of reading through the whole thing made you uncomfortable for reasons I can't begin to fathom. I stopped reading because you grossly misrepresented my position in the very first paragraph. I saw no great pressing need to plough through the rest of it. I still don't. In the end it's very simple, and there are no great logical traps to avoid. It comes down to whether you truly believe in the presumption of innocence, whether you trust in the results of your justice system, whether you believe people should pile their own punishments on top of what a court determines and whether you're prepared to unquestioningly believe what you read about a case you otherwise know nothing about.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 9, 2011 16:45:28 GMT -5
I didn't realize I had misrepresented your position. Still, it just doesn't make sense to me. I wish you'd answer at least some of my questions... I did not ask them rhetorically... I'd get a much better sense of your position if you were specific about how it would work in each of those situations... your saying in the abstract "what it comes down to" doesn't tell me much.
Anyway you've lost interest in this discussion, and that's sincerely okay... I don't want to come across as beating you up over this, and I'll drop it.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on May 9, 2011 17:06:12 GMT -5
The point of the OP has nothing to do with the alleged original crime. It has to do with the school punishing the girl and then punishing her yet again ($45 thousand) for trying to get a bit of justice.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 9, 2011 17:57:48 GMT -5
Not to mention, the third time they punished her, by throwing her off the cheerleading squad.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on May 9, 2011 22:16:47 GMT -5
The point of the OP has nothing to do with the alleged original crime. It has to do with the school punishing the girl and then punishing her yet again ($45 thousand) for trying to get a bit of justice. A teenage girl who was dropped from her high school's cheerleading squad after refusing to chant the name of a basketball player who had sexually assaulted her must pay compensation of $45,000 (£27,300) after losing a legal challenge against the decision. As I understand this, it has nothig to do with the school punishing her. It is an award by the courts for costs. That's because the courts, all the way up to SCOTUS, could see no merit in their case. That's hardly the school's fault. And Pax, if the girl chooses not to fully participate in cheerleading activities - which absolutely depend on everybody doing the same thing at the same time - then she should be choosing to excise herself. The school cannot be obliged to have a cheerleader who only wants to partially participate in the cheering routines the squad uses. This girl is not the only one with rights here, and the courts have consistently ruled that she is in the wrong in her claim. The school is not punishing her, they are taking action that is well within their rights, as every court up to SCOTUS has confirmed. Why do you insist on ignoring that?
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 10, 2011 4:27:10 GMT -5
I'd really have preferred you answered my other questions... maybe you think they're not relevant. They are very relevant to my getting a better understanding of your position. So either you're avoiding them, or I understand your position so poorly that my questions are irrelevant and I don't realize it. I don't know which and the world won't quit spinning if I just leave it at that, so I will.
I'm not ignoring the things you mentioned at all. I started very early on by saying that the whole situation was complicated and I could see it either way (#7) and that the court had ruled and they should just stop and unfortunately life isn't always fair (#9).
I was more than willing to leave it at that, but where I became interested(?) in your position was when you used the word "indulgent" to describe the girl's efforts when she was (allegedly) raped and all her rapist got was probation and community service. I agree they should have stopped after failing on appeal once, and frankly after losing three times it's appropriate that they be made to pay the defendants' court costs. But all this means is that pursuing a legal solution was a non-starter and perhaps other avenues of justice could have been pursued, which is when I mused that she might have tried engaging in a media campaign to make sure that potentially interested parties knew that the boy was guilty of assault. As far as I can tell your response to that was to say that she should just get over it. I also wondered aloud why the school didn't take any action against the student, as many schools do for example in the victimless crime of being caught off-campus doing drugs. Your response to that was to say the school had no responsibility to take any action. I asked you to clarify that position and tell me whether you're saying that it would have been wrong for the school to do so, or if it should simply be left up to the school's discretion without us judging them either way. You never answered that directly, though I got the impression that you believe it would have been wrong, because you used the word "pile on" to describe it.
As for her simply "excising" herself from cheerleading, frankly you're not showing a lot of sensitivity in suggesting that. As I said in #9, "She was given the choice between cheering her rapist or having yet something else she loved taken away because of her rapist." Though I used the word "rape," that goes just as well for "assault." "Excising herself" from cheerleading -- assuming she loved doing it, which lots of girls over here do, perhaps you don't get that -- would just be taking yet another thing away from the victim that was important to her.
One more thing -- you're right, we don't know what really happened. One thing we do know is how passionate this girl is about targeting this boy. That's a LOT of passion, and there are only two things I can think of -- perhaps you can think of more -- that can cause this level of passion. One, it went down pretty much as she says it did, and her rapist pretty much got away with it, and she's obsessed with reversing that outcome, as I think many of us would be. Or, Two, she's some kind of nutball; I don't say that lightly; there are such people in the world. Statistically speaking though it's far more likely for a girl to be raped than it is for her to have severe mental illness, so without more information about the case I'm more inclined to believe the former explanation than the latter.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on May 10, 2011 7:51:25 GMT -5
... your position was when you used the word "indulgent" to describe the girl's efforts when she was (allegedly) raped and all her rapist got was probation and community service.
I did no such thing. I used the word "indulgent" to describe parents who would back their child's losing case all the way to SCOTUS, turning a blind eye the whole time to what the courts were telling them. I don't resile from that description.
When you kick off a big long screed with a mischaracterisation of what I've said, I'm not motivated to read the rest.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on May 10, 2011 7:54:19 GMT -5
Bolton (the alleged rapist) was one of three who were charged. He plead guilty to assault instead of sexual assault (rape in this case) in a plea bargain so, he was definitely guilty. He was sentenced to 1 year in jail (suspended), 2 years probation, a $2,500.00 fine and 150 hours community service. Now, I've never heard of a cheer that says "Stick it in" in my entire life (sounds like the victim was set up). The rape victim (Bolton was convicted on a plea deal, so she is the victim) refused to chant and gets tossed off the squad. There is no mention that she refused to do any other cheerleading duties.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on May 10, 2011 7:57:47 GMT -5
A bit off topic in a way but I'd speculate that the victim was black. Had she been white Mr. Bolton would be facing 20 years in jail.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 10, 2011 8:39:06 GMT -5
WS, I came onto this thread today intending and expecting to apologize to you for coming down so hard on you. I think in my own mind I HAVE conflated the original criminal case with the much simpler and very different civil case about the school's action to remove her from the squad, and what really was the inappropriate attempt by the parents to pursue a legal solution to get her back on the squad. I would have said that you're still showing some insensitivity and an uncharacteristic lack of open-mindedness, but I would have said that nevertheless I can kind of see why you might wonder where my ire is coming from.
Instead... WS, you can nitpick all you want, but the fact remains that you used the word "indulgent" to describe the efforts of a crime victim to find some kind of justice and peace after having been denied it in the courts. And you didn't "use the word 'indulgent' to describe parents who would back their child's losing case all the way to SCOTUS." You said, "If I was really indulgent I might go to court over it - once." Not even simply "indulgent," but "REALLY" indulgent, and then only once. Hardly "all the way to SCOTUS." And since we're agreed that a court solution should never have been sought, I've tried to get out of you whether you would have condoned, or at least not judged, an effort by her to seek means other than the courts, such as a media campaign, but you haven't even honored me with an answer despite this being the third time I've asked. I agree that the courts can do nothing for her, but the situation is that she was not only a victim because she was assaulted, she is also a victim because she was put in the position of having to either cheer her assaulter or be deprived of something she loved. I don't know if they have cheerleaders in Australia, and I'll admit that the whole thing kind of mystifies me too, but the fact is that cheerleaders in the United States love doing it, they work hard to become one and stay one, prestige comes with it, and it's bound up in the girl's identity at the school. All that was taken away from her, PLUS whatever happened at that party, so the way to look at it is that she was victimized not once, but twice, and it appears that in both cases there is no satisfactory legal remedy. You won't even indicate any compassion for that, just that the courts made their decision and she should get over it. Insensitive. That's my view.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on May 10, 2011 15:51:22 GMT -5
Instead... WS, you can nitpick all you want, but the fact remains that you used the word "indulgent" to describe the efforts of a crime victim to find some kind of justice and peace after having been denied it in the courts. No, I haven't. I already told you that. I used it about the parents. You seem obsessively convinced that, even after appealing this case all the way to the SCOTUS, their lack of success indicates a denial of justice. No, it doesn't. It indicates that they have been given every opportunity to prove they have a case, and failed to do so. Crime victims aren't the only people with rights: schools have them, and so do convicted criminals.
|
|