Stanford student gets six months for rape

[Canarr]

We may disagree on whether or not it's good or effective, but they're not vigilantes, they're not doing anything illegal, and this is a way of protesting the system. By gathering at the nearest symbol of the broken system.

The "not doing anything illegal" part might be debatable:

http://www.ohiolegalservices.org/pub...r/qandact_view

[Kheldarson]

But your argument basically boils down to, "Well, it's okay to harass and threaten someone, as long as they deserve it!"

Maybe he does. But it's still not okay.

No, the argument boils down to their right to protest. I agree they shouldn't have guns, but Ohio is an open carry state, so they're also in their right there. As long as they're not physically approaching him or disrupting his actual day to day activities (which they're not), then they're within their rights.

We may disagree on whether or not it's good or effective, but they're not vigilantes, they're not doing anything illegal, and this is a way of protesting the system. By gathering at the nearest symbol of the broken system.

[Canarr]

They're standing outside his parents' house, openly carrying guns, showing signs proclaiming "Castrate Rapists!". That's not protesting, that's harassment - clear and present threats to his (and/or his parents') life and health.

Yes, he was an asshole in court, no questions about it. But your argument basically boils down to, "Well, it's okay to harass and threaten someone, as long as they deserve it!"

Maybe he does. But it's still not okay.

[Gravekeeper]

There is no way to justify a protest against an individual. I also don't think that he was suitably punished for his role, but protesting his residence, with or without guns, is just vigilanteism

Protesting is not vigilantism unless you define protesting as a form of law enforcement ( it's not ) Also, yes, you can justify a protest against an individual. Individuals are protested all the time.

Protesting is also, you know, a right. Alongside free speech. As long as they are not crossing any legal lines they're well within their right to protest.

As for the dipshit himself, if he didn't want to be protested than perhaps he and his entire defense should not have been remorseless self absorbed assholes over the course of the trial. >.>

[s_stabeler]

Indeed, there's a fine line between the natural consequences of a crime, and extrajudicial punishment- indeed, there are some cases where the line is crossed accidentally, IMHO.

Specifically, quite a few background checking companies maintain their own databases of criminal cases- possibly including arrest records, I'm not sure- which isn't inherently a problem. However, it's far rarer for those same companies to keep their databases up-to-date in regards things removed from someone's criminal records- like, for example, juvenile records being sealed. that pushes it over the edge into unintentional extrajudicial punishment, since it means that the entire reason why juvenile records are sealed when the kid reaches 18 is to allow someone who was a stupid kid but grew out of it not to have it hanging over them for the rest of their life. These companies- by not altering their records to reflect the sealing of juvenile records- more-or-less completely subvert it.

for that matter- though there is more justification this time- be extended to sites that make ti easy to find out if people convicted of sex offenses live near you. ( I'm more thinking of sites which you can enter a location, and get a list of all sex offenders living nearby. A site allowing you to find out if a specific person was convicted of sex offenses would be different, since the primary use for that would be if you had reason to worry about someone specific)

[Cia]

I do. Because this:



Assembling outside someone's house, writing "RAPIST!" on the street and sidewalkt, carrying signs saying, "Castrate all rapists!" isn't protest anymore, it's harassment. It is private citizens banding together to enact a punishment *they feel* is more adequate for the crime than the one the court mandated. And *that* is vigilante justice.

That they may actually be right about the punishment being inadequate - is besides the point. It's still wrong, and it is *always* wrong. If we accept it here, because the guy is an asshole, then we're abandoning rule-of-law.

Either everybody is protected, or nobody is.

The people doing this are the same ones who'd be hooting in the background if they saw one of their friends groping a woman and are also the ones who'd be first in line to call a woman who reports a rape a whore. They are thoroughly irritating and double faced.

They invade a neighborhood and harass anyone going by so they can get on the news. They claim to want to protect people yet they are the ones who'd be the first to do an illegal act or cause someone to strike out. They want to push buttons and someone in that neighborhood is going to get hurt.

[NecCat]

That's what most people are upset about. Was it legal for the judge to sentence this way? Yes. But that doesn't mean people can't speak up and say that there's an imbalance.

As a note, I disagree with the protesters being armed in front of his house. I don't disagree with their right to protest.

Speaking up for the imbalance would involve protests of the judge, the courts or the lawmakers (congress? I'm not sure in the states). i disagree with the whole concept of protesting a private individual. If he wanted to do a public speech, people should be allowed to protest his speaking engagement. If he wanted to run for any kind of office people should be allowed to protest that. If he wants to go to the store for milk people shouldn't be allowed to protest that, or protest in a way that makes that impossible for him.

Hypothetically, what if he decided to agree with the protesters. He couldn't just go turn himself in for a longer sentence, he's been released. The only way HE can give in to the protestors is to commit another crime and be sent back to jail. How would that improve anything? The only thing the protestors can hope to accomplish by protesting him is to make him miserable. Ie. Mob rule.

He's served his legal punishment. Further, his name will be forever tied to this incident, for the rest of his life potential employersg, prospective suitor or future neighbour can find out what he was doing on (we hope) his worst day. The law also allows for protecting public safety if that's needed (supervised parole, mandatory training for anger, alcoholism or whatever, conditions on release). There is no way to justify a protest against an individual. I also don't think that he was suitably punished for his role, but protesting his residence, with or without guns, is just vigilanteism

Or in other words: what s_stabler said

[mjr]

N
That's what most people are upset about. Was it legal for the judge to sentence this way? Yes. But that doesn't mean people can't speak up and say that there's an imbalance.

That's a fair assessment. And I do believe that people should speak up, yes. Unfortunately (and I've been guilty of this) too many of us act like judge, jury, and executioner as well, as Canarr and s_stabeler have noted.

[Greenday]

I'm pretty sure what they are doing in front of his house legally qualifies as harassment, not protesting.

[Canarr]

I don't disagree with their right to protest.

I do. Because this:

when people start thinking that they can impose extrajudical punishments, then you have- immediately- got rid of the rule of law. that is the problem with vigilante justice- when people decide " he wasn't punished enough by the court system for my liking, so I will impose an additional punishment" it's not very far down a slope made of ice that's been liberally greased until you get people saying " the courts say he is innocent, but we know better, so we'll punish him anyway. " which is where you get lynch mobs from.

Assembling outside someone's house, writing "RAPIST!" on the street and sidewalkt, carrying signs saying, "Castrate all rapists!" isn't protest anymore, it's harassment. It is private citizens banding together to enact a punishment *they feel* is more adequate for the crime than the one the court mandated. And *that* is vigilante justice.

That they may actually be right about the punishment being inadequate - is besides the point. It's still wrong, and it is *always* wrong. If we accept it here, because the guy is an asshole, then we're abandoning rule-of-law.

Either everybody is protected, or nobody is.

[s_stabeler]

The issue is more-or-less specifically

In general, I don't think people are opposed to vigilantes (now less than ever). There's massive disagreement between what is and isn't justice which means someone's always got "cause" and there's probably a sympathetic jury out there. It always comes down to whether or not people are willing to cede justice to the justice system. Part of that is dealing with an outcome you don't like.

And at some point, extra-legal behavior is going to have to be looked at. You can't bloody well say you are punishing "within a system" if people are coming out of it while dealing with "the system" and "the public." If you're seeing that, then that's actually an indication of a lack of faith in the system (or lack of discipline" in the public) and in either event it results in two punishments (one the state is not accounting for in sentencing).

when people start thinking that they can impose extrajudical punishments, then you have- immediately- got rid of the rule of law. that is the problem with vigilante justice- when people decide " he wasn't punished enough by the court system for my liking, so I will impose an additional punishment" it's not very far down a slope made of ice that's been liberally greased until you get people saying " the courts say he is innocent, but we know better, so we'll punish him anyway. " which is where you get lynch mobs from.

[Kheldarson]

Fair. I haven't been keeping track of this case. What was the law at the time that sentencing took place? Was this a plea deal (sounds like it was), and was the law followed under the plea deal?
.

No plea deal. He was found guilty by jury of a number of sexual assault charges (as California designates rape as penile penetration and using other items as a form of assault) and then sentenced. He faced 14 years. There was no minimum sentence required.

The issue is that we elect judges to weigh circumstances of cases both in terms of the victim and the perpetrator. A man caught stealing bread for his children shouldn't be given as harsh a sentence as the career criminal sort of thing. In this case, by giving such a light sentence, it gives the impression that the judge didn't weigh the victim's circumstance. Three months for something that will affect her for the rest of her life? It seems like being in the favorable class means you get away with it again.

That's what most people are upset about. Was it legal for the judge to sentence this way? Yes. But that doesn't mean people can't speak up and say that there's an imbalance.

As a note, I disagree with the protesters being armed in front of his house. I don't disagree with their right to protest.

[mjr]

In the context of a judge sentencing a criminal? appropriate within the current law. The courtroom is not the venue for determining if the law is too harsh, barring something like judicial review.

Fair. I haven't been keeping track of this case. What was the law at the time that sentencing took place? Was this a plea deal (sounds like it was), and was the law followed under the plea deal?

I ask, because even though what he did was despicable, if the law prescribes the punishment he received, that's not his fault that we don't like it. I don't know what the specific punishment should have been (as prescribed by law) for what he did.

[s_stabeler]

In the context of a judge sentencing a criminal? appropriate within the current law. The courtroom is not the venue for determining if the law is too harsh, barring something like judicial review. However, if a law is judged to be too harsh by public opinion, then the Legislature is able to change it. Including, incidentally, modifying previous sentences within reason. ( for example, if marijuana was legalised federally, the law legalising it could contain a sentence saying " any individual currently serving a prison sentence for possession, supply , intent to supply, or smuggling marijuana shall be released on X date. Further, any individual convicted of possession, supply, intent to supply, or smuggling marijuana shall have the conviction vacated as of the same date." to essentially- from a legal perspective- make it as if they were never convicted. ( it's essentially since it doesn't- unless the legislation provides for it- entitle the now-released prisoners to compensation, since the previous imprisonment was lawful.)

what the legislature can't do, incidentally, is the opposite: if (say) speeding became a felony, with mandatory jail time- regardless of how far over the speed limit you were- they can't then direct the police to round up every speeder and ship them off to jail.

[mjr]

I'll go with option C, change the system so vigilante justice doesn't even need to be considered. If we have judges who refuse to hand out appropriate punishments, disbar them.

This is a valid point, Greenday, but when you say "appropriate", do you mean "appropriate according to the current law" or "appropriate based on what society thinks"?

Those are different things. "Appropriate according to the current law" can be a vastly different thing than "Appropriate according to what society thinks". Though I do agree with you vis-a-vis a judge giving a lighter sentence than what the law prescribes -- in most situations.

Because that could cause debate, too.
"How far is too far?"
"What's not far enough?"

I mean, many in society find it appalling that some will use "public shaming" as a punishment. Many think that goes too far. But is there a crime that could be committed where that might be appropriate in lieu of jail time?