Ship of Fools: Rape, Bullying and 'Anonymous'

Thread: Rape, Bullying and 'Anonymous' Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025267

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I cannot think of where else to post this. Hosts may decide it actually belongs in Hell? It brings out hellish feelings within me.

Anonymous threatens to out boys involved in alleged gang rape of N.S. teen unless RCMP charges them. Here is Anonymous' original communication.

Paralleling this is the Ohio highschool football players' rape conviction, in which Anonymous also got involved.

quote:
Above link
[Anonymous] posted the names of Steubenville athletes they were targeting for revenge, and published what they said were leaked accounts of the night's events. They used their skills to dig up artifacts of social-media braggadocio, including a 12-minute video of a kid who seems -- though there's no on-camera evidence of this -- to be joking about a rape that is actually taking place nearby.

I realize that this is essentially vigilante justice in cyberspace. At the same time, we have a terrible power imbalance and a little pressure on rapists, when frankly, we pretty well know they're guilty, seems to rectify it. With the key issue being that the police, prosecutors and/or community supporting the wrong side. So I get it and can see it as supportable in the right situations. Both of these situations seems to be the right ones. Not caring so much for rights of rapists as those they've harmed.

What do you think?

[ 11. April 2013, 02:43: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by ProgenitorDope (# 16648) on :

It's a tough bunch of issues to say the least. Me personally, I can't say I approve of such vigilanteism. All I can think is "what if those boys are actually innocent, what happens then?" And even if these particular scumbags aren't, how long until someone who is innocent gets targeted?

Just my two cents.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The Stuebenville Athletes basically let it all hang out by posting videos of the rape on various sites--I think one of them was on You Tube until it was taken down. Anonymous took the time to track everything that was already out there and compiled the results. If they had not gotten involved, the athletes would have likely gotten away with it.

Two weeks ago a university professor here was beaten severely, sustaining head injuries. The police had surveillance tapes and posted them on line to generate leads. Other videos are now surfacing from people who taped it on their cell phones.

Just this evening two arrests have been made, a young man and a young woman. Two more suspects are being sought.

Point is, if something is done in public, it will likely be taped. If the authorities want to ignore it, there will be groups that will keep it in the forefront. But if the authorities keep ahead of it and use it to their advantage criminals will be caught.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

No Prophet , I'm not sure how your comment we pretty well know they're guilty stands with the presumption of innocence. Perhaps you could explain.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No Prophet , I'm not sure how your comment we pretty well know they're guilty stands with the presumption of innocence. Perhaps you could explain.

Not sure if you've followed the story. The boys, (allegedly) involved posted on Twitter and Facebook over the course of the night of rape, which took place in several locations, joking about having sex with a "dead" (i.e., drugged and unconscious) girl, who apparently "deserved" it for being too drunk, in addition to that (absolutely horrifying) video. It's worth noting that two have been found guilty in court, hence the presumption of guilt at this point.

The presumption of their innocence related more to the boys' role on the town high school's football team and the centrality of football to the town's identity than anything else.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Wait till we're all wearing Google Glass. In the absence of internal morality, it will be imposed.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No Prophet , I'm not sure how your comment we pretty well know they're guilty stands with the presumption of innocence.

Presumption of innocence is a legal term of art for the accused's treatment by a court of law. It doesn't apply across the board universally. Prosecutors, for instance, are not supposed to presume that the people they're prosecuting are innocent and public opinion, of course, is not bound by such legal strictures.

quote:
The public may reason according to its wits, but this court must reason according to the law.

-fictionalized Sir Thomas More, A Man For All Seasons

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Presumption of innocence is a legal term of art for the accused's treatment by a court of law. It doesn't apply across the board universally. Prosecutors, for instance, are not supposed to presume that the people they're prosecuting are innocent and public opinion, of course, is not bound by such legal strictures.

I think that depends on what you mean by "bound." ISTM that anyone who hounded another person for a crime for which they were not so much as charged might well be "bound" by a great variety of legal constraints.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I think that depends on what you mean by "bound." ISTM that anyone who hounded another person for a crime for which they were not so much as charged might well be "bound" by a great variety of legal constraints.

Depends on what you mean by "hounded". Stalking and harassment laws usually protect even those actually convicted of crimes. Discussing one's personal opinion of the accused's guilt or innocence, and the evidence supporting that opinion, doesn't really rise to the level of "hounding".

To take an example of someone who was actually tried and acquitted, O.J. Simpson remains effectively blacklisted from his pre-trial career in the entertainment industry, largely because a lot of people consider him to be a double murderer who was able to "beat the system". They continue to believe this despite his acquittal.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Bostonman, I was not referring to the Steubenville incident - where there have now been findings of guilt - but to the incident Anonymous is now writing about. I understood that to be the one No Prophet was dealing with. At this stage, there have been no charges, let alone findings.

What happened to Rehteah is truly horrible, and those guilty should be given suitable sentences. That's not the question. The questions are whether those whom Anonymous is threatening to name are those who committed those acts, and whether, if they be juveniles, they should be named; generally speaking here, there can be no naming of juveniles charged with criminal offences, even after a finding of guilt. In the ordinary course, a juvenile victim would not be named either.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

How else will they get charged? The situation has parallels everywhere. Victims don't come forward because they know the presumption of innocence will be used to hammer them. Often viciously. The information in this case is that there is social media, we don't know what it all is, but we need to have it examined. This is no more brutal to the not-yet-accused than it has been for the now dead victim. -- From personal family experience, I have developed some differential opinions in the last 2 years.

The news reports are that the provincial minister of justice is reviewing the conduct of the police and prosecutors in this case. Probably because of Anonymous' efforts.

Probably the usual court and legal system based on English common law fails when dealing with all cases in the same Procrustean model. I would prefer a court in inquiry in such cases, where innocence and guilt are neither presumed. The accused is in limbo along with the victim. That the situation is not skewed.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Here is the full Anonymous statement:

Operation Justice For Rehtaeh —- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Anonymous engaged #OpJustice4Rataeh this morning in response to the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons. Justice Minister Ross Landy says that it is important for Nova Scotians to have faith in their justice system. Mr. Landy, justice is in your hands.

Anonymous has confirmed the identities of two of the four alleged rapists. We are currently confirming a third and it is only a matter of time before the fourth is identified as well.

Our demands are simple: We want the N.S. RCMP to take immediate legal action against the individuals in question. We encourage you to act fast. If we were able to locate these boys within 2 hours, it will not be long before someone else finds them.

We do not approve of vigilante justice as the media claims. That would mean we approve of violent actions against these rapists at the hands of an unruly mob. What we want is justice. And That’s your job. So do it.

The names of the rapists will be kept until it is apparent you have no intention of providing justice to Retaeh’s family. Please be aware that there are other groups of Anons also attempting to uncover this information and they may not to wish to wait at all. Better act fast.

Be aware that we will be organizing large demonstrations outside of your headquarters. The rapists will be held accountable for their actions. You will be held accountable for your failure to act.

That is all.

---------------

Given the fact that Rehtaeh was horribly raped and bullied, in my state the names of the accused would probably be released whether or not they are juveniles since the case would likely be reminded to adult court.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

The problem is that the RCMP investigated, and couldn't get enough evidence, for whatever reason, to bring charges. As sad as it is, we may just have to trust this here. Situations like this, where the subject is drunk, are problematic; I sire wouldn't want to be tasked with sorting out everything.

But before anyone jumps me, no- being drunk is not a blanket invitation for rape. The rapists are still rapists. As well, all are under age (I believe so, in that jurisdiction), so legally, no consent could have been given. Surprise! Horny teens, especially drunk horny teens, often don't care about such restrictions - certainly they gave no regard to laws against underage consumption of alchohol.

And teens are brutes, among the cruelest creatures God's forbearance allows to roam the good green earth. Probably the best hope for prosecution in this case now is for cyber stalking and harassment.

And, as sexist as it may seem: Girls, don't go sneaking off to drink with a bunch of guys and not expect to face sexual pressure and possible rape. It isn't right, it isn't fair, it's just the nature of being a teen. It's not right or fair that I don't have the freedom to walk in every section of town any hour of the day or night, but I know better than to do so.

God, where are the parents? 'Course, kids can be sneaky...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
The problem is that the RCMP investigated, and couldn't get enough evidence, for whatever reason, to bring charges. As sad as it is, we may just have to trust this here.

Do we have to implicitly trust whatever the police tell us? There's no possible way this was a screw-up, corruption, or general laziness? That's an awful lot of trust in the infallibility of law enforcement.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Seems to me that a drunk girl is incapable of giving consent. If the perpetrators could tell she was drunk and admit they had sex with her, it's pretty clearly rape.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
The problem is that the RCMP investigated, and couldn't get enough evidence, for whatever reason, to bring charges. As sad as it is, we may just have to trust this here. Situations like this, where the subject is drunk, are problematic; I sire wouldn't want to be tasked with sorting out everything.

The RCMP may have not proceeded due to lack of evidence, or may not have proceeded because of influence. And believe me, influence does count. They are not always objective.

quote:
Tom of Tarsus:

But before anyone jumps me, no- being drunk is not a blanket invitation for rape. The rapists are still rapists. As well, all are under age (I believe so, in that jurisdiction), so legally, no consent could have been given. Surprise! Horny teens, especially drunk horny teens, often don't care about such restrictions - certainly they gave no regard to laws against underage consumption of alchohol.

And teens are brutes, among the cruelest creatures God's forbearance allows to roam the good green earth. Probably the best hope for prosecution in this case now is for cyber stalking and harassment.

And, as sexist as it may seem: Girls, don't go sneaking off to drink with a bunch of guys and not expect to face sexual pressure and possible rape. It isn't right, it isn't fair, it's just the nature of being a teen. It's not right or fair that I don't have the freedom to walk in every section of town any hour of the day or night, but I know better than to do so.

God, where are the parents? 'Course, kids can be sneaky...

Just because you said we shouldn't does not mean we won't react and 'jump' on you. You posted an unacceptable justification of brutality and rape, suggesting that teens don't have the responsibility to control themselves, and that they need their parents to exert control from the outside because hormones have overcome their internal controls. Viewpoints like your's are part of the problem.

How about you watch this short youtube videoHow do you deal with drunk woman passed out on the couch, and see if you agree with what he did.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

I do not justify rape. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. If I walk on the wrong side of the tracks after dark, and somebody jumps me, it is wrong, wrong, wrong for them to do so. I should be free to walk anywhere at any time without that fear. But I know better than to do so.

Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. But to get a conviction, you have to be able to prove it. If you're so drunk you can't remember or control you own actions, it just makes getting that evidence that much more difficult. But I am not going to blame the victim, other than to say that putting yourself in risky situations can have unforeseen consequences, right, wrong or indifferent. And a bunch of boys with impaired inhibitions can be bad news. Would you not tell your daughter the same thing? Or would you say, "oh, honey, if you go get drunk with a bunch of boys, you need to tell them at the outset that rape is wrong and you do not consent to any sex this evening."

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Just because you said we shouldn't does not mean we won't react and 'jump' on you. You posted an unacceptable justification of brutality and rape, suggesting that teens don't have the responsibility to control themselves, and that they need their parents to exert control from the outside because hormones have overcome their internal controls. Viewpoints like your's are part of the problem.

I'm always amazed by the fact that those promoting the idea that men are all vicious rapists with no ability to control their brutal impulses are often the same people who claim that feminists are the ones with an unjustifiably low opinion of men.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Should've read up further. No, Croesus, it's not any faith in the infallibility of law enforcement - it's just real world. Maybe there was evidence and they couldn't find it. Maybe they are grossly incompetent. Maybe there was outside influence. But there has to be evidence.

If the pressure by Anonymous can spur further investigation without violating the privacy and guarantee against unreasonable search & seizure (ok, it's Canada, but on the same principle), then I say good for them - but vigilantism can easily go the other way, we all know that,and it would be as bad as what these kids have done to her (via the online chatter) for Anonymous to bring it's not inconsiderable wrath down upon an innocent boy.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
The problem is that the RCMP investigated,

Steubenville shows the evidence was there yet, until pressure was applied, the authorities did not use it. There are examples throughout the world and throughout time of perpetrators escaping prosecution due to laziness, corruption and pressure.
There are also examples of innocent harassed for the same factors.
I want the bastards who did this to face conviction. I want the actual bastards to face conviction.

On a tangent, thinking of the poor girls fellow students, I do wish there were also penalties for all the people who harass victims of crimes.
There are times when I think humans are actually on the lower end of the incarnation scale.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Well, I'm with you there, lilBuddah.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Well, I'm with you there, lilBuddah.

So you're opposed to "vigilantism", except when you're not. I'm not seeing a clear difference between what Anonymous is threatening to do in Nova Scotia and what they actually did in Steubenville.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

I think it depends on what information the "Anonymous" people have. In the Steubenville case, they didn't have to infer anything - they just took tweets, facebook posts, pictures and video, and said "here, look at this".

If what they are proposing is similar to that, they should provide it, and if there's a reasonable suspicion that the authorities might just sweep it under the carpet, there's not much harm in a bit of public pressure.

If what they have is more in the nature of hearsay - for example two third parties discussing what Johnny allegedly did to the girl - then making it public is more problematic.

So I think it depends on the details of what exactly they know when they say that they "know names".

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Just a question, what is Anonymous threatening to do if there isn't any legal action taken against the people they have identified? Make their names public?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just a question, what is Anonymous threatening to do if there isn't any legal action taken against the people they have identified? Make their names public?

There's a link to their statement in the OP, and Gramps49 reproduced it in its entirety.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Crœsos: There's a link to their statement in the OP, and Gramps49 reproduced it in its entirety.

Ah I see it now, it is implied by 'The names of the rapists will be kept until it is apparent you have no intention of providing justice to Retaeh’s family'.

I wonder, since I'm not a lawyer, if a citizen accuses another citizen of a crime, what is the Justice system required to do?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Apparently the system has the options to: do nothing at all, to investigate, to delay the investigation, to charge. Many factors would seem to come to play in such situations. The authorities often, to me, seem to be playing the game of 'can we get a conviction' not 'should we move on this because it is right'. The justice system is not about truth or fact, it is about what can be proved. It needs some help in some situations to do the right thing. Hence Anonymous.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
no prophet: Apparently the system has the options to: do nothing at all, to investigate, to delay the investigation, to charge.

But suppose that I would go to a police station and accuse someone of a crime. I guess that the police officer would write a report of this accusation. Would the police have to come back to me about this? Even if they didn't follow up on it, would they have to explain to me why they didn't? Would there be a time limit for this?

Or would they only have this obligation if I were the victim?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Just because you said we shouldn't does not mean we won't react and 'jump' on you. You posted an unacceptable justification of brutality and rape, suggesting that teens don't have the responsibility to control themselves, and that they need their parents to exert control from the outside because hormones have overcome their internal controls. Viewpoints like your's are part of the problem.
I'm always amazed by the fact that those promoting the idea that men are all vicious rapists with no ability to control their brutal impulses are often the same people who claim that feminists are the ones with an unjustifiably low opinion of men.

I'm so glad a guy said that.

Really, I mean that. Five years ago I would have avoided a thread like this like the plague, mostly because I would have found the ignorant shit coming out of the keyboards of men I usually like too painful to read. Evidence that there are guys out there thinking things through is fortifying.

I have more to say, but the succession of events have proved a huge trigger for me, and therefore this is all I'm going to say right now.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Kelly - anyone who has a sister, has a daughter, has friends - how can they not understand this? If there are not a majority who understand, there will be.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
no prophet: Apparently the system has the options to: do nothing at all, to investigate, to delay the investigation, to charge.
But suppose that I would go to a police station and accuse someone of a crime. I guess that the police officer would write a report of this accusation. Would the police have to come back to me about this? Even if they didn't follow up on it, would they have to explain to me why they didn't? Would there be a time limit for this?

Or would they only have this obligation if I were the victim?

Our experience is that they have obligation at all, not even to the victim. The put off comment is "we're still investigating". If they decide not to proceed, then it's "we've closed the file". No explanations. I hope it is different elsewhere, but I've no such knowledge.

Only once and if the thing gets to a court, are there any obligations at all, and those obligations are those of the victim: to attend the court because of subpoena, and to given evidence as a witness and to be grilled and roasted (cross examined), not to hear anything, except a verdict. Victims are totally in the dark. And the little bit of support to victims via victims services officers is along the lines of 'would you like a coffee?', at least here.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Well, I'm with you there, lilBuddah.
So you're opposed to "vigilantism", except when you're not. I'm not seeing a clear difference between what Anonymous is threatening to do in Nova Scotia and what they actually did in Steubenville.

Well, it's one thing to go to the authorities with evidence they were unable to uncover, but that Anonymous was. It's another thing to say that, if the authorities don't do what Anonymous feels is the right thing to do, Anonymous then (hiding behind their own anonymity) outs who they believe to be the perpetrators. There's ways to go about this within the rule of law. Like I said, Anonymous had better be right, because the backlash could end up with another teen suicide, innocent or otherwise.

I think I need to respond to something no_prophet said up yonder, perhaps better than I did before.

quote:
Just because you said we shouldn't does not mean we won't react and 'jump' on you. You posted an unacceptable justification of brutality and rape, suggesting that teens don't have the responsibility to control themselves, and that they need their parents to exert control from the outside because hormones have overcome their internal controls. Viewpoints like your's are part of the problem.

Teens DO have the responsibility to control themselves. But they DO need parental oversight, because despite responsibility AND ability, they often FAIL to do the right things. That's why they are called minors; why they can't marry and execute contracts without parents' consent; why they are not permitted to consume alcohol. When they drink, it further impairs the inhibitions that we have been trying to inculcate in them. It's not right, it just is what happens when you ingest booze.

I recall teens in my high school long years ago (late 60's/early 70's) talking about ways to get a girl drunk by appearing to drink heavily yourself, for the express purpose of seducing (I'd be more apt to call it raping) her. It was disgusting to me then and it's disgusting to me today.

Like I said: Teens can be the most brutish creatures on the face of the planet. Handle accordingly.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

Bullying , rape and cyber bullying are repugnant beyond belief. The people who do this should be identified and named , juviniles or not.
And these offenses should only be tried in adult court. And sentences made mandetory and severe . Otherwise we will have other parents & their friends crying over the bodies of their young people. [Votive]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Teens DO have the responsibility to control themselves. But they DO need parental oversight, because despite responsibility AND ability, they often FAIL to do the right things. That's why they are called minors; why they can't marry and execute contracts without parents' consent; why they are not permitted to consume alcohol. When they drink, it further impairs the inhibitions that we have been trying to inculcate in them. It's not right, it just is what happens when you ingest booze.

I recall teens in my high school long years ago (late 60's/early 70's) talking about ways to get a girl drunk by appearing to drink heavily yourself, for the express purpose of seducing (I'd be more apt to call it raping) her. It was disgusting to me then and it's disgusting to me today.

Like I said: Teens can be the most brutish creatures on the face of the planet. Handle accordingly.

This is not my experience. From your post, we are probably close to the same age. My experience is that people certainly drank alcohol (that cost substantially less), and we knew less about drugs so smoked them more, but teens being brutish and awful? No. It is not my experience at all. Only a small percentage. If anything, people were more polite.

I hang out with teens all the time, about 50% of what I do and have done for the past 30 years of work. I don't see it.

Young people need what they have always needed. Internal controls. Not someone controlling from the outside. Most people develop them. Those who don't, when I was a teen, we beat them up until they got it, though then and today, the preferable place for both is with the authorities. If the authorities won't respond, we have to get them to. That's why I'm liking Anonymous' approach at the moment. Much better than beating up.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Kelly - anyone who has a sister, has a daughter, has friends - how can they not understand this? If there are not a majority who understand, there will be.

Thank you for the "friends" part, at least. Part of the problem with the "Think of your mother or sister" is it kind of reinforces the idea that only a woman that is attached to a man somehow is worth protecting.

Sorry, I am taking a class where lurid conversations about really awful things happening to women are part of our steady diet, and I am just so, so sick of all of it. The soulessness of the way women are discussed sometimes.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Bullying , rape and cyber bullying are repugnant beyond belief. The people who do this should be identified and named , juviniles or not.

Absolutely. You just need to be really damn sure you've got the right people before you destroy them. Scapegoating an innocent person just to satisfy the need for vengeance helps nobody.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

That was my point. We agree that this is awful behavior, that ought to be punished. And, as I said, I'm glad if Anon. can bring enough pressure to prosecute if it can uncover (and forward to the authorities) substantive evidence.

But for them to act as judge and jury (again, hiding behind their anonymity), and even "executioner" in a manner of speaking, they could end up with the blood of another suicide on their hands, guilty or innocent.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Sorry to DP, but we have another. 15 year old girl passed out, is assauted, commits suicide. At least they are bringing charges against her attackers. [Mad]

An aside to no_prophet: I didn't say teens are ALL brutes and cruel beyond measure, but they sure CAN be.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

So can adults. They're human.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Kelly - anyone who has a sister, has a daughter, has friends - how can they not understand this? If there are not a majority who understand, there will be.
Thank you for the "friends" part, at least. Part of the problem with the "Think of your mother or sister" is it kind of reinforces the idea that only a woman that is attached to a man somehow is worth protecting.

Sorry, I am taking a class where lurid conversations about really awful things happening to women are part of our steady diet, and I am just so, so sick of all of it. The soulessness of the way women are discussed sometimes.

In Christ there is no male or female (or however that goes). This is an issue of basic humanity. Basic human rights. It is not gender specific. It is not specific to relatives. It is not specific to friends or acquaintances. It is also the response to anyone anywhere, on the other side of the world, or living next door. We have not choice but to play it forward.

It is traumatizing to hear and know such terrible things. I have only been able to play it forward, and not become immobilized by it. Which is a part of the evil.

Can I be feminist on this, and also male? Sure. Why the hell not. Because it is really about humanity.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Anonymous decides to do what the family asks for.

I'm of two minds about this.

There are obviously people known to have been involved. But, as the report states, some innocent names are being thrown around.

On the other hand, when it comes to women, I don't trust the RCMP as far as I can throw them. We don't know why the prosecutions did not move forward; but, the RCMP has form for bungling rape cases and a general misogynist culture.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

The Cole Harbour school and community have a long history of dysfunctional behaviours, although usually more in the line of racial events and fighting.

The police may have felt that they weren't getting anywhere in a culture that is actively opposed to police actions.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I am sick to hear of another parallel case as posted above.

The RCMP say they're reopening the investigation and also saying Anonymous has nothing to do with this. The RCMP and other police forces are not required to tell the truth except in court in Canada, and I suspect they are not telling the truth on this.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think it depends on what information the "Anonymous" people have. In the Steubenville case, they didn't have to infer anything - they just took tweets, facebook posts, pictures and video, and said "here, look at this".

If what they are proposing is similar to that, they should provide it, and if there's a reasonable suspicion that the authorities might just sweep it under the carpet, there's not much harm in a bit of public pressure.

If what they have is more in the nature of hearsay - for example two third parties discussing what Johnny allegedly did to the girl - then making it public is more problematic.

So I think it depends on the details of what exactly they know when they say that they "know names".

This is exactly the worry. When they say they have "confirmed" the identity of people, how exactly?

Not least because Anonymous is fundamentally a hacking group.

The police are authorized to use certain methods to obtain evidence. In certain circumstances the police require authority specific to the particular case. We call it a warrant.

Even if Anonymous has obtained cogent evidence, even if they hand it over to the police, one of the serious risks here is that it will be utterly useless for legal proceedings.

There is a comedy-drama show on Australian TV at the moment where a couple of cleaners solve murder cases, and give the evidence to a policeman. The show sometimes has the policeman getting stressed over just HOW the cleaners might know what they know, ie because he can figure out they probably broke in somewhere. The show can usually find ways around that, but in real life this is a deadly serious issue.

And that's even assuming that Anonymous is careful enough in reaching CONCLUSIONS from evidence. If police can jump to wrong conclusions, prosecute the wrong person, it's be foolish of Anonymous to not recognise they could do the same thing. But being noble idealists they probably won't recognise it.

The whole reason our justice system separates evidence gathering from definitive evidence assessing is to stop what Anonymous is perilously close to.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Something I found in the Slate Online Magazine

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Gramps - that is a great article. I especially appreciated the tern " slut-shaming", which I had not heard of before.

If anyone talks of someone being loose, easy or a slut, shame them.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

One of the issues is lack of apportionment.
Even in cases of mutual consent, males are not viewed the same way females are afterward.
Male - "scored" "got lucky" etc.
Female - well she is a "slut" "tart" etc.
in cases like this, it is so much more egregious.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I think, in this case, where it is apparent the girl was "slut-shamed" and the RCMP and prosecutors are not willing to take any further legal action, Anonymous is taking it to the next step: shaming both the boys who did the act, and the system for not being willing to act on the information they have.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I think Anonymous' actions are in a tenuous position. Vigilantism is wrong. However, as these cases show, a light needs to be shown on the authorities missteps. These are heinous crimes, they need to be investigated to the fullest. Not restrained because of a fucking game.(Steubenville)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I think, in this case, where it is apparent the girl was "slut-shamed" and the RCMP and prosecutors are not willing to take any further legal action, Anonymous is taking it to the next step: shaming both the boys who did the act, and the system for not being willing to act on the information they have.

"Shaming the boys". Which boys?

I mean, they've now come out and said "99% of you are naming the wrong boys". So, either Anonymous knows the true story and has succeeded in illustrating that large numbers of people can jump to the wrong conclusions, OR Anonymous itself was wrong and some innocent boys have been rescued by the family asking Anonymous not to publish the names.

Either way, there's a large conceptual gap between "shaming the boys who did the act" and "shaming the boys that Anonymous thinks did the act".

[ 14. April 2013, 22:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I don't what it's like elsewhere (or elsewhen). In NYC, several decades ago, the DA who landed a rape case decided whether or not to pursue it to trial based on a number of factors:

First, understand that the prosecution's primary goal is to win cases. Many prosecutors have their jobs through elective office; a high "win-to-loss" ratio makes re-election more likely. There's no percentage in pursuing cases the prosecutor is likely to lose.

(Incidentally, under the law in that place and time, rape was a crime against the state. IOW, a case could go forward without the victim's cooperation or consent.)

1. Is the victim credible? (i.e., will the victim seem credible to a jury? In the absence of rape shield laws, a victim's sexual history could be examined in open court, often to the victim's discredit). How does she speak, comport herself? Is she likely to arouse a jury's sympathies?

In addition to this possibility, women who are poor, Women who are quite young, women who are very emotive in their ways of expressing themselves, women of color, women who are single, women in "questionable" occupations, poorly-educated women, women who have, however innocently, engaged in any behavior that could seem or be made to seem suspect which be "discovered" and admitted into testimony, etc., are often deemed "not credible."

Prosecutors know what their juries are apt to be like, and what kinds of prejudices they're apt to bring into the jury room with them.

2. How credible is the defendant? Are there prior convictions, and if so, is there some way to reveal that to a jury? Or is this a first offense? Were there drugs or alcohol involved? Etc. etc.

3. What kind of (if any) physical evidence exists to corroborate the prosecution's claims? If so, has this evidence been handled/held securely throughout police custody of such evidence? The sheer volume and complexity of the possible evidence in a rape case can pose enormous challenges for large, multi-layered police organizations, and for small, inexperienced (low-crime-rate) rural police departments.

Women are not "trained" to be rape victims. Often a victim will go straight to a shower afterward in an effort to clean herself, destroying evidence (and possibly making herself seem suspect) in the process. She may dispose of clothing or bedding involved, again destroying evidence. She may, in a state of confusion or fear, muck up the scene of the crime. She may do these things out of overwhelming rage, revulsion, fear, or any other highly-charged emotion. But by the time the case comes to trial -- months or years after the event -- a creative defense attorney can make all kinds of hay with ANY action she performed or failed to perform during the rape or in its aftermath.

How do I know all this? I am a rape survivor, and some 20 years ago put in a couple of years' work setting up a rape crisis line and training volunteers to assist victims of rape and incest in a county where I then lived. I counseled many victims along with their families and loved ones, and supported many through police investigations and trials.

There's one other factor that must be borne in mind: Back when I was doing this (it may be different now), an apprehended rapist had committed an average of 12 rapes before being arrested for rape for the first time.

I'm not a prosecutor, but photographs of the event being committed strike me as not necessarily useful as evidence in a trial situation. By their nature, photographs (as opposed, say, to video) are instantaneous -- one-second views of a situation that may have developed over hours. We can't "hear" what's going on; we can't know what came just before or just after a particular shot; we may not even be able to identify with certainty the individuals pictured.

FWIW.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

The best thing I see about all of this is that Anonymous is relatively grassroots. If people, probably mostly relatively young people, want to change rape-culture, as a generation we can. If this is a sign that more and more people are aware of the issue, that's a good sign.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Many prosecutors have their jobs through elective office; a high "win-to-loss" ratio makes re-election more likely.

I know this is the case in the United States. Is it the case anywhere else?

I've always found it extremely odd, personally, but then that just might be cultural.

EDIT: Of course, even where prosecutors are appointed or employed by other means, a high success rate is desirable for your prospects of begin reappointed or just keeping your job.

[ 15. April 2013, 01:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

EDIT: Of course, even where prosecutors are appointed or employed by other means, a high success rate is desirable for your prospects of begin reappointed or just keeping your job.

I cannot see this as being other than true anywhere.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

EDIT: Of course, even where prosecutors are appointed or employed by other means, a high success rate is desirable for your prospects of begin reappointed or just keeping your job.
I cannot see this as being other than true anywhere.

Yes, but Porridge's point, I think, is that (chief) prosecutors are in the moderately unusual position of deciding upon their own work, in a sense that most of us aren't.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Someone has circulated a picture of the boys or at least one of them raping. The information is that it went 'viral'. Maybe the police thought it looked like the 15 year old wanted to be raped. We'll have to wait to hear. If the police ultimately do not charge and the boys 'who had sex with her' are identified, then perhaps it is lawsuit time. It sounds that perhaps a whole long list of other young people contributed to the shaming and death of this girl. Do they need to suffer so as to understand their wrong behaviour? I'm thinking yes.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

There is another issue, separate from the actual mistreatment of a non-responsive girl: that is, the dissemination of child pornography.

It is now arguable that placing a baby picture in a high school yearbook is tantamount to disseminating kiddy porn, protected only by long-standing custom.

How is it that, given the police having dedicated child porn units who can identify rapists by minute clues within videos, the police were unable (or unwilling) to prosecute anyone for posting the videos in question?

Does the apparent raping of a comatose 15-year-old not constitute child porn, since she was clearly under the age of consent? Or are the rules different because "boys will be boys"?

We tend to make fun of/think poorly of the idea, espoused by fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, that any sight of an unclothed female allows men to have their way. Do we automatically assume that men have absolutely no control over their lust, once they have committed the act?

Why are men given a free ticket to assault females?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Does the apparent raping of a comatose 15-year-old not constitute child porn, since she was clearly under the age of consent? Or are the rules different because "boys will be boys"?

Let's leave the rape aside for the moment, and imagine it was consensual sex. Yes, a 15-year-old can't legally consent to sex, so the sex is a crime, and videoing it is child porn.

However, in the usual case, teens are not prosecuted for having sex because one of them is underage (and basically never if both are underage). If you don't prosecute for the act, should you prosecute for a picture of the act recorded by one of the participants?

(In the case of the rape of Rehtaeh Parsons, the boys involved are mostly or all underage too.)

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The best thing I see about all of this is that Anonymous is relatively grassroots. If people, probably mostly relatively young people, want to change rape-culture, as a generation we can. If this is a sign that more and more people are aware of the issue, that's a good sign.

On the other hand, sex offenders have always been targets for vigilante justice. Hence sex offenders in high security prisons needing their own segregated ward ...

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Someone has circulated a picture of the boys or at least one of them raping. The information is that it went 'viral'. Maybe the police thought it looked like the 15 year old wanted to be raped. . . .

A photograph cannot show "rape." It can only show a sex act in progress. A one-second snapshot can't show whether the victim consented, screamed, resisted, or shouted no.

Likewise, a photograph (unless time-stamped, which perhaps cellphone photos sometimes do) cannot clearly show a victim's age. If the age of legal sexual consent is 16 (don't know if it is), how different does a potential victim look the day before her 16th birthday and the day after it? For that matter, how dramatic is the change between a girl 6 months before turning 16 and a girl one month after turning 16?

Look, what happened to these young women is absolutely outrageous. What happens to all victims of all sex crimes is outrageous. But we can't fix the multiple, culturally-complicated problems which surround the issue of rape either with our outrage or with vigilantism, however well-intended or apparently justified.

Stop. Think. Imagine what it might have been like for the Nova Scotia girl to have endured what she endured, proceeded to trial, and the prosecutor lost the case? We are assuming the boys would have been found guilty and convicted.

As the song tells us, "It ain't necessarily so."

In my own case, the prosecutor was confident of winning -- so confident that he went for a second trial after the first one resulted in a hung jury. When I refused to testify again (I lost 15 pounds in 3 days of being grilled on the witness stand by the defense and could not face the experience again), I was compelled to testify through subpoena.

I cannot begin to tell you what it was like to get up on a witness stand, tell the truth, and not be believed by 12 strangers who heard things I found all-but-impossible to describe.

The second trial resulted in a prosecutorial victory. I needed two years of therapy post-trial; the perp got 6 months in prison.

With what we (seem) to know about both the Nova Scotia and Steubenville cases, it's easy for us to conclude that juries would convict.

There's no guarantee that, given what details would and would not be allowed into testimony, given what the defense would and would not be allowed to get into during cross-examination, that a conviction is by any means assured.

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Does the apparent raping of a comatose 15-year-old not constitute child porn, since she was clearly under the age of consent? Or are the rules different because "boys will be boys"?
Let's leave the rape aside for the moment, and imagine it was consensual sex. Yes, a 15-year-old can't legally consent to sex, so the sex is a crime, and videoing it is child porn.

However, in the usual case, teens are not prosecuted for having sex because one of them is underage (and basically never if both are underage). If you don't prosecute for the act, should you prosecute for a picture of the act recorded by one of the participants?

(In the case of the rape of Rehtaeh Parsons, the boys involved are mostly or all underage too.)

Probably better to use the term sexual assault as there is no crime of rape in Canada.

Also, in Canada, a 15 year old may give consent to a peer who is no more than five years older.

Pictures could be considered child pornography.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Porridge writes:

quote:
A photograph cannot show "rape." It can only show a sex act in progress. A one-second snapshot can't show whether the victim consented, screamed, resisted, or shouted no.

Likewise, a photograph (unless time-stamped, which perhaps cellphone photos sometimes do) cannot clearly show a victim's age. If the age of legal sexual consent is 16 (don't know if it is), how different does a potential victim look the day before her 16th birthday and the day after it? For that matter, how dramatic is the change between a girl 6 months before turning 16 and a girl one month after turning 16?

Cellphone transmissions are always dateable, and this information can be obtained by warrant from the provider.

As the Department of Justice note provided by Lily Pad tells us, any photograph taken of a sexual act engaged in by someone under 18 is a criminal offence, even if the act itself be consensual. In Canada, circulation of such photographs is an offence, so I would imagine that the Crown would have no trouble securing convictions in most cases.

In Canada, prosecutors are normally officials of the Department of Justice or the Department of the Solicitor General. The administration of justice is a provincial responsibility, and not all provinces have a DPP. As others have suggested, there are real questions to be asked about the decisions in this case, and it seems that the provincial cabinet is concerned enough to order another look.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:

Pictures could be considered child pornography.

My question is rather whether they should? Does it make sense for photographing yourself having sex to be an offense, when the actual sex is legal?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Cellphone transmissions are always dateable, and this information can be obtained by warrant from the provider.

Fair enough. However, this answers only one of the potential difficulties -- establishing the victim's age at the time the photo was taken. I haven't seen the photos from this case (and won't attempt to even if available, for the sake of my own peace of mind). I have seen cell phone photos of other material, however. A cellphone photo which clearly shows a sex act in progress may or may not also clearly show the faces/identities of the (both, or all) parties to the act in that same photo, which I assume would be necessary to establish guilt without reasonable doubt.

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As the Department of Justice note provided by Lily Pad tells us, any photograph taken of a sexual act engaged in by someone under 18 is a criminal offence, even if the act itself be consensual. In Canada, circulation of such photographs is an offence, so I would imagine that the Crown would have no trouble securing convictions in most cases.

Again, fair enough, plus I know nothing of Canadian law and IANAL. But also again, consider the victim. She has gone through hell; her life and development (recall that in both cases under discussion, we're talking about victims who have not yet reached legal, physiological, or emotional maturity) have been utterly disrupted, and her social integration has been trashed by the perpetrators and those who "side" with them by shaming and ostracizing victims.

I have no idea what the penalties for the potentially "convictable" crime of possessing/transmitting child pornography is compared to the crime of sexual assault perpetrated against the victim in Canada.

However, her trauma is going to be broadcast far and wide in pursuit of "justice" in either situation. It's as though the driver of a car had run her over, and rather than being tried for attempted manslaughter or vehicular homicide or what-have-you, is placed at juridical risk of having his license suspended for a while.

And the driver may not be found guilty even of that. Assuming a still-living victim, how does this provide her with "justice?"

Assuming that the perpetrator(s) ARE found guilty and DO get their "licenses suspended for a time," how does this protect the community of potential rape victims?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

With what we (seem) to know about both the Nova Scotia and Steubenville cases, it's easy for us to conclude that juries would convict.

There's no guarantee that, given what details would and would not be allowed into testimony, given what the defense would and would not be allowed to get into during cross-examination, that a conviction is by any means assured.

I don't want prosecutors pushing cases with poor evidence. I want authorities to investigate to the fullest extent possible. Steubenville suggests they do not. I could fill this website with cases that show they do not.
I feel for your pain. And I also do not wish to put victims through that hell if there is no chance for conviction.
I simply want cases fairly evaluated.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

And of course if cases like Stuebenville were not so terrifyingly common, it would be easier for victims and their loved ones to believe a prosector when told that there is unfortunately no case.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Re pictures. Most digital pictures have some code attached to them: what device took the picture, when, and may also contain additional information such as GPS coordinates. Such meta data has been controversial outside of criminal cases, because someone can determine details of virtually any picture uploaded to the internet.

It is true that a picture can't show a rape. But in the Nova Scotia case the police even delayed interviewing the teenagers in question.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Porridge, I want to thank you for sharing your story here. I am grateful for the healing you have undergone that has gotten you to the point where you were able to do so. I'm honored you feel this is a safe community. It definitely shifts the conversation-- in a good way--when we are able to take it from abstractions to a reality right in front of us.
[Votive]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Where has the media reported Anonymous is wrong about the boys they (can) name?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Porridge, I want to thank you for sharing your story here. I am grateful for the healing you have undergone that has gotten you to the point where you were able to do so. I'm honored you feel this is a safe community. It definitely shifts the conversation-- in a good way--when we are able to take it from abstractions to a reality right in front of us.

Thanks, but the truth is, I've rather taken the reverse route -- from personal reality to a set of general observations. The people to thank here are the multiple survivors I've been privileged to support, along with their courage, perseverance, confidences, and discoveries en route to recovery. They taught me everything I know.

Hey, it's how I deal.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Where has the media reported Anonymous is wrong about the boys they (can) name?

Where is there evidence that the media never gets things wrong?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Re pictures. Most digital pictures have some code attached to them: what device took the picture, when, and may also contain additional information such as GPS coordinates.

"When" is a function of the date set on the camera, which may or may not be correct. And all these EXIF fields are just text - they can be trivially edited with a text editor.

This isn't to say that it's useless, but if you just have the image file from the web, and not from the camera itself, the EXIF data by itself doesn't buy you too much.

(At least in terms of evidence that will stand up in court. As probable cause for an investigation, the GPS coordinates in the photo would be useful.)

[ 15. April 2013, 16:57: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Re pictures. Most digital pictures have some code attached to them: what device took the picture, when, and may also contain additional information such as GPS coordinates.
"When" is a function of the date set on the camera, which may or may not be correct. And all these EXIF fields are just text - they can be trivially edited with a text editor.

This isn't to say that it's useless, but if you just have the image file from the web, and not from the camera itself, the EXIF data by itself doesn't buy you too much.

(At least in terms of evidence that will stand up in court. As probable cause for an investigation, the GPS coordinates in the photo would be useful.)

I was referring to the transmission of the photo as data from one cellphone to another-- such data is preserved by providers for some time and would, in any case, be available from both receiving and sending devices. This would give the date. (disclosure-- in my former RL I was a witness in a non-criminal public service disciplinary procedure, where similar questions were addressed, so I heard a fair bit about this arcane topic).

Porridge-- I haven't seen the photographs either, nor do I want to, but I would have said that there was a strong case for a prosecution on the lesser ground, if not on the greater charge of sexual assault. I still think that the authorities need to explain why they did not pursue the case with vigour.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0