General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe “Sex Offender” Regime is Cruel and Unusual Punishment
If it’s true that all seven of the football players arrested for hazing in the Sayreville, New Jersey, War Memorial High School locker room are students of color, that is one more reason not to prosecute them as sexual felons.
I don’t mean not to prosecute them in adult court. I mean not to prosecute them at all.
If they’re guilty, they should be disciplined by the school, kicked off the Bombers team, and held accountable to their victims by making amends in words and deeds.
But the punishment the state will mete out far outweighs the transgression. For kids who are 15 to 17 years old, it will be life crushing.
<snip>
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/24/dont-prosecute-the-sayreville-bombers/
before commenting, I suggest reading the entire article. I don't know that I agree with Levine here, but it's thought provocative.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Not prosecuting due to skin color? That's just plain stupid.
Dismissing sexual assault as "locker room pranks" is what got us here and the kind of attitude that leads to those same boys thinking the behavior is acceptable elsewhere.
The author describes what they did and essentially want to go back to the "boys will be boys" bullshit or argueing that it was just locker room antics worthy of nothing more than a school reprimand.
To anyone who would agree with that thinking, here is my question for you- had they been doing those same exact types of assaults on females their age, would you dismiss it as "boys will be boys" and say in-school discipline is enough?
If yes, then you are part of the problem and not the solution in creating a society that doesn't tolerate sexual assault.
If you wouldn't tolerate it if they had done it to females, then you are displaying your heteronormative biases and not treating sexual assault the same regardless of the genders involved. Wrong answer too.
It's just as wrong when a teenage boy makes unwanted sexual acts toward a teenage boy as it is when he does toward a teenage girl. Period. Full stop. Quit tolerating the crap.
cali
(114,904 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)What are you implying was missed? Seems like an accurate statement to me.
cali
(114,904 posts)for one thing. I don't agree with her that they shouldn't be prosecuted at all, but I do agree with her about the sex offender list.
hlthe2b
(102,288 posts)cold comfort that is!!! The trauma that victim experiences is not tied merely to the extent of the final act, but the total loss of control over what is happening to them. I can not believe anyone is arguing against prosecution merely because there was no penetration!
I'm not arguing for them to be placed on the sex offender registry and I think they might better be charged in juvenile court, but to not prosecute "because there was no penetration?" I can't believe I am seeing anyone here say that....
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I can't believe a lot of what I'm reading in this thread (or the article, for that matter).
pipoman
(16,038 posts)And pushing their finger in your ass as long as it is from outside your underwear. Most people would feel (and actually be) victimized if this happened to them.
I'll bet our feminist friend/author would be singing a different tune if this happened to her...or a female, and administration decided to handle it internally with detentions.
It is a stupid screed by an imbecile.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Clearly there wasn't consent. How can the acts be considered anything but sexual assault?
If a random man was doing the same acts to women on a subway would you say the same thing? Or because it was male on male you think the offense is not as bad?
Giving a pass because it was locker room antics and "boys will be boys"? Disgusting and just sends the wrong message to them about acceptable conduct.
Giving a pass because it was male on male? Once again disgusting and shows a clear heteronormative bias.
Saying it's no big deal because there was no penetration? There are millions of victims of sexual assault out there that didn't involve penetration who would love to have a word with you about that nonsense. You are bordering on the "legitimate rape" line here...
Giving a pass due to race? I don't even know where to start in saying how offensive this is. "Oh, they are black? I guess they are just expected to behave that way" is how that reads and its racism any way you cut it.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Put yourself in the position of the victim in this sexual hazing situation. Then reconsider your opinion.
hlthe2b
(102,288 posts)in giving this kind of behavior the pass this author seems to be advocating. Is there a broad spectrum of behavior involved in "sexual assault" that should likewise result in a range of punishment, rather than a "one sentence fits all mandatory guideline"? Yes, I think so. Are all sexual offenses (including public urination or exposing" requiring of lifetime placement on a sexual offender registry? No. But part of punishment is deterrence. What message do we send to all the other young men by failing to prosecute this horrendous behavior?
The answer lies in the ability for courts to apply common sense to punishment--a range from lenient to severe to fit the "crime and circumstances--not in failing to prosecute. And that should apply regardless of race and ethnicity. Equal justice ought to be the goal, IMO.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I dont think these kids are any danger to society, so I fully agree with not putting them on the sex offender registry. I dont think I fully agree with not charging them at all though. I would be ok with letting them plead to a small offensive and give them community service.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Victim gets to deal with it for the rest of his life...
That sounds fair...
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)because they're people of color? Is she saying that since we already have too many people of color on the sex offender registry, we should let this one slide? Because if she's making that argument, that really isn't an argument at all. It's just foolishness.
All I care about here is what the players did and how old they were. I think that people under 18 should be tried in juvenile court, if there is a case to be made at all. They have so many trials of youths in adult court these days that the age of the defendant has nearly become irrelevant. There is a very good reason why laws were made to separate adult and juvenile courts: juveniles don't have the same capacity to judge right from wrong that adults do.
Other than her ridiculous ideas about the races of the offenders, Levine makes a lot of good points in the article. I think they've gone way too far with the sex offender registry, especially those who are added to it. You're neighbor on the sex offender registry might be a guy who had sex with his 17 year-old girlfriend when he was 18. They put people on the list who shouldn't be on it and ruin their lives. That list is supposed to be for child molesters and rapists who have served their time, but are still being monitored because they're dangers to society. When they add people to it who committed petty crimes, they make the list worthless.
The case Levine is talking about sounds like something that should be sorted out in youth court. It seems too serious to simply let the school handle it, but not nearly serious enough to be prosecuted in adult court. No way in hell should those boys be put on the sex offender registry.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I have issues both with the sex offenders register and with prosecuting youths as adults, but suggesting that decisions about prosecutions should be based upon skin color is just racist garbage.
the sex offender registry is very problematic for a number of reasons.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)They did it and they deserve to wear it....
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'The monetary offender' registry?
What is the non-emotional, logical reason for letting the public easily identify 'sex offenders', but not letting them know that people around them have violent pasts, or are prone to defraud them?
Let's not pretend that 'sex offender registries' exist for any other reason than people get more squeamish about crimes that involve sex than they do about other types of crime. If it truly was about protecting the public, we'd be able to easily check out the criminal backgrounds of everyone for every type of crime, not simply one small subset of criminal activity.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... Than loss of money or even violence.
Rape is nearly on par with murder.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)No registry of people who maimed their victims so that they lost limbs, eyes.
Again, 'sex' is given more weight based on emotion, not logic.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)The "benefit of the doubt" they often get because it is their word vs. the victims- or because they have an existing relationship with the victim. I'd always imagined that this is why it evolved, similar to college girls warning each other about predators, because the schools too often will not take action.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)What kind of bullshit is that? Sorry, but you lost all credibility with that statement.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)But most seem more interested in revenge.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)how he feels about all this. Isn't that interesting? For those who think excusing this behavior without any prosecution, I suggest trying to put yourself in the position of the victim and then reconsider your opinion.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)The function of our justice system is justice. I do not want my government acting as an agent of retribution.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)It's mean spirited, and in this case, it was sexual. They deserve to be prosecuted, and I'd like to see them put away for a couple of years, but not necessarily given severe sentences.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Everyone knows better than to sexually haze other people. No sympathy at all. You're welcome to your sympathy for them. It's a no-brainer not to sexually haze members of your own freaking time, it seems to me.
The coaching staff should share the blame for this, as well. These situations are not some sort of "rite of passage." They are sexual abuse. Penalties ensue when that happens.
Just don't do it!
snooper2
(30,151 posts)
dionysus
(26,467 posts) 
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)"The victim really was hurt so bad"
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)that the sex offender list may be applied unfairly (I am personally aware of a couple egregious situations) it does not in any way mitigate the actions in this case.
To use skin color to decide whether or not to prosecute and determine punishment is racist; no matter if the skin is light, dark or something in between.
What I ponder is had this happened in the band, or other activity, and the victim was female, would the author be calling for such leniency? Is a finger poking your ass through clothes and groping of genitals more or less traumatic to boys or girls?
Also
dilby
(2,273 posts)I am sorry but the color of ones skin does not make a difference when dealing with sexual assault, one of the kids was penetrated with a finger so yeah these kids need to be prosecuted for what they did and labeled as sex offenders.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)And a reduced 15 years on a sex offenders list is in no way equivalent to a life sentence.
If we don't punish this sort of thing, it will continue. Maybe there should be special provisions for certain juvenile infractions (and there are), but no one would be saying this if this group had cornered a girl in the corridor and done this, so I think we are seeing another type of discrimination here in this article - gender discrimination.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)First, take a look at your local lists. Take a look at the lists in your area. Most of the people on it are there for consensual crimes.
Statutory rape. Technically, half the teenagers in America fall under that crime at one time or another.
Sodomy. Really? But there are people on the lists for this.
Incest. Ewwww. But is it something that should put them on the list?
Peeping Tom. Ok, but on the list for life?
The list is seen as a way to track the violent sex offenders. Rapists. Child Molesters. Let's say I agree with the need for that, and frankly I do. The problem is we're getting a lot of fish in the nets that don't qualify as violent sex offenders.
Yes, there are a number of rapists on the site. There are a lot of stories just like this however. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dixon
Perhaps it's time we start to think about the lists in a slightly different way. We got the fish we wanted, most of them anyway. But we also got a lot of fish in that net that had no business being dragged to the surface.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)because he was on 'the list', and therefore not allowed to live near a grade school, had committed a crime with an adult woman, sexual assault while she was drunk, iirc. No hint of any desire to attack children, but because he was on the 'list', he couldn't live with his mother, but was forced into one of the small parts of town that aren't 'too near' a school. Not a nice guy, but given why he was on the list, forcing him to move to be 'away from schools' seemed rather pointless.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)consensual teen sex.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)All those years of hard work trying to do it have finally paid off.
moriah
(8,311 posts)I WANT to know if a serial rapist or child molester is moving into my apartment complex.
I don't really care if it's a 17-year-old who had sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend in a state without Romeo and Juliet laws.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Simply don't commit sexual assault or rape etcetera.
I will continue to worry about the 100 victims who suffer in silence for every one perp who gets caught.
