Judge says teen who filmed himself raping a girl deserves leniency

Jun 2014
61,174
35,368
Cleveland, Ohio
There is no way you can prove that a drunk 16 year old can have the expertise to understand that she was incapacitated. Nor is there proof that she was incapacitated at the time in question. Also reverse the question...why do you permit her to claim this and not him? How do you prove he was not incapacitated?

Mary and her family decided to press charges several months later, after Mary learned that the defendant was sharing video of the incident among their social circles despite telling her that there was no video.

Please explain to me how someone waits several months to prosecute this and that it isn't about the video versus about the sex that happened.



Except kids use language this way all the time. So do adults. Someone can go get a set of tires on their car and say they were raped by the tire shop aka the price was criminal. Sadly using rape as slang is profoundly common as is saying something was "murdered".

Finally again this isn't about right or wrong but about the legal system and how it works. Look at the exact quote. It is the infamous sort of half-sharing the youngsters are very good at doing without conveying real information...

"[w]hen your first time having sex was rape."

Is it his first time having sex? Is it hers? Does he mean it is their first time together? Does he mean he is raping her or that she has jumped his bones and is raping him?

If someone is defending against this... what has he really admitted to there? He can't be forced to testify against himself. No one else will be able to say they saw the actual act. She will claim she doesn't remember it happening and she didn't press forward for charges until several months later after she found out about a video.

Please explain this part to me...

Mary and her family decided to press charges several months later, after Mary learned that the defendant was sharing video of the incident among their social circles despite telling her that there was no video.

How does this not come out to be a false rape charge as revenge for not handling a matter in the manner in which she preferred?

Again we don't have the video but the news sources describe it in a manner that makes it seem pretty anonymous. I would bet if we viewed it we will not see faces.

According to court documents, the boy filmed the encounter, the girl's bare torso exposed and her head repeatedly banging against a wall. He allegedly shared the video with friends, and it continued to circulate for months despite the girl's pleas for him to stop its dissemination.

So I'm not saying the guy is a great human being but this does not sound like rape. It sounds like consensual sex with an embarrassing video.

Obviously charges could be filed over that video but again I'd bet it shows a head of hair, a female torso which I would guess is her bare back, and some motions. It may have even used the boomerang effect. If it showed something else they could charge for something else.

I
Questions like this are what trials are for.
 
Mar 2019
5,280
1,883
California
Yes.

Such literature is not part of a legal education. (I do seem to vaguely recall having read it, or parts of it, in college, some 24-odd years ago, but I do not recall much of it.) It is socio-political commentary, though, not law.

Like what?

It does not suddenly click into "adult" mode at any given point, however ... it is a continuum, more quickly for some than others, and some may not even get there, while others may indeed get there in adolescence. That is why we have a cutoff age - and why we have exceptions.
Here is the thing. Juries are HUMAN. So are most Judges. And many will sway on the side of the VICTIM. No matter what the age of the Perp. Once He or She is found GUILTY.
 
Mar 2019
5,280
1,883
California
The American Psychiatric Society has ruled it is unethical to diagnosis psychopathy (antisocial personality disorder) in patients younger than 18.

Antisocial Personality Disorder | Psychology Today
In this case ,not only did the Perp commit an act of brutality , but made it PUBLIC. The only "Rehab" is to put him in adult PRISON. Might learn his lesson by ordeal. Once found guilty ,of course.
 
Jul 2011
45,739
32,655
Toronto
No doubt. On the other hand, as a soldier his behavior was very closely controlled, with strict limits and strict justice for broaching them. We're talking about executive function, and by definition soldiers in the lower ranks don't get to have much of that.
My point was, a teenager can, absolutely, make own big decisions, just as much as adults.

You know, I can't help looking back at the older times, at the Middle Ages.

Grand Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich

As a child, not sure of in his teens even yet (according to most accounts he was 11 or 12 at the time), he becomes the ruler of the medieval Russian Principality (Kingdom) of Novgorod, after the death of his father, Grand Duke Yaroslav the Wise, the previous ruler, in battle.

At around 17 or 18, he marries Peraskevia, a princess, daughter of Grand Duke Borislav of Polotsk (medieval Belarus)

She was then aged 16. And this was, keep in mind, a scandal, at the time, because she was considered couple years TOO OLD for marriage!

Months later, Peraskevia would produce their first-born, Prince Vasily, who would, in his own life, become both a well regarded statesman, as also ruler of Novgorod, and also a legendary warrior just like his dad


Meanwhile, Alexander, his father, now all of whopping 19 years old, manages to unite all the ever-acrimonious and oft-warring city states of medieval Rus, and get them to set aside their endless rivalries and turf conflicts and stand shoulder to shoulder, to drive off a Crusader Invasion from Europe

For this, he is now Saint Alexander, in the Orthodox Church, St. Alexander Nevsky, i.e. of the, iced over, at the time, Neva River, where he defeated the Crusaders; at, again, just 19 years of age.

Not to mention the first Tsar of united Rus... A teenager. Yep.

I could also bring up Joan of Arc in France

She was also around 19, at the time of her execution, did you know that?

Etc. Many young and colorful characters, back then (hell, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet were each like 14 or 15, I believe lol)

It is only today, my friend, that we coddle teens, and think of them as children... Wasn't always that way, not by far...

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate a bit here for a number of reasons...

Actually most teens, not just boys but also girls often use language this way. They play act at being an adult. Also have you listened to most of their favorite influences in the media? Such braggadocio and imagery is very common. It makes me think many of you haven't listened to a contemporary song on the radio in roughly 10-15 years.

A not even rough example...


I'm always a bit shocked by this one way acceptance of both consent and responsibility. So she gets drunk and is completely excused from all her actions. He gets drunk and not only should be held accountable for his actions but tried as an adult.

The reasoning has to work two ways. If she couldn't consent to her actions because she was drunk then how can he be held liable for his actions when he was drunk?

Would you only press charges a period of time later (several months later) when the video was still being circulated instead of at the time of the alleged crime?

He is alleged to have raped due to her being unable to consent due to bring drunk. There was no age difference and both of them were drunk so if he is a rapist then so is she.

I understand older laws made the man exclusively responsible for getting consent but then we did things like allow women to vote and own land and being fully legal and responsible human beings and that is a two way street.

She didn't fight this act. She didn't say no. She didn't allege she was raped afterwards. What happened is two kids got drunk and had consensual sex to whatever degree two sixteen year olds who are drinking are able to understand or consent to anything. He made a video of it. He circulated it. When he was asked to stop he either didn't stop or lied about it or the friends kept sharing it. The parents pressed charges several months later.

To hit on a few points made in this thread....

No one said the family is rich. Within this thread someone specifically said good family is code for rich and now the kid and his family are suddenly rich.

We haven't seen the video but the presumption that it gives clear detail of the act. It doesn't. From the news descriptions it would appear they were doing it "doggy style" and you see her head and part of her torso is bare. I'd presume based off media descriptions that you don't see him.

So a the back of head hair, a torso, and I'd guess not well lit.

She clearly was profoundly drunk which makes her.... a terrible witness.

So what you have alleged is a drunk 16 year old boy having unforced sex with a drunk 16 year old girl. Neither party can consent if they are drunk. He could claim she answered affirmatively and her actions would appear to show that the sex was not forced upon her. She would testify that she drank too much and doesn't remember anything.

Does the court hold a 16 year old boy responsible as an expert at judging the sobriety and ability of the 16 year old girl to consent? By what means does it do that?

It's clear with the timeframe that no one was upset about the act. They were upset about the video. Statutory rape can't be filed against the boy because they are in the same peer group. There was no age difference to take advantage of by him or her. So the real issue is they wanted the video stopped and I'd guess that given the nature of it, they can't really prove it is him or her even though "everybody knows" it is the two of them.

So now...it becomes rape....which speaks to her motive. An unreliable witness with a questionable motive... they can scream at the judge all they want but I can't see how this goes better else where. It might go long and expensive but I can't see anyone getting a conviction.
The reason the onus, IMHO, the responsibility, is on the male, is because, if we are being honest, males initiate most sexual encounters. It's the truth. It is human nature. The males are the seekers of the sexual pleasure. The females are the ones who are sought. Not other way around. Always has been that way.
 
Here's a simple question. Instead of raping this poor extremely intoxicated girl. If the boy in question has gotten behind the wheel of a car, ran a red light, crashed into your car and killed one or more members of YOUR family, would you be SO quick to "justify" his actions ?? Would you be so quick to advocate for leniency because he's only 16 ??

What if he had found someone's gun and started shooting people at the party ??
 
Mar 2012
56,188
37,762
New Hampshire
My point was, a teenager can, absolutely, make own big decisions, just as much as adults.

You know, I can't help looking back at the older times, at the Middle Ages.

Grand Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich

As a child, not sure of in his teens even yet (according to most accounts he was 11 or 12 at the time), he becomes the ruler of the medieval Russian Principality (Kingdom) of Novgorod, after the death of his father, Grand Duke Yaroslav the Wise, the previous ruler, in battle.

At around 17 or 18, he marries Peraskevia, a princess, daughter of Grand Duke Borislav of Polotsk (medieval Belarus)

She was then aged 16. And this was, keep in mind, a scandal, at the time, because she was considered couple years TOO OLD for marriage!

Months later, Peraskevia would produce their first-born, Prince Vasily, who would, in his own life, become both a well regarded statesman, as also ruler of Novgorod, and also a legendary warrior just like his dad


Meanwhile, Alexander, his father, now all of whopping 19 years old, manages to unite all the ever-acrimonious and oft-warring city states of medieval Rus, and get them to set aside their endless rivalries and turf conflicts and stand shoulder to shoulder, to drive off a Crusader Invasion from Europe

For this, he is now Saint Alexander, in the Orthodox Church, St. Alexander Nevsky, i.e. of the, iced over, at the time, Neva River, where he defeated the Crusaders; at, again, just 19 years of age.

Not to mention the first Tsar of united Rus... A teenager. Yep.

I could also bring up Joan of Arc in France

She was also around 19, at the time of her execution, did you know that?

Etc. Many young and colorful characters, back then (hell, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet were each like 14 or 15, I believe lol)

It is only today, my friend, that we coddle teens, and think of them as children... Wasn't always that way, not by far...



The reason the onus, IMHO, the responsibility, is on the male, is because, if we are being honest, males initiate most sexual encounters. It's the truth. It is human nature. The males are the seekers of the sexual pleasure. The females are the ones who are sought. Not other way around. Always has been that way.
Humans are products of their environment. My parents were married and had four kids by the time they were 23. They had jobs and were responsible. Today thats seen as "too young" and often times we see people that age living at home with mom and dad and playing video games in the basement. Young people can be as responsible as their expectations. If we expect them to still be living with mom at age 30, a lot of them will be. They "get away with it."
 
Jan 2012
899
288
SoCal
Questions like this are what trials are for.
Except in this instance they are trying to change that from happening. He would be go to trial in family court. They are trying to move it out of there which means these matters are being decided before the trial

Here's a simple question. Instead of raping this poor extremely intoxicated girl. If the boy in question has gotten behind the wheel of a car, ran a red light, crashed into your car and killed one or more members of YOUR family, would you be SO quick to "justify" his actions ?? Would you be so quick to advocate for leniency because he's only 16 ??

What if he had found someone's gun and started shooting people at the party ??
You make a fantastic point and the only thing I'd add to it is why excuse the girl.

I'd bet whatever people care to wager that there is nothing in the video that indicates a lack of consent.

The reasoning using your analogy is much like this. The boy in question had a car. The girl drove in the car. He was drunk. She was drunk. She ran the car into a family of four and killed them. The boy is being charged with loaning his car to an intoxicated driver. He said wait I'm drunk and can't drive so I let her drive. Society is like...she's a woman...she can't consent to anything once she drinks so he is responsible no matter what.

Now there are plenty of scenarios where there are age, and power dynamics at play. This isn't one of them. We have two drunk 16 year olds. One is a boy and the other is a girl. One his responsible for everything that happened. The other has zero responsibility.

I'm simply noting that isn't right. It has to be equal both ways. If she can't consent because she is too drunk. Then he can't consent because he is too drunk. If he in his drunken state should have been able to evaluate HER drunken state and realize that even if she gave consent that she COULN'T give consent due to being impaired, then the reverse is true.

Finally to your analogy again. You would never justify the girl driving drunk and killing people not only because she is 16 but because she is a girl. We have a scenario here where both parties are in the same state and had sex. Only one is responsible for the consent and outcomes of that.

You can say why would anyone advocate for leniency for the boy. The people doing that are saying why would the girl be completely EXCUSED???

We cannot call women equal and then infantilize them in this manner. If a 16 year old boy is responsible for all his actions on an adult level including being drunk, including having sex and getting and receiving consent, then so is the girl.
 
Except in this instance they are trying to change that from happening. He would be go to trial in family court. They are trying to move it out of there which means these matters are being decided before the trial



You make a fantastic point and the only thing I'd add to it is why excuse the girl.

I'd bet whatever people care to wager that there is nothing in the video that indicates a lack of consent.

The reasoning using your analogy is much like this. The boy in question had a car. The girl drove in the car. He was drunk. She was drunk. She ran the car into a family of four and killed them. The boy is being charged with loaning his car to an intoxicated driver. He said wait I'm drunk and can't drive so I let her drive. Society is like...she's a woman...she can't consent to anything once she drinks so he is responsible no matter what.

Now there are plenty of scenarios where there are age, and power dynamics at play. This isn't one of them. We have two drunk 16 year olds. One is a boy and the other is a girl. One his responsible for everything that happened. The other has zero responsibility.

I'm simply noting that isn't right. It has to be equal both ways. If she can't consent because she is too drunk. Then he can't consent because he is too drunk. If he in his drunken state should have been able to evaluate HER drunken state and realize that even if she gave consent that she COULN'T give consent due to being impaired, then the reverse is true.

Finally to your analogy again. You would never justify the girl driving drunk and killing people not only because she is 16 but because she is a girl. We have a scenario here where both parties are in the same state and had sex. Only one is responsible for the consent and outcomes of that.

You can say why would anyone advocate for leniency for the boy. The people doing that are saying why would the girl be completely EXCUSED???

We cannot call women equal and then infantilize them in this manner. If a 16 year old boy is responsible for all his actions on an adult level including being drunk, including having sex and getting and receiving consent, then so is the girl.

You make a very valid point here. I've been drunk. I've been with women that were drunk. I've even had the proverbial coyote ugly moment !! I'm sure one or more of my partners may have felt the same about me the next morning too !!! (just to be honest here) So yeah, it's entirely possible they weren't as "committed" to the encounter as I was ?? No one ever accused me of rape. But I would say it's certainly possible that one of my dalliances doesn't remember the evening as "fondly" as I do, or doesn't remember it at all. I am lucky, even highly intoxicated I still remember. Only once, that earlier this year, did I wake up unsure as to how I got to where I was. Luckily I live alone and had simply turned left instead of right and crawled into a different bed.
However I will point out a couple of things. From what I've read, witnesses said she was extremely intoxicated, that he had to practically "carry her down the stairs". That she was stumbling and banging into the wall on the way down. He also had the forethought to close the door, placed a table in front of it and turn out the lights. Then he pulled out his phone to record the encounter.

That seems like an awful lot of clarity and forethought for someone to claim they were mentally incapacitated ??? Let's add to this the very simple fact that, later on, ostensibly sober, when he posted the video, HE used the term RAPE. I'm sorry but even as a "joke", that indicates to me, he KNEW she was passed the point of consent. Of course neither of us have seen the video. It may well indicate her state of awareness during the incident. Guess we'll have to wait until the grand jury makes it's determination.
 
Likes: The Man
Jul 2011
45,739
32,655
Toronto
Humans are products of their environment. My parents were married and had four kids by the time they were 23. They had jobs and were responsible. Today thats seen as "too young" and often times we see people that age living at home with mom and dad and playing video games in the basement. Young people can be as responsible as their expectations. If we expect them to still be living with mom at age 30, a lot of them will be. They "get away with it."
Yep, not only are young people today coddled in their teens and often treated as children, but they are allowed, and sometimes even encouraged, to basically extend their childhood well into their adult years.

I am 30 now, and out of all my ex-classmates in high school here in Canada, those like me (married, living on our own, with own families) are a small minority...

Majority still living at old home...

It is sad and pathetic...

Very different picture among my classmates back in Moscow though, I will say that. Other way around there, very few are still unmarried. There is more pressure in the culture over there, to marry early. Couples who live together without formal marriage are still somewhat stigmatized (called "cohabitants", not really a nice word in Russia, conjure up images of alcoholics and prostitutes and such "fallen people"...), though it is more common today than in Soviet era. And living with parents after you, as a young man, either served in the military (if get drafted for two years at 18 or 19) or after finishing university, is basically completely unacceptable over there. At the very least, you would never find a wife lol Girls especially in Moscow, the capital, would never be with a guy who doesn't have own apartment. It won't happen. Period. No young woman there would move in with you into your parents place. It would be an insult to even ask something like that...