There seems to be a huge range of opinions about whether convicted criminals are entitled to humane treatment and what constitutes humane. Also about whether sentencing should be about revenge, punishment or rehabilitation.
So to get an idea of the general cellar position on this, what would you see as a fitting punishment for the following crime?
A 21 year old man is accused of raping a 17yo girl employed by his parents to babysit his younger siblings. He claimed innocence, -he admits sex but says she told him she was 18 and agreed to it, she says he was drunk and violent and forced himself on her and she clearly said no many times. The jury finds him guilty.
What should his punishment be?
(if you see no poll, wait a few minutes, please....)
Also, please feel free to expand, but the poll is anonymous for those who like to lurk and vote...
This is why I disagree with stringent sentencing guidelines. I guess I'm supposed to assume that since he was found guilty there was enough evidence of rape to justify it, but I think his sentence completely depends on his demeanor in court and a variety of other factors. I voted "fixed sentence with counseling," because that could be anywhere from one year to 25 years. In a more clear-cut case of aggravated rape, I'd be willing to commit to a much more clear-cut punishment.
right. plus.....it depends on how sexy the 17 year old is.
I hear she was askin for it
This is why I disagree with stringent sentencing guidelines. I guess I'm supposed to assume that since he was found guilty there was enough evidence of rape to justify it, but I think his sentence completely depends on his demeanor in court and a variety of other factors. I voted "fixed sentence with counseling," because that could be anywhere from one year to 25 years. In a more clear-cut case of aggravated rape, I'd be willing to commit to a much more clear-cut punishment.
pretty much exactly my reason for asking and not giving further details to the story...
We, the public, have to trust the judgement of the jury, so we must presume that there is enough evidence against him to find him guilty. But maybe he isn't.....
I think it's up to the jury. That's their job, to weigh the evidence. So I can offer no opinion that second guesses them without knowing the facts.
Juries are swayed by a good lawyer...starstruck with the show. I could not convict a man for having sex with an almost "adult" by the standards of our society. Seriously...check out online videos. I don't mean to be cynical, but I am about this. How can you convict? If it were a much younger girl, of course. Now I'm wondering where the line is drawn. Who gets to draw that line?
Juries are easily swayed; the only requirement to participate in that process is that you are registered to vote, which gets you in the initial pool. After that, it depends on how well, or not well, you answer the questions from the defense or the prosecution. They argue about who gets on the jury.
Is this a perfect process? In no way is it perfect. It's what we have, but I could see me as the final holdout in a 12 Angry Men scenario; please let's keep presuming innocense because it is one of the few concepts that still sets us apart from other societies. I'm afraid we've lost sight of this and I know there has been much suffering due to the need to convict, to placate, and to end.
Juries are swayed by a good lawyer...starstruck with the show. I could not convict a man for having sex with an almost "adult" by the standards of our society. Seriously...check out online videos. I don't mean to be cynical, but I am about this. How can you convict? If it were a much younger girl, of course. Now I'm wondering where the line is drawn. Who gets to draw that line?
I thought the crime in question was rape? Isn't the age of consent 16 over there too?
I know a mother who isn't allowed to be alone with her own kids because she's a "sex offender" -- because, like 10 years ago, she was dating a guy who was slightly below legal age, and she was slightly above legal age, and when she broke up with him, he got depressed and his parents retaliated by pressing charges against her.
It sounds pretty stupid when you say an older girl "raped" an underage guy. And it makes me object to the term "rape" based on age guidelines. Call it something else, but "rape" isn't what it is.
A 19yo can't "rape" a 17yo while having consentual sex. That's stupid.
she said no, and the jury believed her story more than his. that's rape.
It's rape because she said no.
Not because she's X number of months below 18 chronological years old.