So full disclosure: These are my peeps. In high school, this is the kinda shit we did. I never raped anyone - was never there for any rape - but boy howdy there were some mysteriously rocky relationships. And people beat the shit out of each other, the girls most of all. The mace thing was familiar. None of this strikes me as unusual. Further disclosure: That was long before Facebook. It was before cell phones. "Social media" was folded up pieces of notebook paper. So it struck me as a little astounding that someone would put shit like this up on Facebook. But then still further disclosure: I'm still Facebook friends with four or five folx from the bad old days (most of the ones that are alive or out of prison). And holy shit they overshare. Things that it would never occur to me to put on my page ever. There's nothing quite like watching a nasty breakup between ex-cons evolve on a FB wall. I've unfriended two of them multiple times - I think one of them messaged me "add me back, bitch" since the last time I checked Facebook. So I guess it comes down to "I really wish this article struck me as odd" but the more I think about it, the more it's just evidence that dead-enders will be dead-enders in any milieu.
The thing that really pisses me off about these kinds of articles in US media is that they always give out the full name of the "alleged" perpetrators, and usually throw in a picture for good measure. How do you expect these kids to move on after they receive their punishment (I won't even attempt to call it reformation, because you are not concerned with that in the states)? And what purpose, exactly, is this supposed to serve, if not vigilante "justice"? These people will be out on the streets at some point, and I don't think publicly shaming them is the most productive fashion to get them to have a well adjusted life then, not to mention making them feel so alienated that they'll probably immediately return to crime. Also, this article doesn't even answer the question it poses in it's own title. All we hear about is a group of maladjusted youths that have either no, or inadequate, parents, and unsurprisingly turn to intoxicants to escape their broken lives. I don't know about you, but that certainly doesn't give me any satisfactory answer to "why". The only thing one could get out of this excuse for an article is that kids can be cruel, disturbed ones doubly so. Does this article even attempt to give an analysis of the situation? All I see is a graphic description of a heinous act recounted for shock value, as if describing it with words somehow gives it any more legitimacy than posting the video. Look at how classy we are, our audience needs to be able to read.
That's what happens when you charge a minor as an adult. Adult rules apply. It's not exactly a "trend" it's the law.The thing that really pisses me off about these kinds of articles in US media is that they always give out the full name of the "alleged" perpetrators, and usually throw in a picture for good measure.
I don't think it's any more right when it's an adult.
I've always found this idea fascinating, that we should not release names of possible perpetrators until they're found guilty, and at first glance it seems like a good idea. The problem, I think, is that we all know how often powerful people get away with crimes, even in the courts, because they're powerful. If we take away the ability for the public to even consider them possibly committing those crimes...
People should be innocent until proven guilty. You can really ruin someone's life via a false allegation. If your problem is that powerful people get away with crime, then solve that problem By actually solving it and not by compromising our legal system and someone's life/integrity.
Absolutely agree. That's the ideal solution. I think until there needs to be a way that the public knows of things though. If, for example, our president were to get caught doing something truly illegal, like being accused of murder or selling uranium or something, it should absolutely be known. Perhaps there should be a distinction between 'public figure' and 'private citizen'. But at the same time, we still have issues with things like getting rape convictions. An overwhelming majority of rapists get off without anything, and only a small number of rape accusations are false. So do people have a right to know that someone they are considering dating had a rape case brought against them? Or outside of that, murder? Assault and battery? Armed robbery?
" If, for example, our president were to get caught doing something truly illegal, like being accused of murder or selling uranium or something, it should absolutely be known" Did he get caught doing something truly illegal or did he get accused of doing something truly illegal? If he got caught then it's a lot more than an allegation. If it's just an allegation (no significant evidence) then there's no reason to make it news. If there is significant evidence and it's a major crime the best place for the evidence is a court room. A controlled environment. If he's convicted then you can tell everybody. Otherwise the public is just going to apply an outside force to what's supposed to be an unbiased process. >So do people have a right to know that someone they are considering dating had a rape case brought against them? Or outside of that, murder? Assault and battery? Armed robbery? No. If they weren't convicted then no, people have absolutely no right to know. There is no way to let people know about allegations that were never proven without ruining the lives of innocent people. Bad guys are always going to get away and there's nothing we can do to make sure all of them are caught, but there's a lot more we can do to make sure innocents don't have their lives ruined. If we let a bad guy go we still have a chance of catching them, if we ruin an innocent person's life there's no going back. It's not ideal but nothing is and it's MORE ideal than the alternative.
Maybe you could make a case for publicly naming powerful people, because their crimes concern society at large. This is, however, an extremely small minority of criminals. Irresponsibly throwing out the names of every alleged, or even convicted, criminal, only serves to making it very difficult for these people to move on with their lives, unless you are of the opinion that they should constantly be judged by everyone even after their penalty has been served.
And I think that's a fair perspective. I don't believe in judging someone forever by it, and I think one of the most heinous things in our country is our prison complex. It's absolutely wrong that people go to prison in the first place for drug violations, and it's worse that because they're convicted they can't get jobs. Your smoking weed has no bearing on your ability to do a job, and then the system repeats because these people are forced back into illegal jobs because there's no way for them to get a regular one. We view criminals as 'other', not citizens. Put them away and assume the crime problem is fixed, and wonder why there is more crime when we do these things. But if you look at my reply to steve above, I think the right to the information is important in many cases. I don't think there's really a good solution here, to be honest. Many people are rightfully accused because the suspicion honestly seems to be pointing in their direction, but they are innocent, and then their life can be more difficult. I think that's a bigger problem than malicious false accusations, so maybe the best answer truly is public figure vs. private citizen (where I personally believe those serving the public should always have complete transparency to those they serve). Doing that does take away a level of potential security for the people interacting with possible criminals, but it does provide deserved privacy for the truly innocent. So the debate comes to what should be more important in our society: an individual's privacy or ability to gain security through information about those around us? I honestly don't know how to answer that for private citizens.
For me the question is not that difficult. I think the sex offender registry is straight up wrong. I didn't think this was done in any other country than the US, but after checking Wikipedia, it turns out that it's done only in English-speaking countries. A curious fact, but I'm guessing that this is strictly a result of influence from the States (seeing as all of the other countries got theirs long after the US). Maybe people got used to the thought from watching TV shows. The thought actively repulses me. What is this, the middle ages? Should we go back to the pillory, perhaps? Can you imagine being convicted of a sex crime, and no matter what you do, or where you go, you can never get past it. For the rest of your life, people will know. Again, this completely goes against the idea that criminals should be reformed. It assumes that once a sex crime has been commited by an individual, they will continue to do so. MAYBE you could make a case for repeat offenders, but people get put on that list for all sorts of ridiculous crap. The justice system should not be crowdsourced.