Freedom of speech, protection of juvenile delinquents etc etc

Remove all ads!

In Poland, a 14 year old girl has recently been stripped naked and touched sexually by her classmates. Some girls tried to protect her but the boys were stronger. The teacher was away for some time and something like this happened.

She broke away and returned home. The teacher phoned there and, taking the 19 year old brother for father, told him all (as if it's a matter for phone...). The parents didn't get to know until she locked herself in her room and hung herself on a jumping rope.

On the TV, the father of one of the boys said it was a joke and the school was to blame.

Now I say, I believe in freedom of speech, but I regret that he can't be punished for such words. I believe people who say such hurtful, untrue things in public, should be punished.

The boys themselves will be tried by a family court (standard fare with people under 17), which means staying in a correction facility until adult at best. In reality, that will probably be police supervision for some time.

That's rubbish. I'd rather see them in prison, along with the father who said such things. Someone should also answer for neglecting the signs that must have preceded such an incident. It doesn't happen just like that. Next, the way the teacher behaved is bad. Besides, parents who bring their children up in such a way that they will publicly fake-gang-rape (but touch for real) a classmate when the teacher is away for some time, should also be punished.

That, and I guess it's high time for a publicly accessible lifelong registry of sex offenders. But no, ****ing law professors and "moral authorities" are going to talk about human rights of those freaks now...

Now, what's your opinion on such cases?

As a disclaimer, I'm not blaming the boys for the girl's suicide in a direct legal sense. Legally, no one can be blamed for that death. However, it's nothing too surreal that a sexual abuse victim should take her own life. Especially after a public violation (one of the participants even taped it on a portable phone). There is a cause-result chain here and while it's not enough to construct or at least to succeed in a charge, it's clear also the death has a criminal cause. I think on the moral side it's obvious. Or not really. Nothing is obvious. But they all have blood on their hands and it won't wash off with some meaningless babble about human rights of 14 year old violent sexual abusers.

Well, one more thing: Our minister of education (yeah, yeah, the Roman Giertych person from the League of Polish Families, with semi-neo-nazi links and strange friends) wants to put such students in special schools. To rid public schools of them and lock them in a resocialisation facility, there to study further instead of menacing normal children anymore. Of course, the same human rights babblers have a problem with it. My opinion is that sexual and/or violent abusers have no place in a public school with normal children. The safety of normal children overrides whatever "rights" of the criminals those folks come up with.

[ October 25, 2006, 20:08: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I'm pretty sure one can make a case for neglect or parental unfitness based on such a thing. While it might not land him in jail, at the very least he'd have his kids taken away.

...How? Though I can't say for sure why the teacher was out of the classroom (like if it was a crap reason or they shouldn't have been gone that long), they're hardly to blame for something that happened without their knowledge. As for telling the brother, it was an honest mistake. Not something you tell over the phone? Would you rather she sent a letter that arrived the day after the suicide? The phone is the quickest way to tell people about things, and I would say it's the brother's fault for not telling the parents or identifying himself properly to the teacher (before or after she spilled the beans).

While that would be nice, the problem that arises is stigma. Sex offenders, I think, are the worst of all criminals; rape is both physical and mental torture. BUT, we can't afford to make a mistake with that kind of stigma. If someone reforms, or (heaven forfend) is actually innocent of the crime they've been convicted of, that stigma will follow them for no good reason. And I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. (Believe it or not, I've actually thought about that and decided against it.)

 

I'm of two minds with this one. Yes, the comment is deplorable, and clearly, this is no joking matter, but he may be right in the school bearing partial responsibility for this. Consider that:

That can't happen in a matter of a few seconds if she is resisting, which she presumably was. I will fully admit that someone can have their clothes forcibly removed against their will, but considering that she was likely resisting, and that you state that there were other students attempting to prevent this, I don't think this whole thing happened very quickly. A shirt can be torn or pulled off, but pants are going to be very difficult to remove against someone's will. I would imagine that the teacher would have to be removed from the room for at least several minutes for something like this to happen.

Then you say she broke away and went home. Presumably she re-dressed before that happened, and the teacher *still* had not returned to the room? That's a long time to be gone. The brunt of the responsibility is definitely on the boys, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the school is charged with negligence.

Actually, I would have to agree with putting them on the sex offender list. I agree that it is stigmatizing, but I don't think in this particular case you are going to have any doubt as to having the correct perpetrators. Afterall, you have a recording of them doing it, along with the testimony of probably a dozen or so other students in the classroom. I don't see how they could possibly be considered "falsely accused".

The other point is the severity of what they did. It's not like they just grabbed this girl's breasts while she had a shirt on (not that such an action would be OK) but that they stipped her naked first. IMO, this is one step away from gang rape, and certainly not just some testosterone overload by horny teenagers. The fact that she hung herself after the fact is almost a footnote here - their actions merit punishment regardless of that having occurred or not. I don't know what the laws state in Poland, but in the U.S. the boys could be held indirectly responsible for her death. You obviously can't charge them with murder, but you can make a case for wrongful death.

 

I don't see that doing anything else but increasing the chance that the ex convict repeated his crimes. I'm sorry but I don't see why you want this nor do I see any positive consequences.

I really don't see what the father would be guilty of? He might not quite realize the seriousnes of the issue and might think that it was just teenagers fooling around. In any case while I consider the words quite wrongly chosen I don't think they do or should constitute a crime.

I'm also not sure if the boys really understood how serious the case was and how they were hurting her. After all these are teenagers and teenagers do stupid things from time to time. While I don't in anyway accept this sort of behaviour, nor do I think that they should not be punished I am however willing giving them a benefit of doubt of wether they knew the full consequences or not. Aftar all 14-year olds are not quite fully grown adults.

 

The boys and the school can be punished for several reasons, but the punishment won't be enough as they aren't adults legally.

And, I don't say what I would do is true or logical or legal, but I would kill them if I were the girl's father.

 

I think those boys should have "special" education to be taught that there are some things you can't do just because you want to... And Argohir while i can understand your point of view,killing the boys won't magically revive the girl... She is dead and nothing can change that, so vengeance is pointless really....

 

I'm not sure I'd kill the boys if I were the girl's father, but my fists would want a good long conversation with them. That being said, I'd respond the same way if I were one of the boys' fathers. I'd love to see physical castration as a legal option for convicted rapists (only used where there is no doubt of guilt and it is a serious offence).

There are some serious mental problems here, but considering modern society, it may be no more the parents' fault than an issue of neglect. Children today are being exposed to sex, violence, and sexual violence at an earlier and earlier age, and more and more away from their parents, too.

On the school issue, I'd guess the teacher would have to be gone for a prolonged period of time, something like 1/2 an hour at least, for this all to have happened. Depending on how many guys were involved and how many girls defending her, this should have taken some time.

As for what the father said, I'd guess a case of parental neglect could be made against him, probably, maybe against the mother instead/as well, but they have the right to claim whatever they want, so long as it isn't slander or defamation of character.

 

I wouldn't like to see physical castration for sexual offenders. I wouldn't kill them either.

I'd put them under torture. For years.

Then I'd have them leucotomized. Or lobotomized.

I'm so sorry for you Chev, wouldn't want anything like that happening in my country, but I know it does, every day. It's just not as public.

The father saying that stuff he did? Tchk. He's as bad as they come. Goes to show where people like his son come from. I'm reckoning that this is a prime example of repeated negligence of a small scale which accumulates into this kind of steaming pile of evil. He's not the least bit of sorry for what's happened. It seems that to him, his son has done nothing wrong.

I'm wanting to get medieval on these people real bad. Or if there'd be a way to make them repent, truly, from all of their hearts...

Sorry about this kind of crazy-talk, but this thing just get's my blood boiling.

 

I wonder about one thing. Do you think one the defending girls tried to call a teacher? Or the boys also prevented it? And it is interesting that all the boys (or nearly all the boys) in a class are bas***ds.

When I hear such things, I lost all my humanity and I don't regret it. In my opinion, punishments are very ligth, especially if you are in my country. Punishments should be dissuasive. In future, if other boys think about doing it; they should say "I don't wanna spare the rest of my life for this". Punishments for rape, murder, kidnapping etc. should be "cruel".

About the boys' father: I can't believe him. If I were him, my son would curse the day he born and became my son for the rest of his life.

 

@Fel: They could get him in trouble for the general attitude, but not really for the crap talk itself and I doubt they would take the kids away unless for the kids' own crimes.

As for the teacher... ineptitude would be more like it. And I'm not sure it wasn't the headmistress, actually, who phoned the girl's house. So, well, it looks like the teacher left the class unattended, which is not really such a great crime of itself. And yes, the brother was legally adult and as such he should have been responsible enough to tell parents and, well, do anything. Such as call the police.

"Beyond reasonable doubt," is a phrase too often forgotten nowadays. Someone who isn't 100% certainly guilty shouldn't be sentenced.

Okay... I get the point, although I'm not sure I could be convinced. I also believe other people have the right to know, such as perhaps the person a sex offender is about to marry. Or a school headmaster who's about to employ one.

@Aldeth:

The school is almost certainly at fault. I really doubt such things happen without any previous indication of deviated tendencies. Not like it would surprise me if a generally difficult class came up with something like that, but I think the boys must have been reported to teachers for some minor infractions before. It doesn't look like a first offence. I was a school kid of that same age but ten years ago. I still remember stuff. I don't think it would happen as a first offence of the thugs. I suppose they must have targetted the girl at least verbally before if not physically. I know from my own younger years that teachers tend to tell the girl she should be happy guys like her, or they justify the boy as a hot-blooded one, or even attempt to match-make the two kids despite the girl's (or boy's, if the roles are reversed) lack of consent.

It also surprises me that none of the kids ran to get any teacher to come, now that we consider the amount of time to accomplish it. No, I don't think kids should be punished for it (I just don't want to get into that), but it's still strange. Maybe the teachers were too isolated, removed, whatever?

As for wrongful death, damn, looks like your system is more reasonable in some aspects. I generally prefer continental systems, but in common law it's easier to make such a connection. Here you need to intend the death, kill someone by accident, create risk to life or something like that.

@Morgoroth:

Firstly, I don't see how it would make the offender reoffend. Secondly, people have the right to know, especially those who might be marrying or employing a sex offender or entrusting children into his care or hiring him in a position of authority or even just force. We don't want sex offenders as teachers, tutors, au pairs, guides, guards, policemen, medical staff etc. I'm all in favour of banning them forever from such jobs, or at least until they are competently judged to have reformed.

The mentality which makes people qualify sexual violence as fooling around is the problem. People like that guy bring up the future sex offenders, in casu, rapists. I'm sure some people could even find it funny or qualify it as a prank or tell the girl to cheer up and wave it away ("grin and bear it"). I'm more in favour of a zero tolerance policy.

I wouldn't really like to see them punished the same as real adults, but it's not like kids do such things, so I think some form of criminal punishment would be in order. Putting them under police supervision or even in a correctional facility doesn't really seem to cut it. Well, maybe four years in the latter (until they are adult). I generally think there's no place for such kids in public schools with normal children. I think they should be given to understand they caused the death (again, not in the same legal sense as if they played with a gun next to her head), too. I still tend to think that while their sentence should probably be reduced (here, very young adults get somewhat reduced sentences too), but... hmm... no, actually, sitting in an adult prison cell with real rapists won't correct them in any way. Still, correctional facility doesn't seem enough. They will enter into adult life unpunished (legal term meaning you've never been convicted).

@Kara Ay:

Right. But since adult offenders would get a couple of years for it here (it's qualified as "other sexual activity" instead of normal rape because there was no penetration), it's not like the boys should get away with a warning and some scolding.

@NOG:

If there's doubt of guilt, there should be acquittal. And any rape incident is a serious offence. Unless you mean some lesser forms of sexual coercion... well, maybe not all would merit castration.

I blame the permissivist libertine mentality spreading the tolerance of all debauchery. If they make sex look like it's no big deal, a commodity and a recreational activity, then no wonder such things happen. Some people will even say that harsh punishments for rape ultimately hurt the victims because of stigmatising them as damaged goods. Armed robbery gets a (marginally) higher punishment here than rape does and I don't think our criminal code is an exception. The society should finally give up the silly pretence... or rather not the society, but the leftist-liberal (morally liberal, that is) activists with their ****ty attitudes. I think life has proven enough that sex actually is a big deal and that sexual liberation is no liberation in the end.

Sadly, yes. At least a legal right. A social right maybe. Not moral, though. And while you can't legislate morality, it sometimes feels bad you can't punish people for such idiotic contrfactual claims. Unless they say there was no holocaust - there freedom of (false) speech doesn't apply.

@Iku-Turso:

It's not the first case. I've heard of two classroom/corridor cases and one in the toilets. But I don't think it's so public so often... With the mentality people have here, it would always make it to the media. Still, juvenile delinquency has been becoming more and more rampant and unabashed here. Including other kids taping the misbehaving idiots. A bit like chavs did in the UK a couple of years ago. The happy slapping trend.

It looked like he was shaken, but he probably thinks it was unjust of life to have the girl die and thus hurt his son like that etc etc. But that he wasn't outraged with the public humiliation his son inflicted on the girl, let alone one causing her to kill herself... Some people are willingly stupid when it comes to their children's behaviour.

 

I feel the same way, and it does create something of a conflict. While at the same time it'd be good to know who the bad people are, I can't help but think of those who are innocent. Do we make the one or the few miserable for a mistake in order to provide a modicum of protection against the many? It's a difficult decision.

I agree that "Beyond reasonable doubt" is forgotten all too often, and unfortunately it's in the juries where it's forgotten. The one case I was on was rather appalling in this regard. The rest of the jurors were ready to hang the man (if the death penalty had even been on the table; thankfully we don't have that here) over purely circumstancial evidence. I stood my ground on my doubts, resulting in a hung jury, but he got put away anyway by a second jury. That the criminal justice system is to punish criminals is understood, but people seem to put a lot more emphasis on 'punish' than 'criminals' lately...

 

Fourteen year olds aren't adults, true; but they damned well know that sort of thing is unacceptable, and why.

For that sort of crime, with that sort of result, they really ought to be tried as adults.

 

For once i agree with NOG.

 

I'd like to know when you judge them as reformed? To me the time done in prison should have done that. It's quite obvious that paedophiles should not be allowed to get jobs as teachers or tutors and they have records for that but I'm not into supporting some public record where everyone can go and see who has been a sex offender at some time in the past, that would give the offender zero chance of in any way rehabilitating in the society. Also if the spouse needs to check some records if the guy she's marrying is a sex offender then perhaps she should not be marrying the guy at all?

Well I'm not sure you're quilified by that one statement to make such a judgement on the fathers character. He might not have really understood the severity of his boys actions or was in denial about it. In any case if he actually means that stripping someone in an attempt of rape is OK then I would agree with you on that one.

 

The father is simply trying to ease the guilt of his bastard of a son, however I see no reason why he should be locked up if he makes a public apology to the family. He probably panicked at the thought of his son going jail or whatever the usual punishment is in Poland.

 

I don't understand this mentality at all. That was a common punishment for rapists - in the Middle Ages. Of course at that time, we also cut off your hands if you stole something,, burned people suspected of witchcraft, and had so many other punishments for crimes that seem rather outlandish (most of which would be considered cruel and unusual) by today's standards. So unless you want to roll back the clock and start cutting off the hands of those who steal, I'm not sure why this seems like a good idea to you.

Wow, it's even more different then, if all of the above items you listed qualify as murder. Intending death is either murder or attempted murder, depending upon whether or not you succeed. Killing someone by accident is never consider murder. It's manslaughter if you accidently kill someone through negligence, or involuntary manslaughter if it was truly an accident that was difficult to avoid. Creating a risk to someone's life, well, that really depends on what the results were. That could be anything through simply assault all the way up through murder depending on what the actual result of the actions were.

Wrongful death suits are often brought up in situations where it is difficult to prove murder. The most notorious wrongful death suit in recent years was about - geez, it must be close to 10 years at this point - OJ Simpson. He was initially charged with murder, found innocent, and then was later charged with wrongful death, and found guilty. The best way I can describe a wrongful death charge would be this: It's when you cannot prove that someone was directly responsible for someone's death, and yet, you have evidence that suggests that person was somehow involved, almost always indirectly. That's not a precise legal definition, but as a layman, that's the best I can come up with.

 

@Felinoid: Your concern is a valid one. However, what could probably ease your mind on the subject a bit is that there's a practical limit to treating delinquents as equal members of the society. They still have rights, but their rights need to give up precedence to the rights of other people, especially victims or potential victims, and the society as a whole.

As for wrongly convicted ones, they can be scratched off the list the same as their convictions are overturned. And yes, I'm not a big fan of jury systems, either. The objective is to punish whom is guilty, not to punish whomever the common man would find guilty. Making the judge do it is a better choice, I think. On the other hand, juries wouldn't probably be so bad in deciding the kind of punishment (within the limits of the law, of course) for people found guilty by the judge. Still not sure they should be there at all. We don't have juries here but we have benchmen (unprofessional judges in a number one more than the pros), who are referred to as plants. They have all the rights of a normal judge (except presiding or any form of leadership), but they tend to sleep through it and vote as the real judge(s) say(s). Except when they don't and that means trouble. Guess what kind? Yeeeah! They don't understand the concept of doubt. Where juries etc are somewhat better is self-defence situations or accidents, but probably not always. If I killed someone in self-defence or by accident, I'd rather have a jury than a pro. But if I were an attempted rape female victim having killed the man, I'd rather have a real judge there, in most societies.

@Morgoroth:

Examination by forensic psychologists is probably not so bulletproof, but still more reliable than any assumptions.

You have a point there. But I'd rather stigmatise them en block than give them all too much leeway by default. They don't normally reform. And I'm not talking about stupid flashers here, who just need to grow up. But rapists... I've heard of a grand total of three. One became a Catholic monk in prison. Another was the attempted rapist of St Maria Goretti (she died in the event, he later converted and joined a monastery). Yet another was some anonymous guy who turned himself in to the police after converting to Catholicism. Besides, I think the safety of the people is more important than giving offenders a chance.

Are you assuming people don't hide such things? A potential spouse would be the last person to tell such things to. If he or she actually got to know it directly from said offender, it would probably mean the offender has reformed and started atoning. People, especially people with issues, can go to great lengths and achieve quite a lot in the field of such deception. Of course, no one normal will check such registries before marrying someone (people trust each other if they are going to marry) or marry a suspicious personage (some people, however, make such stupid decisions). In this case, the administration should inform the person of the spouse-to-be's past as a sexual offender and delay the wedding a bit.

There's a shorter distance between OK and joke, than there is between a joke and a rape attempt. This means what the guy said was closer to okay than to what it really was. People who are in such denial with regard to their children's offences are to blame for younger generations having less and less of a moral backbone. They don't do their job as parents well. Children need to be punished for wrongdoing.

@Cuchulainn: I don't think he's going to apologise. And there's no criminal law against what he did and no matter how hard I try, I can't make up any viable civil claim, either. As for the boy, he's probably going to get away with police supervision, probably school transfer, possibly correctional facility term (which lasts until you're adult). IIRC the max penalty for the kind of crime lawyers tend to see it as, as a matter of quick assessment, is 6 years. However, the local police or similar sources say it could qualify as torture rather than a generic sex offence, which would be up to 12 years. I've heard opinions that it did qualify as normal rape, as well, which would also be up to 12 years for adult offenders (brutal and/or gang rape is 2-12). It appears they're going to end up in the correctional facility instead of merely police supervision, but I think that if it weren't for the media, adult offenders would have got away with the "other sexual activity" qualification (max 6 years) and juvenile ones with police supervision.

And yes, the last information is new stuff. Other kids from that school are saying that the five boys have been bandits. Students haven't been told anything officially by the authorities of the school. The headmaster has removed the tomb lamps (like the candles you light on graves) that students have placed, pretending nothing has happened.

So, it looks like the school authority prefer to join with the crowds preaching sermons on how you need to bring up difficult youth instead of punishing them, and with the father who says the school was at fault and the matter was a joke, and, ultimately, with the boys and against the girl.

And the girl's father has suffered a nervous breakdown and been carried off by the ambulance. :S

[ October 26, 2006, 15:32: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

The situation is just so hard to piece together. Five boys were pretty much able to sexually assault a girl in a classroom and assault her for long enough that she would kill herself? How long did the assault take? What were the particulars - did they rape her or just touch her breasts and vagina?

 

No penetration, "just" touching after stripping her bare. They surrounded her in the corner, then two boys were holding her and two tore clothes off her. Then they started the groping. After a moment, she felt such humiliation that she stopped resisting and fell. Then they probably didn't hold her as she grasped herself and went home.

They don't say how long it took and why no children called any teacher despite the girls' attempts to help her break free.

 

@Chev:
You seem to forget that 'reasonable doubt' is such a subjective term, and it really isn't no doubt, or even no significant doubt, it's just 'so little doubt that we don't consider it a realistic possibility'. It isn't always a matter of either he did it or aliens did it (an unreasonable doubt). It may be either he did it or a witness mistook this person with a bad reputation for the actual perpetrator who also could have done it but no one knows about him. How many rape cases these days are being over-turned with DNA testing and the like?

Now this case I'd say leaves no doubt. Not 'absolutely no doubt' as it could all be some big conspiracy to frame these kids, but enough doubt that I'm willing to put anyone clinging to that doubt into a mental ward for observation.

@Aldeth:

It has to do with a number of things. First of all, I would like to see harsher punishments, and more corporal or physical punishments (like floggings and such) that don't leave permanent damage. Serious crimes, i.e. those that take another's life or intentionally leave massive and permanent damage (whether physical or psychological) should be a step above. If you kill someone, not because you intended to, but just because you wanted to see what happened when you fired off a full AK-47 clip at an occupied house, for example, I can see physical punishment including permanent damage. I would consider most rape cases to go in this. In these cases, the permanent damage should reflect the nature of the crime. If you rape, or sexually assault, or whatever you want to call it (I'd call this rape, personally) then castration should be an option. Not a given, mind you, I'd never make permanent damage a neccessary punishment just because of the fallable nature of our courts, but something to be handed out on a case-by-case basis.

It also has to do with the high recitivism rate for rapists. It is incredibly rare for a serious rapist (i.e. not date-rape, statutory rape, or the like, but something with real violence) to actually be 'cured'. The best that can happen for most is they can be taught to resist the urges, but that's far from a guarantee. There have been more than a few cases of serious rapists truely repenting and seeking castration themselves, to remove the urges (which is usually very successful), but psychological treatment is really nothing more than damage control.

I'm not about to go back to a stealing = loosing your hands kind of thing, but I think we've gone too far these days. Many criminals can use and even need rehabilitation, but some of them need a quick smack to the back-side, and others need to be permanently removed as threats to society.

Some examples:
a 9-year-old kid stealing a candy bar from a store probably doesn't need juvenile detention, but more of Father's belt or the like (I do believe in spanking and analogs).
A 35-year-old bum who holds up a 7-11 may just need rehabilitation and work-training. Some punishment, certainly, but a simple beating won't do any good and permanent incarceration or removing his ability to steal (his hands) are a little extreme.
A serial killer who evaded the police for 3 years and has tortured and killed 31 people needs more than a few years in prison. Death, permanent encarceration, or some similar way to permanently and absolutely remove the threat is needed.

Killing someone on accident could be 3rd degree murder if you can prove gross criminal negligence (like shooting the AK-47 into a house without intending to kill anyone). Manslaughter is for less gross negligence, like drinking and driving and killing someone.

The big difference between murder charges and wrongful death is that wrongful death is a civil suit, not criminal law. That changes a lot of the mechanics behind the case. Additionally, wrongful death applies to any case where the defendant could have reasonably been expected to prevent the death, whether through action or in-action.

@The other students' actions:
I'm suprised the other girls didn't take more drastic steps to defend her. And where these the only guys in the room? If someone had tried that in my school, when I was that age, I and at least 70% of the rest of the class would be jumping on them and trying to pin them down from the get-go. When it became evident what course they were taking, 'any means neccessary' would come into play. Of course, their class may have been smaller than mine were. I had around 20-30 kids in a class, so 5 boys wouldn't stand much of a chance, even agianst the ~50% that were girls, but if their class only consisted of 10 or so, then it makes a little more sense.