A 17 years old rape victim revealed her underage attackers' name

[A Song of Hound and Wolves]

And I don't have misconceptions about prison. I have had the experience of both clerking for the Chief Judge for the County Circuit in law school, where we had everything from a 16 year old who killed his family (including his 12 year old step-brother, who he stabbed in the face with a sword) to the usual criminal hearings on Wednesdays and of having, some years prior, actually spent a night in the holding cell at the very same jail that our defendants came from. Ironically, it was, yep, "criminal wednesday," so all the convicts were in the holding cells usually reserved for the drunk and disorderly. Here, from the website, is a description of the class of criminals that were in there with me

I'm pretty sure that I didn't direct this statement to you, Raidne.

This really surprises me. Think about this hard. Why? Why can you exercise civil disobedience, but not "this girl?"

Here is what "this girl" actually said, in her original tweet, when she outed her attackers:

Quote

"They said I can’t talk about it or I’ll be locked up. Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville. I’m at the point that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it.”

And right after:

Quote

'There you go, lock me up. I'm not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell.'

I hate to say it...but you're treating a woman like a dumb slut because she was raped.

Wow, just wow....wow. I don't really know what to say except that seems to me to be a grossly unfair twisting of what I said. I certainly did not mean for my use of "girl" to sound condescending; I used it because she IS a girl and that's part of the horror of this case.

Wow.

I really didn't intend for my post to anger anyone, but given the thread history, clearly I should have trod with more care.

Or not trod at all, I guess. I'll be over at that other thread, watching puppies sleep. Regards all.

[Sci-2]

I don't really know what to say except that seems to me to be a grossly unfair twisting of what I said.

FWIW, I didn't think you meant it that way either.

eta: And you definitely don't have anything to apologize for.

[Lord O' Bones]

Or not trod at all, I guess. I'll be over at that other thread, watching puppies sleep. Regards all.

Don't be a wussy. You put in some time here, let it be worth something.

[Guest Raidne]

Song, I'm not angry with you. You are probably my new favorite poster. But I really disagreed with a lot of what you said, some of it was wrong, and the last part was really offensive. But it's one post you made. It's not all of who I think you are or anything about my thoughts on you as a person.

[sologdin]

really didn't intend for my post to anger anyone

come now. if you're not intending to piss someone off with each and every contribution, then you're losing at the internet.

[Guest Raidne]

I am going to explain what I said for other the sake of anyone reading the thread because I was in a hurry when I posted yesterday and I don't think anyone reading this would I understand how I read:

II agree with your statements regarding civil disobedience. I doubt that this girl was exercising civil disobedience. More likely she didn't think through her action at all except a pressing need to get back at these two creeps.

And came to the conclusion that:

I hate to say it...but you're treating a woman like a dumb slut because she was raped.

That was pretty sloppy on my part. The issue is this: How would anyone know whether Dietrich is the type of person who would purposefully engage in civil disobedience or not? What information was used to reach that conclusion? I'm assuming that it's based on an assessment of her sophistication with regard to activism, which I'm guessing is then based on an asessment of her intelligence and education. But I don't know what information we have to judge her intelligence and education. She's (1) a high school student that is (2) female and was (3) passed out drunk at a party and (4) raped. (1) is a relevant criteria, but people were pretty sophisticated about activism when I was in high school. They've recently had civics courses, etc. I don't think Song would have factored in (2). Some people might judge on (3), but I know plenty of activist types who have definitely passed out drunk at parties. Plenty. So there's (4). (4) is clearly not relevant either, but I think a lot of people really do have a latent subconscious tendency to treat women who are promiscuous as somehow unserious and then, in turn, to let a rape subconciously bias their perception of the victim with the result that they subconsciously view her as a promiscuous, unserious party girl. (3) obviously isn't helping with that either - it looks like confirmation instead of the irrelevant information that it is.

So that's what I thought happened there. Any article on this contains the Twitter posts from Dietrich I posted earlier, showing very clearly that she was very deliberately engaging in purposeful civil disobedience in response to the issuance of the Court order, so I also assumed that Song wasn't reasoning from any other information I didn't list above because any further research would have forstalled the conclusion she reached.

And not to call out Song in particular - I think we all do this. If that is what happened here, it's a great example of how even well-intentioned intelligent people can fall into the trap of making judgments about a rape victim - judgments they would never, ever agree with if the unspoken premises were explicitly stated. Instances of this where we can really see how this works are so incredibly rare that I really think further explanation is warranted and very relevant to this thread.

Of course, there are a lot of assumptions on my part here and I might be totally wrong about how the conclusion that the victim in this case would not be the type of person who is likely to purposefully engage in civil disobedience, in which case, I'm definitely interested in hearing what the actual reasoning was.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

But I think if we were sitting in a classroom or a bar we'd be more generous to our fellow interlocutors.

So sayeth Sci. Mass has ended, now go in peace.

And I disagree. The only difference here is that we care enough about continuing to interact with each other (mostly) that we tell each other when something was shit, rather than just make the judgement and sneer in our superiority. This does sometimes backfire, of course. ETA: In both effect and method, I mean.

Besides, I know you know this: intent, magic, not the same, etc etc. Sometimes we have the best of intentions and still say something stupid, or something reasonable but phrase it badly, or actually just have shitty opinions and people react to those. Nobody's immune, and I don't think they should be.

[Sci-2]

hmmm, I seem to have violated some rule so I'm not going to discuss it further.

eta: and this isn't sarcastic. I thought I was promoting Mormont's call for civility, but I guess I violated the rule of continuing a discussion after posts are deleted. Apologies.

[Guest Raidne]

Come on now, people act like "I think this girl was really angry about the injustice and assault so revealed their names without thinking about it as a larger political action"

Is this the issue? The criteria for whether or someone is engaging in civil disobedience? Because being part of "a larger political action" would not be on my list of criteria for assessing whether an act is an act of civil disobedience or not. It would be on other people's?

All I would require is that the actor (1) know what the "law" (in this case the order) was, (2) believe that the law was unjust, and (3) deliberately violate the law becauseof their belief that it was unjust.

Your "larger political action" requirement new information to me and an interesting alternative explanation. Hopefully Song might tell us whether that's what she was thinking or not. And then maybe why it is that Dietrich, in particular, wouldn't be likely to be engaging in "a larger political action." She didn't tweet their names right after the assault - it was much later, after the Court order. I also don't think anger is inversely correlated with activism - they actually seem to be highly related.

[Guest Raidne]

And I disagree. The only difference here is that we care enough about continuing to interact with each other (mostly) that we tell each other when something was shit, rather than just make the judgement and sneer in our superiority. This does sometimes backfire, of course. ETA: In both effect and method, I mean.

Besides, I know you know this: intent, magic, not the same, etc etc. Sometimes we have the best of intentions and still say something stupid, or something reasonable but phrase it badly, or actually just have shitty opinions and people react to those. Nobody's immune, and I don't think they should be.

I'm trying to avoid posting on anything personal given the warnings in the thread so I don't know what I'm allowed to say here, but I don't cut people any slack in person either. On the other hand, I try to phrase my disagreement much better than I did here, which was stupid on my part. The substance would be the same, but I would say it differently given that the implication is pretty emotionally charged. And very possibly not accurate. But I would absolutely raise the issue in person - I've worked very hard an developing an ability to do this while still being tactful in face-to-face situations, although I have a tendency to let it lapse here sometimes that I'm really working on.

[A Song of Hound and Wolves]

Hey, so...alot of posts have been coming up here in the last day or so. I actually missed all of the ones that were deleted by the Mod, so I can't address any of them even if I were allowed to, but I would like to apologize to the extent that I may have gotten anyone in trouble, or instigated any unpleasantness. I'm very sorry!

Based on some PMs from very thoughtful people, I realized I better stop being a wuss and you know, win at the Internet.

Yeah, my complaint is less with this case in particular than with the general idea that you can disobey laws because they don't suit you in this particular instance. As she was willing to face the consequences I have more sympathy but I'd prefer some sort of legal resolution, though I understand that that can be expensive and pointless.

My argument was about sciborg claiming that prisoners come out more hardened than they went in, which he uses as justification to lock everyone up for life. If the system is flawed and creates better criminals or isn't focused enough on rehabilitation, then that is a flaw with the practical implementation of the system and not a flaw with the general on-paper mentality.

Doesn't it make more sense to try to fix the underlying problems that lead to a higher recidivism rate instead of locking up a group of people who have a 30% (going off the numbers in this thread that sci is using) re-offending rate? One could argue that the goverment can focus on that 30% but quite frankly, I don't trust them to be rational on an issue like this and not immediately succumb to the urge to be "tough on crime" and put innocent people in for life.

I agree with the points Castel makes in the above paragraphs.

Is this the issue? The criteria for whether or someone is engaging in civil disobedience? Because being part of "a larger political action" would not be on my list of criteria for assessing whether an act is an act of civil disobedience or not. It would be on other people's?

All I would require is that the actor (1) know what the "law" (in this case the order) was, (2) believe that the law was unjust, and (3) deliberately violate the law becauseof their belief that it was unjust.

Your "larger political action" requirement new information to me and an interesting alternative explanation. Hopefully Song might tell us whether that's what she was thinking or not. And then maybe why it is that Dietrich, in particular, wouldn't be likely to be engaging in "a larger political action." She didn't tweet their names right after the assault - it was much later, after the Court order. I also don't think anger is inversely correlated with activism - they actually seem to be highly related.

Well, actually that is pretty much what I was thinking, Raidne. :-\ When I read your post on civil disobedience (which was excellent, BTW), I was really picturing a Gandhi or MLK-type of civil disobedience: specific law-breaking, non-violent acts to raise public awareness to an injustice in the law and thereby sway public opinion into overturning the law. It just didn't seem to me that a teenager was capable of such highminded thinking. I have re-read her original postings and I'm still not sure. (I admit that I had forgotten the detail she tweeted about her rights being violated, which you mention in the quote below and I address.) As you point out, she clearly knew that there would be repercussions and she knowingly engaged in the banned activity. So to that extent, I agree she was acting to secure her own rights, but about getting a specific law overturned or a new law enacted to protect the entire class of rape victims...well, I'm still not sure.

An example which isn't really on point -- there is an area on I-64 where the speed limit goes down from 70mph to 50mph for no other reason that I can see except that it's a speed trap. And I think that is unfair. So when I travel through there, I make sure that I have my radar detector on, and I flash my headlights at the other side if I see a State Trooper to warn the other drivers. I'm not exercising civil disobedience. I'm being disobedient, and I'm helping others to break the law because it seems to me to be an arbitrary and capricious law. If I get a ticket, I'll pay it, but I don't expect that they'll change the speed limit. That's not really a very good comparison, I know. It's sort of silly to compare that to the horrific injustice this young lady suffered, but atm, I can't think of another one.

I am going to explain what I said for other the sake of anyone reading the thread because I was in a hurry when I posted yesterday and I don't think anyone reading this would I understand how I read:

And came to the conclusion that:

That was pretty sloppy on my part. The issue is this: How would anyone know whether Dietrich is the type of person who would purposefully engage in civil disobedience or not? What information was used to reach that conclusion? I'm assuming that it's based on an assessment of her sophistication with regard to activism, which I'm guessing is then based on an asessment of her intelligence and education. But I don't know what information we have to judge her intelligence and education. She's (1) a high school student that is (2) female and was (3) passed out drunk at a party and (4) raped. (1) is a relevant criteria, but people were pretty sophisticated about activism when I was in high school. They've recently had civics courses, etc. I don't think Song would have factored in (2). Some people might judge on (3), but I know plenty of activist types who have definitely passed out drunk at parties. Plenty. So there's (4). (4) is clearly not relevant either, but I think a lot of people really do have a latent subconscious tendency to treat women who are promiscuous as somehow unserious and then, in turn, to let a rape subconciously bias their perception of the victim with the result that they subconsciously view her as a promiscuous, unserious party girl. (3) obviously isn't helping with that either - it looks like confirmation instead of the irrelevant information that it is.

So that's what I thought happened there. Any article on this contains the Twitter posts from Dietrich I posted earlier, showing very clearly that she was very deliberately engaging in purposeful civil disobedience in response to the issuance of the Court order, so I also assumed that Song wasn't reasoning from any other information I didn't list above because any further research would have forstalled the conclusion she reached.

And not to call out Song in particular - I think we all do this. If that is what happened here, it's a great example of how even well-intentioned intelligent people can fall into the trap of making judgments about a rape victim - judgments they would never, ever agree with if the unspoken premises were explicitly stated. Instances of this where we can really see how this works are so incredibly rare that I really think further explanation is warranted and very relevant to this thread.

Of course, there are a lot of assumptions on my part here and I might be totally wrong about how the conclusion that the victim in this case would not be the type of person who is likely to purposefully engage in civil disobedience, in which case, I'm definitely interested in hearing what the actual reasoning was.

Thank you for clarifying, Raidne, and giving me the opportunity to explain and / or (gulp!) dig myself in deeper.

Regarding the bolded italicized statement: Yes, Raidne's assumption is correct and I did not do further research before shooting off my thoughts. :dunce:

The bolded part ^. I found myself sceptical of the level of sophistication needed for a teenager to be thinking as wide-ranging as protecting all people in her class (rape victims). I thought it was more likely that she was interested in protecting the rights of only one person, herself.

[i'd like to add in case anyone missed it earlier in the thread that I completely support the victims actions. Furthermore, I think the system let her down, and largely backed her into this corner. I would like to see a law change to ensure this does not happen again.]

I also would like to clarify that I in no way think less of the young lady in question because she was a victim of rape, whatever the circumstances (ie that she got drunk). I would like to ease Raidne's concern that I look down on her because she got drunk and then some creeps raped her. To the extent that my above post suggested that, I would like to clarify that my thoughts on her possible act of civil disobedience is not based on the crime down to her.

I in no way intended to paint this young lady in a denigrating fashion, and again, if I carelessly did so, I apologize.

Finally, I am completely okay with this victim having tweeted the name of these rapists even if it could be proven that the act was purely emotional, retaliatory and spiteful.

really didn't intend for my post to anger anyone

come now. if you're not intending to piss someone off with each and every contribution, then you're losing at the internet.

Huh! well I'll be...that must be why Al Gore emailed me, told me to get off his "Internets" and he called me a "luzer". Now I know why!

Don't be a wussy. You put in some time here, let it be worth something.

But, I am a wussy. Guilty as charged!

[Galactus]

(1) know what the "law" (in this case the order) was, (2) believe that the law was unjust, and (3) deliberately violate the law

because

of their belief that it was unjust.

I think another criteria (which she fulfills too, btw.) is accepting responsibiliy for her actions and taking the punishment. Breaking the law and trying to avoid punishment isn't civil disobedience: Possibly revolutionary activity, but it's no longer civil.

[Guest Raidne]

I'll respond to Song's post later, but in the interest of getting the issue I'm trying to raise off of her personally, I'd like to add that when I read Dietrich's tweets, I think I was surprised at how well she articulated her issue and had to ask myself, wait WHY are you surprised? I still really don't know. I'm asking myself all the same questions I asked Song here.

[Stormcatcher]

I don't see the problem with them being named and underage, good for her. They obviously aren't children. They're about to enter adulthood, and are fully responsible for their crimes.

[Stego]

http://i.imgur.com/B6Lp4.jpg

[Solmyr]

The way this story reads for me:

A citizen of an allegedly democratic country uses his constitutional right of freedom of speech.

Same citizen is charged and faces jail time.

Allegedly democratic government fails to meet one of the most basic criteria for democracy - therefore not a democracy.

Anything can happen in a non-democratic country, including rapists running wild and rape victims going to jail.

P.S. I skimmed the article and the thread, therefore I honestly don't know which country it happened in (assuming from the victim's name it's a western country, hence the democracy-argument). If, by chance, it's a story from N. Korea or Zimbabwe, please excuse my captain obvious-ness.

[Sci-2]

NVM.

[TerraPrime]

The way this story reads for me:

A citizen of an allegedly democratic country uses his constitutional right of freedom of speech.

Same citizen is charged and faces jail time.

Allegedly democratic government fails to meet one of the most basic criteria for democracy - therefore not a democracy.

Anything can happen in a non-democratic country, including rapists running wild and rape victims going to jail.

P.S. I skimmed the article and the thread, therefore I honestly don't know which country it happened in (assuming from the victim's name it's a western country, hence the democracy-argument). If, by chance, it's a story from N. Korea or Zimbabwe, please excuse my captain obvious-ness.

What on Earth are you babbling about?

[Sci-2]

I think he's saying the girl was denied free speech and thus democracy wasn't real. At first I thought he was talking about something else but then remembered this is how Solmyr talks. (No offense meant Solymr, but you're your shit does get incomprehensible sometimes.)

[TerraPrime]

I think he's saying the girl was denied free speech and thus democracy wasn't real. At first I thought he was talking about something else but then remembered this is how Solmyr talks. (No offense meant Solymr, but you're your shit does get incomprehensible sometimes.)

Hmm... he used "his", not "her." Hence my question.