What the hell is wrong with Steubenville, OH?

Does it matter whether you were drunk or not, really? To what extent does intoxication affect our judgment of, for example, stabbing someone twenty times until they're dead?

4xis.black wrote:

Does it matter whether you were drunk or not, really? To what extent does intoxication affect our judgment of, for example, stabbing someone twenty times until they're dead?

No, it doesn't matter at all. And it doesn't matter if she or any other rape victim was wearing short-shorts and a clingy halter top or walking around stark naked.

If alcohol or some revealing clothing is a trigger for rape, what, exactly, does that say about the person who reacts to that trigger?

I don't think anyone put forward the idea that because there was alcohol involved, the rapists were not culpable for their actions. There is a reason that there are criminal penalties for supplying minors with alcohol. People who commit crimes under the influence are still guilty of those crimes, but saying that alcohol had no part as a catalyst is ignoring truckloads of evidence.

Here are some highlights of the U.S. Justice Department, Bureau of Justice Statistics April 1998 report on Alcohol and Crime
:

About 3 million violent crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense. Among those victims who provided information about the offender's use of alcohol, about 35 percent of the victimizations involved an offender who had been drinking. About two-thirds of the alcohol-involved crimes were characterized as simple assaults.

Two-thirds of victims who suffered violence by an intimate (a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend) reported that alcohol had been a factor. Among spouse victims, 3 out of 4 incidents were reported to have involved an offender who had been drinking. By contrast, an estimated 31 percent of stranger victimizations where the victim could determine the absence or presence of alcohol were perceived to be alcohol-related.

In 1996, local law enforcement agencies nationwide made an estimated 1,467,300 arrests for driving under the influence (DUI). Arrests for DUI peaked in 1983 when there were 1.9 million arrests. Compared to 1983, the per capita rate of arrest for DUI in 1996 was 34 percent lower.

Declines in DUI arrest rates have occurred for every age group. Of particular note is the decrease in DUI arrest rates for those under the age of 21 compared to their rates of DUI arrest in the early 1980's when States had not adopted a uniform drinking age. In 1980 persons between 16 and 20 years old accounted for 10 percent of licensed drivers but 15 percent of DUI arrestees. In 1996, this age group accounted for 7 percent of drivers and 8 percent of DUI arrestees.

In 1996 there were 17,126 alcohol-related traffic fatalities accounting for 40.9 percent of all traffic fatalities during the year. This is a 29 percent reduction from the more than 24,000 fatalities recorded 10 years earlier when alcohol was involved in 52 percent of the fatalities.

An estimated 32 percent of fatal accidents involved an intoxicated driver or pedestrian (the majority are drivers, however) with a blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, of at least 0.10 grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood, the most commonly used definition of intoxication.

Over the last decade rates of intoxication in fatal accidents have declined across every age group. In 1986, there was about 1 driver involved in a fatal accident in which he/she was intoxicated for every 10,500 drivers; in 1996, the rate translates into about 1 intoxicated driver in a fatal accident for every 17,200 licensed drivers.

Among the 5.3 million convicted offenders under the jurisdiction of corrections agencies in 1996, nearly 2 million, or about 36 percent, were estimated to have been drinking at the time of the offense. The vast majority, about 1.5 million, of these alcohol-involved offenders were sentenced to supervision in the community: 1.3 million on probation and more than 200,000 on parole.

There was some variation in the percentage of offenders who had been using alcohol at the time of the offense across different correctional statuses: 40 percent of both jail inmates and probationers, 32 percent of State prisoners, and 29 percent of parolees.

Alcohol use at the time of the offense was commonly found among those convicted of public-order crimes, a type of offense most highly represented among those on probation and in jail. Among violent offenders, 41 percent of probationers, 41 percent of those in local jails, 38 percent of those in State prisons, and 20 percent of those in Federal prisons were estimated to have been drinking when they committed the crime.

An analysis dependence among trauma center patients found that the prevalence of alcoholism was substantially higher among vehicular crash victims and other trauma patients than among the equivalent general population group. More than half of trauma patients with a positive BAC at the time of the trauma were diagnosed as alcoholics, and nearly 1 in 7 patients who were not drinking at the time of the trauma were diagnosed as alcohol-dependent.

I'm not against alcohol, but I am against downplaying the seriousness of kids drinking it to get drunk.

Nomad wrote:

I'm really surprised that the whole underage drinking angle of this story hasn't gotten more attention. Take alcohol to minors out of this situation and I think it would have happened very differently.

To go further with your point (and to take the blame off of kids), take alcohol to anyone out of the situation and you have to wonder if a whole lot of rape situations turn out differently. There's been this concept going around for a little while now regarding rape called Predator Theory:

120 men admitted, essentially, to rape or attempted to rape. This is actually a relatively slim proportion of the survey population — just over 6% — and might be an under-report. Lisak & Miller’s team did interviews with some of the self-reported rapists to confirm the self-reports, which would tend to reveal an undercount in the self-reports, and found that the responses were consistent.

The really new information, however, is how those rapists and their offenses broke down: of the 120 rapists in the sample, 44 reported only one assault. The remaining 76 were repeat offenders. These 76 men, 63% of the rapists, committed 439 rapes or attempted rapes, an average of 5.8 each (median of 3, so there were some super-repeat offenders in this group). Just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes.

The breakdown between the modus operandi of the rapists also tells us that a great deal of the rapes that happen are very different from what is recognized as “real” rape. Of all 120 admitted rapists, only about 30% reported using force or threats, while the remainder raped intoxicated victims. This proportion was roughly the same between the 44 rapists who reported one assault and the 76 who reported multiple assaults. (What the authors call “overt-force rapists” committed more sexual assaults, on average, than the “intoxication rapists” by about 6 to 3, but the parts of the sample are so small that this result did not reach statistical significance and could be sampling error rather than a real phenomenon. I’d really like an answer to that, though.)

I'm convinced that stuff like this is far more widespread than we think, and that most of it goes unreported or is brushed under the rug. It seems that the only reason this instance blew up is that it attracted the attention of the right people.

I'm sure it is. I wouldn't be surprised if the rapists were themselves raped in some fashion as part of being rookies: this town sounds like the kind of place where that might go on. It sometimes feels like there's this whole shadow world out there just below the surface where all this terrible stuff is going on, but we've got a kind of cultural blindness about it where even if it attracts the attention of the wrong people it gets brushed under the rug, let alone that our authority figures are out there actively trying to stop this stuff.

edit: in fact, this part is probably worth excerpting too, because of the role new technologies played in turning this from a he-said/she-barely-remembers situation into a conviction:

Lisak doesn’t actually say this, but having read some of his work in depth now, I really think the major difference between the incarcerated and the non-incarcerated rapists are that the former cannot or do not confine themselves to tactics that are low-risk to them. The undetected rapists overwhelmingly use minimal or no force, rely mostly on alcohol and rape their acquaintances. They create situations where the culture will protect them by making excuses for them and questioning or denying their victims. Incarcerated rapists, I think, are just the ones who use the tactics that society is more willing to recognize as rape and less willing to make excuses for.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

So, the Onion produced this prescient segment two years ago, apparently:

Classic! I love the lines, "I won't let rape define me, I'm an athlete first" and the head coach saying "he averages 22 points a game! No rape is going to change that!"

As far as my harsh attitudes towards the rapists go, if they had shown the least bit of remorse for the victim or had turned themselves in, I might have some pity. Instead they did the opposite, trying to hamper the investigation at every turn and only appearing heartbroken when they were found guilty. I'm also not convinced their lives are ruined. They'll have to do a year or two in jail - probably in protective custody - then get on with their lives. I'm sure that somebody in Stuebenville will even offer them decent jobs, seeing as the community attitude is "that slut railroaded them." Heck, there's not an impossible chance that they could go play pro football overseas.

I do agree partly with Cheeze in that the adults also share some of the blame, and any adult who interfered with the investigation should be tried as an accomplice. Probably starting with the coach, who from what I read was a total a-hole to cops and reporters during the whole thing.

And the poor victim should GTFO of that rat-hole as soon as humanly possible.

Mystic Violet wrote:

At this point, I'd support a "Get Jane Doe the hell out of dodge" fund.

I would contribute to that. I have genuine concerns for her safety, and even ignoring that her life is now going to be made even more hellish than it already has been.

Edit: unnecessarily sarcastic reply.

I don't think that it's fair to blame alcohol for this crime. It feels like either exonerating the rapists for what they've done by saying that they lost control, or blaming the victim, by saying that she shouldn't have placed herself in a dangerous situation. If she were raped while under anesthetic, or while asleep, the rapists would be just as guilty of a heinous act.

What Nomad is saying is not exactly what people are reacting to. His larger point is that when we can identifying specific actions or substances that correlate to higher incidence of violence, we should pursue an agenda to limit or ban those specific actions or substances.

I disagree with him - that's the same logic that MADD or its progenitor, the temperance movement, used. I disagree with the general idea of banning a thing because of the risk it entails (like eating a sandwich while driving or smoking pot in one's house), but Nomad certainly doesn't seem to be making excuses for the behavior of the rapists.

Seth wrote:

What Nomad is saying is not exactly what people are reacting to. His larger point is that when we can identifying specific actions or substances that correlate to higher incidence of violence, we should pursue an agenda to limit or ban those specific actions or substances.

I disagree with him - that's the same logic that MADD or its progenitor, the temperance movement, used. I disagree with the general idea of banning a thing because of the risk it entails (like eating a sandwich while driving or smoking pot in one's house), but Nomad certainly doesn't seem to be making excuses for the behavior of the rapists.

Maybe so; I could be reacting to the huge outflow of 'she was drinking, slut had it coming' posts throughout the rest of the internet. I apologize for my earlier (redacted) sarcastic reply, since Nomad wasn't actually saying that.

I actually think that our illegalization of alcohol fosters such an environment.

These kids don't experience alcohol in a safe environment, so these first times can make them more vulnerable in a dangerous location. Alcohol is the forbidden fruit, only for adults, and hence the taking and over-taking of it is an indication of how mature and virile you are. When something bad happens you don't seek help, because you are worried about punishment.

That last one especially was a huge deal at my University, after some cases of severe alcohol poisoning where the afflicted individual and their friends did not call an ambulance since the drinker was underage.

Tanglebones wrote:

Maybe so; I could be reacting to the huge outflow of 'she was drinking, slut had it coming' posts throughout the rest of the internet. I apologize for my earlier (redacted) sarcastic reply, since Nomad wasn't actually saying that.

Lets all have a nice big hippy style hug after noting that this is distinctly not the rest of the internet.

From Cheeze's quote it seems that alcohol (and likely other intoxicants) is used as a tool by the second class of rapist defined in his comment. This seems remarkably similar to numerous other debates, e.g. "Give bad people X and they will do bad things with it."

boogle wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Maybe so; I could be reacting to the huge outflow of 'she was drinking, slut had it coming' posts throughout the rest of the internet. I apologize for my earlier (redacted) sarcastic reply, since Nomad wasn't actually saying that.

Lets all have a nice big hippy style hug after noting that this is distinctly not the rest of the internet.

From Cheeze's quote it seems that alcohol (and likely other intoxicants) is used as a tool by the second class of rapist defined in his comment. This seems remarkably similar to numerous other debates, e.g. "Give bad people X and they will do bad things with it."

IMAGE(http://gifguppy.com/css/images/tv/community/s02e10/thumbsupparty.gif)

Phoenix Rev wrote:
4xis.black wrote:

Does it matter whether you were drunk or not, really? To what extent does intoxication affect our judgment of, for example, stabbing someone twenty times until they're dead?

No, it doesn't matter at all. And it doesn't matter if she or any other rape victim was wearing short-shorts and a clingy halter top or walking around stark naked.

If alcohol or some revealing clothing is a trigger for rape, what, exactly, does that say about the person who reacts to that trigger?

It matters in so far as if the Prosecution wants to use the victim as a witness, or if the victim is the only victim. Alcohol or Drug intoxication at the time of a crime is a factor that can be used to impeach a witness by the defense. It is a more complicated issue of strategy when the prosecution does not wish to call a victim, but the defense calls them (the right to confront accusers).

We then get into jurisdictional matters. In many rape statutes, if the woman is intoxicated aggression and assault is essentially or literally assumed. You then get into situations like happened at the University of Michigan where two young men were accused and expelled where both they and their female partners were drunk and stoned out of their gourds. Intoxication removes the intent element in Michigan, but what is still present is a presumption that a male is always the sexual aggressor. I am not sure if the former situation, absent the male actually plying the woman with drink and drugs is a demonstrable rape. You have 2 people getting wasted at a party, and they drunkenly hook up because both are exercising poor judgment. I am not sure if placing a higher burden on males, a presumption of aggression is justice.

Ohio has, in my opinion one of the more even handed sets of rape statutes.

Intoxication on the part of the perpetrator is not, so far as I know, any sort of defense or mitigating factor.

Jesus Christ.

Henry Rollins on Steubenville:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/1...

Tanglebones wrote:

Henry Rollins on Steubenville:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/1...

That man should be the President. He has such clarity on so many issues.

DSGamer wrote:

Jesus Christ.

I'm afraid to look, but how the heck did these even get released?

I have a strong stomach for this type of thing, and couldn't get through half of it. Any defense made for these monsters makes me want to Godwin the thread.

KingGorilla wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Jesus Christ.

I'm afraid to look, but how the heck did these even get released?

Evidence in a criminal trial becomes a part of the public record. Also cell companies will release records if you look at them harshly.

In this case, people in the court, transcribed them on their phones. This is why phones are banned from Michigan courts, by the way.

The following is a transcript of text-messages retrieved from individuals involved in the Steubenville case. This transcript was made using the notes of Don Carpenter and Amanda Blackburn, transcribing while listening to testimony in the courtroom as best they could. This is an excerpt from over 3,000 text messages read in court. Out of respect for the victim in this case, we will not transcribe messages sent between Jane Doe and the others involved in this case.

I looked for about a minute before having to close the window... and I can say this really puts CNN's idiocy in a whole new repugnant light. These guys should have been tried as adults. Even saying anything about how sad it is that their futures were destroyed? Right out the window. Didn't agree with them in the first place, exponentially more annoyed by that argument now from some news venues.

Demosthenes wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Jesus Christ.

I'm afraid to look, but how the heck did these even get released?

Evidence in a criminal trial becomes a part of the public record. Also cell companies will release records if you look at them harshly.

In this case, people in the court, transcribed them on their phones. This is why phones are banned from Michigan courts, by the way.

The following is a transcript of text-messages retrieved from individuals involved in the Steubenville case. This transcript was made using the notes of Don Carpenter and Amanda Blackburn, transcribing while listening to testimony in the courtroom as best they could. This is an excerpt from over 3,000 text messages read in court. Out of respect for the victim in this case, we will not transcribe messages sent between Jane Doe and the others involved in this case.

Having read a few, I won't be in the mood for sex for awhile. I just want to get on my soap box here. This is the kind of evidence people want kept secret, and at a higher degree of protection when they scream about invasions of what is not actually privacy. Read this before you ever have the gall to go on about personal liberty with such conversations and information. Cases like this are why it is necessary for Verizon or Google to keep digital records of such conversations for at least a year. That is independent of the many regulatory reasons I need not go into here.

I read the entire transcript and it's clear that these guys don't even consider women to be human beings. Alcohol played a role in incapacitating the victim and possibly causing these jerks to become more likely to victimize someone. But even so, not everyone at that party had been drinking. The perps and witnesses were texting others who weren't there and those sober and absent guys thought what was done to her was awesome. High fives all around. Alcohol seems to be a secondary issue to their disgusting attitudes and criminal behavior towards this girl. That's the main problem here: this girl isn't a person, therefore, do whatever you want.

Why the "rape culture" continues...

Tweets about how the victim is truly at fault.

(Warning: NSFW.)

Why I like victim protection statutes Phoenix Rev. No matter what the culture. So long as the only record is that of "Some Girl in Ohio" that girl has a fighting chance.

What is really off putting to me, is that I have actually worked with 2 people accused of rapes, that were not actual rapes. A 34 y/o woman who picked up an under aged boy at a bar. He was drinking with a fake ID, she was thinking she was taking home a college kid. Her career in law was utterly ruined. And I do desperately wished I kept in touch with someone at the Public Defender to know whatever became of her.

A 18 year old with a 16 y/o girlfriend. The relationship was 100 percent fine a year prior, but when he turned 18 the girl's dad called the cops on him. Wisconsin had no Romeo and Juliette statute.

I still know the overwhelming statistics on rape and sexual assaults. By and large, false accusations are so rare as to be non-existent for all practical purposes.

So that's two cases of statutory rape that were B.S. but were in fact, under the law, statutory rape? That's not exactly the same thing as false accusations of rape.

Hypatian wrote:

So that's two cases of statutory rape that were B.S. but were in fact, under the law, statutory rape? That's not exactly the same thing as false accusations of rape.

Yeah, that's one unfortunate situation for the lady, and a father who probably won't be getting Christmas cards from his daughter when she leaves the house at 18.

Hypatian wrote:

So that's two cases of statutory rape that were B.S. but were in fact, under the law, statutory rape? That's not exactly the same thing as false accusations of rape.

Yeah, it's not like they were legitimate rape.

I have to wonder what the tone of the conversation would be if Mays and Richmond had passed out drunk and were raped by gay teens.

I doubt Candy Crowley would have been lamenting the poor fate of the "promising students" who were convicted in that scenario.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I have to wonder what the tone of the conversation would be if Mays and Richmond had passed out drunk and were raped by gay teens.

I doubt Candy Crowley would have been lamenting the poor fate of the "promising students" who were convicted in that scenario.

It's simple. They obviously shouldn't have gotten that drunk without knowing their surroundings.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me think humanity is just screwed in general.