OH! The Teen Who Raped A Drunken Girl And Sent The Video Of Him Doing It To His Pals On Social Media “Has A Good Family!” That Changes Everything, Then! [UPDATED]

A New Jersey Appeals Court has reversed a decision of a Family Court judge who has a claim on the title of “Most Incompetent Judge Ever.”

The facts showed that  a drunk 16-year-old boy raped an even more drunk  16-year-old  in the basement during a party. The boy recorded a video of  himself penetrating her from behind, and then shared it on social media among friends along with a text that said, “When your first time having sex was rape.” The victim could barely recall the incident, and when she confronted her attacker, he denied that he had raped her  even as he continued to circulate the video. When the victim, known only in public records as Mary, an alias, because of her juvenile status, learned this, she had her mother contact authorities.

The Monmouth County prosecutor’s office wanted the boy to be tried as an adult. They applied for a waiver of his juvenile status, arguing that the alleged assailant’s actions were “predatory and sophisticated.”  “At the time he led ‘Mary’ into the basement gym, she was visibly intoxicated and unable to walk without stumbling,” the prosecutor wrote. “For the duration of the assault, the lights in the gym remained off and the door was barred by a foosball table. Filming a cellphone video while committing the assault was a deliberate act of debasement.”

In criminal law, the defendant’s lawyer always tries to get a “good judge,” and in this case, the accused rapist teen hit the jackpot. Judge James Troiano of Superior Court was the ideal judge for this defendant, because he apparently leads his profession in rationalizing idiocy. “Good,” in this case, meant incompetent.

Among his head-exploding comments while rejecting the waiver application:

  • There was a “distinction” between “a sexual assault and a rape.” The judge said “the traditional case of rape” generally involved two or more males using a gun or weapon to corner a victim into an abandoned house, shed or shack, “and just simply taking advantage of the person as well as beating the person, threatening the person.”
  • He questioned questioning “whether or not this young lady was intoxicated to the point that she didn’t understand what was going on.”
  • He dismissed  the incriminating text messages as “just a 16-year-old kid saying stupid crap to his friends.”
  • “This young man comes from a good family that put him into an excellent school where he is doing very well. He is clearly a candidate for a entry in not just college but a good college. His scores for college entry were very high.”
  • [Omitted in the original post and subsequently added] The judge said that prosecutors should have tried to dissuade the victim from pressing charges,  because doing so would destroy the boy’s life.

The last statement is signature significance for incompetent fool. The fact that the kid raped a girl and then sent the video over social media rebuts most of the judge’s conclusions. Good families are usually able to raise their children so they they do not become rapists and violent felons. By good, the judge meant “wealthy” and “white,” neither of which are markers of assured virtue. Ted Bundy had excellent College Board scores, probably much better than this creep. The fact that he circulated proof that he had raped a girl shows that despite any indications to the contrary, the teen isn’t very bright at all, and moreover, may lack a conscience.

Yeah, he’ll love those parties at college, particularly if he joins a fraternity. So many drunken women to rape!

Well, let me backtrack a bit: there are virtually no rapes in college under Judge Troiano’s definition—you know, a gun, two men, a shed or a shack.

The appellate court  reversed the decision, pointing out that the judge’s “good family” argument suggested bias.  That’s a start; now someone needs to investigate how much damage this dolt did from the bench until his recent retirement. Nobody capable of the kind of ignorant reasoning Judge Troiano engaged in here should be permitted to don judicial robes, ever. Yet if there is one, there are probably many more.

57 thoughts on “OH! The Teen Who Raped A Drunken Girl And Sent The Video Of Him Doing It To His Pals On Social Media “Has A Good Family!” That Changes Everything, Then! [UPDATED]

  1. Disbar the first judge.

    Lock up the perp / videographer and lose the key for a very long time.

    Make the perp’s parents pay for the professional help his victim will, no doubt, need.

    • Let us not forget that the girl made some pretty bad choices as well. No, not victim shaming: just suggesting that the failure of both set of parents and their community might (might) be on display here. The boy is 100% guilty and totally at fault, but the girl made some stunningly bad mistakes to get into this position.

      1) Underaged drinking at a private residence (if not illegal, at least unethical)
      2) un or under supervised teens at a party with alcohol
      3) girl who drank to gross excess allowed to leave with boy
      4) drunk boy allowed to take drunk girl to private area
      5) friend group did not report the video (knowing it was claimed to be a crime; knowing that this was child porn in most jurisdictions)
      6) wealth bought a verdict in the rapist’s favor (good lawyer, fit into judge’s biases)

      So your underage daughter goes to a party and gets so blasted drunk she could not even tell she was assaulted… while this could be a one off, I smell a lifetime of poor parenting choices to enable this to happen.* One could conclude that the girl was sexually active before this incident, since there was not enough trama (or ‘new’ truma) for her to tell she had been raped. (Most girls who lose their virginity are sore enough to notice the next day… just sayin’)

      I might be wrong. I hope I am.

      But consequences have a way of catching up with negligent behavior and careless choices.

      *I am not judging the girl, here. Simply doing objective analysis as to how her story came to be. Discussion is welcome.

      • Not that any of this isn’t probably true, but to the woke it doesn’t matter – no consent, no touch, end of discussion. Remember Sarah Silverman’s rape prevention tips:

        Carry a rape whistle. If you find that you are about to rape someone, blow the whistle until someone comes to stop you’.

        ‘If you are in an elevator and a woman gets in, don’t rape her.’

        ‘Remember, people go to the laundry room to do their laundry. Do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.’

        This judge was a bona fide idiot too, or he was bought and paid for, or someone knew someone who knew him. He embarrasses the bench as much as the judge I knew who went to a party for court employees (mistake no. 1), got blasted there (mistake no. 2) and then proceed to play grab-ass with 5 of the employees (wtf?).

        • … Steve… I know you’re a bit of a neanderthal when it comes to being human, but guess what?

          THERE SHOULDN’T BE ANYTHING CONTROVERSIAL about using “no consent, no touching” as a rule. For every interaction with every person you meet.

          It’s not about being woke or not. It is about being able to respect the other people’s autonomy, and wanting them to be enthusiastic about interacting with you.

      • Yes you ARE judging the girl. How do you know he didn’t have something to do with her intoxication as well?
        When my son found a passed out girl at a party in the woods he carried her out to her friends and told them to call an ambulance for her. THAT’s what an Eagle Scout does.
        Your narrative tells young boys if she’s drunk you won’t be punished as badly. Instead we need to tell boys to check in for consent. Individuals should be afraid when they didn’t get consent. Maybe video tape the consent.
        And good grief the judge even went as far as to admonish the girl for pressing charges!

        • Slickwilly notes some things that occurred to me, too. There was a great deal of preexisting debauchery suggested by the scene painted. A world which shrugs off teenage drunken orgies as long as they’re consensual is bound to be plagued with instances of teens stepping just over that bar we’ve buried deep in the Earth’s liquid mantle for them.

          Your narrative tells young boys if she’s drunk you won’t be punished as badly.

          Judgment isn’t necessarily a zero-sum game. You can shake your head at the homeowner who leaves his house unlocked even as you treat the sneakthief to the same punishment as he would receive for bypassing a state-of-the-art home security system. There’s plenty for all! It springs forth from the ground around us, screaming to Heaven for vengeance.

          • Yes you ARE judging the girl.

            Ethics is about factual observations and judgements based upon context. Change the context, change the judgement.

            I find it funny how stating facts has become judging all by itself. We are not allowed to observe that which is right in front of your eyes, and even less to comment upon behavior that is inherently risky.

            How do you know he didn’t have something to do with her intoxication as well?

            How do I know that her parents did not collect cash from the boy, and prostitute their daughter randomly? How do I know that the girl herself does not have an STD, and this was an elaborate ruse to infect the boy, for reasons of her own?

            I’ll tell you how: those facts are not in evidence. Your question is pure rationalization, and emotionalism run wild. Of course new facts would change certain features of the ethics discussion, if they were mentioned. They weren’t.

            It also begs the question of how the girl came to be at a party where such was allowed to happen. Did the rapist kidnap her from her bedroom and force alcohol through an enema? The girl was not even sure she had been raped until seeing the video. Draw me an alternate picture where that is possible, unless the rapist was a master hypnotist (“You will awaken refreshed and will not notice the evidence of rape…”)

            When my son found a passed out girl… THAT’s what an Eagle Scout does.

            Nice. Good for him. What does any of that have to do with what I wrote?

            Your narrative tells young boys if she’s drunk you won’t be punished as badly.

            An outright lie. I went out of my way to state that the boy was guilty and at fault. How you twist that into an assertion that rapists should get less punishment says more about your thought processes than mine.

            Instead we need to tell boys to check in for consent. Individuals should be afraid when they didn’t get consent. Maybe video tape the consent.

            So drunken underage orgies are just FINE as long as there is video evidence both parties were up for it. The girl could not give consent.

            Your underlying argument is that teen sex is perfectly fine and would not encounter any problems if only everyone consented before the act. Sex is an adult decision, and societies have withheld permission for that act for literally thousands of years because it hurts those who are not ready for all of the ramifications. “They will do it anyway (so give them condoms)” is a rationalization, and has no place in an ethics commentary.

            And good grief the judge even went as far as to admonish the girl for pressing charges!

            Good to know. Justice was bought and paid for by the rapist’s family.

            None of this changes my observations or conclusions.

      • Not sure of your parenting history. One son, two daughters here. I was a very involved Dad. My wife was also equally involved. Yet when they and their friends became driving age there is only so much you can do to overcome peer pressure. None of my 3 were ever drunk in high school. But having daughters certainly rearranges your viewpoint on these things. One boy was told to his face, if you come back here it will be your last day above ground. This incident is beyond the pale. It’s the social media part that drives me to my opinions.

      • … You know what slickwilly, I initially started this post off trying to be snarky and ridicule you. Because, quite frankly, you deserved to be mocked. But I couldn’t manage it without making the whole thing into a personal attack on your idiocy, so far above and beyond what Jack usually tolerates that it would have probably been unpostable. I’ve toned it down twice, to get it to a point where I think it can be posted.

        There’s an old proverb, that a wise man should taste his words to see if they are palatable, before he speaks them. It carried strongly with it the subtext if “because if they aren’t palatable and you speak them anyways, I’m going to have your tongue ripped out.” You may want to meditate on the proverb a bit.

        Now, let’s talk about the bullshit that you wrote:
        -“Not Victim shaming Here”
        Yes you are. You’re like the person who says “not to be racist, but them blacks…” If you had really not wanted to shame the victim, you would have STOPPED WRITING right there, and then realized you needed to delete that as well. Next time, why don’t you try being honest about it, both with yourself and with us?

        -She was drinking underage.
        One of the mistakes we make in American culture is not letting people experience drink until they’re older – because it’s so damned easy to come by, that makes it a common form of rebellion for our youths. And because they’ve no real idea what they’re doing when they rebel, it’s not uncommon for them to overindulge – they have no way of recognizing the signals their body is giving them about whether they have had too much or not, or accurately evaluating what effects it will have. This is why all the predators in colleges enjoy spiking punches and find freshman girls easy targets – it’s always easier to target someone who is inexperienced. But guess what? We’re all inexperienced at some point, and the way we change that is by doing things that gain experience. So, if you want to lay blame for this fact, you get to smear it on yourself as well. Or, maybe, crazy idea here, we acknowledge that the fucking shitstain of a boy was just like a college predator, getting a slightly early start.

        -Insufficient supervision at a teen party.
        You’re right, of course. Clearly every teen should have an appointed watcher, at all times. That will work out so well! We can call them the Kids’ Guardian Board. /sarcasm

        -She may have been sexually active before.
        And? Are you saying your wife or sister or anyone at all anywhere and anywhen deserves to be raped, because of what they did in the past? What point, on this green earth, are you tryiing to make? That if she had once consented to sex with another person at another point in time, all men are justified in doing whatever they want to her?

        Because NO, IT DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY. I can’t believe I’m having to write that on this board, but apparently I am. Whatever she did or didn’t do in the past has NO bearing, whatsoever, on the fact that the boy raped her. But good on you, you got to be a sanctimonious prick, guessing at her actions and branding her with a metaphorical scarlet letter after you decided your assumptions were right.

        From a biological stand point, by the way, you’re also flat wrong – there’s a huge host of factors that go into how likely a woman’s first time is to be painful. And also, try learning about consent – just because someone may be aroused/lubricated and therefore don’t suffer much damage doesn’t mean they are capable of giving consent.

        -You hope you’re wrong.
        Wish granted, because you’re definitely in the wrong with everything you said. Except for the part where you said the boy was 100% in the wrong and at fault for what he did – but then, if you had actually meant those words when you typed them, they would have been the more than just a throw away line in your post.

        Attitudes like yours, Slickwilly, are why people get so incensed about assertions that women should always report sexual assault. Someone like you is always there, saying “I’m just saying…” that they dressed to slutty, or drank too much, or were asking for it, or, like Aliza’s turd-blossom of a post below “We’ll never know what happened”. It’s where the believe all women chant comes from – even when the rapists supply an unsolicited confession, and record their fucking crimes, you’ll be there to blame a woman for something about the situation.

        You’re just as much a problem as the judge. You just don’t have enough power to do as much damage by yourself. But there’s good news! There’s a bunch of other idiots just like you in the world, and you’ll keep fucking it up royally for everyone else because you can’t stand to see a rapist get condemned for his action without trying to spread the blame a little bit. And while the rapists of the world will never thank you for your protection, but they’ll keep on enjoying it anyways.

        May you rot with the bastards.

        • That’s quite a bit of vitriol toward quite a bit of propositions nobody made. Slick can lament abysmal parenting and Alizia a culture burned down to little more than ashes, but some would see it all as just an attempt to shift blame away from a rapist. And what are their motives? Do they just want to protect rapists from justice? A more charitable reading might indicate that the situation leading to the rape is their concern.

          Teenage promiscuity and drunkenness, not to mention teenage drunken promiscuity, is a causal factor. It indicates that these adolescents weren’t trained in virtue at all – left to raise themselves in the midst of carnal urges unguided by wisdom and moderation. Perhaps permissive parents would suggest that they’d learn from their mistakes. Perhaps those parents, unwilling to be judgmental, didn’t anticipate one of those mistakes might be rape. Virtue must be practiced. Once it’s achieved, it can be kept with some effort. Once your mind is lost to vices, the effort to escape is immense – and that’s assuming you ever see through the addictions clearly enough to recognize them. Let your children run wild, and they’ll be wild.

          I think that old Marxist trick of poisoning people’s minds to the point of absolute blindness to everything but victims and oppressors has most people trying to turn every instance of noting a nuance outside of that dichotomy (without necessarily disagreeing with the particular instance of that dichotomy, in Willy’s case) into another form of oppression to attack. If all you have is oppressive emotional rage against oppressors, I suppose everything might look like a nail.

          • Agreed. You can be of the opinion that a victim exhibited poor judgement in letting themselves get into the situation where they became the victim, or that others’ actions also contributed to such a situation, but still hold a criminal entirely responsible for his crime, and not consider the victim’s failures as mitigating that responsibility at all. Most people wouldn’t hesitate to opine that always leaving your doors unlocked is a stupid move for most homeowners, but would not excuse a burglar for theft. We tend to be more absolutist when considering more heinous crimes with lots of emotional and societal baggage, like rape, but that’s just us willfully blinkering ourselves against seeing the entire situation.

            • I wish I could be surprised that two more idiot males jumped to the first one’s defense.

              Let’s be clear about the situation leading up to the rape, because that’s what you all seem to think you’re talking about, however off topic from the original post and pointless it may be: An entitled little atavism decided he needed to stop being a virgin, because of how important he’s been told that is. He didn’t care who he hurt when he did it – apparently he thought that made it better, given his video and passed around comments.

              Nothing else is relevant. If it hadn’t been her, it would have been someone else. If it hadn’t been that day, it would have been another. This wasn’t some long planned out abduction and attack that was about the girl – it was a crime of opportunity, because he saw a chance to further his own interests, regardless of at what expense it might come, and took it.

              It’s the exact same mentality that shows up in rioting mobs that somehow always end up breaking into stores and stealing things, despite the store-owner having nothing to do with the supposed reason the mob is rioting. Given a chance to do something, and a plausible belief that you might be able to get away with what you want to do, you’ll do it. Where do you think the little beast got the idea that maybe he could get away with what he did? I’ll tell you – it comes from you jackasses and everyone like you, who says ‘well, she shouldn’t have…’, or ‘there’s plenty of blame to go around…’, or ‘it’s really the situation…”. He hears that and thinks “hey, maybe they’ll treat me gently because of they won’t see it all as being my fault.”

              Teenage drinking? It’s been going on since the days of Babylon and Ur. You won’t stop it, and in reality, you don’t even want to – You’re fine with it, because it provides a cover of deniability for the simple fact that the only person who needed better education on how to be ‘virtuous’ in this situation was the accursed rapist asshole. Apparently, you think he missed the day of where someone explicitly said to him “Oh, right, don’t rape. That’s wrong.” Except we don’t usually have to say that explicitly to people, because we tell them “hey, respect others and their choices. Keep your hands to yourself. Don’t break the laws.” Somewhere along the lines, this boy got the idea that there was an “unless…” or “except…” in those statements that let him get away with breaking them.

              … Nothing I say will convince you all that you’re part of the problem. You’re too self-righteous in your harrumphing about there being issues with the “situation” and her not being “virtuous” enough. But as I mentioned earlier, you are just as much a problem as the judge and his arguments about the boy coming from a good family, because you’re letting yourself be distracted, and in turn distracting others, from the fact that the boy was a gods-be-damned predator who showed his stripes when he saw an opportunity.

              You want to talk about the situation that gives rise to a predator like that existing? Then why, in the depths of hell, did neither of you decide to start talking about his parents and their parenting choices? About the situation that leads some one to think he can get away with openly confessing and circulating a video of his crimes? Slickwilly, at least, pointed out that we should be worrying about what is wrong with his friends, that they were sharing the video and comments around, instead of immediately going to the police.

              Leave the girl and her parents and her virtue and her judgement right the fuck out of this, because none of that really mattered. Not to the bastard that victimized her, at least – she just happened to be the best opportunity he had there that night.

              • I don’t think you really understand what people are saying about this, and are confusing the general with the specific.

                Nothing else is relevant.
                Actually, it is, if you care about being comprehensive in reducing these types of crimes.

                Besides which, you’re being an ass. As Alizia might say, I, of course, mean that only in the most humble and appreciative way…

              • Willem! We’ve got a live one! All of this writhing and bellowing about phantom propositions! This takes me back. It feels like home, really.

                Nothing I say will convince you all that you’re part of the problem.

                I can relate! Imagine if you were condemning the whole nudge-wink teenage drunken hookup culture which treats physical stimulation and exploitation as the highest goods, and someone were playing the contortionist (the sort of funny contortionist who contorts other people) twisting you into an obviously contrived straw man of your former self. You’d be so frustrated. You can hardly stand ordinary contradiction. Launching into emotional ad hominems and disregarding people’s points (as you inject new ones) most certainly won’t convince people, though. Unsubstantive moral fury against moral judgment, you’ll find, will work counter to your efforts more still.

                Consider the clown who attempts to mathematically disprove mathematics or logically disprove the foundations of logic! No, come to think of it, these sorts of harlequins earn massive followings…

                No wonder teenagers are raping each other these days.

              • Tim Hayes said “…” (Well, everything he said)

                Wow! We have not had a bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool progressive emotional shame fest in months… maybe since Chris was banned (Chris… is that you…?)

                This one has everything one would expect from a comment on the Huff-post, or Vogue. Ignore what was said, replace it with a narrative one can virtue signal by opposing, and attack that strawman! Throw in personal attacks and heap shame on the target when rational discussion fails you. Congrats! You are everything we have come to expect from a failed indoctrinating school system and biased media fake news. (hat tip: Men in Black)

                I was going to take your posts apart, sentence by sentence, and show all the rationalizations and illogical constructions you used. This is an ethics blog, dearie (look the term up) and emotional run-away primal screams count for naught. (Tim, like the now replaced Mushu in Mulan: “Dishonor! Dishonor on you, dishonor on your family, dishonor on your cow…”)

                I invited discussion. You did not discuss. Your point of view is self-righteous virtue signalling, and therefore everyone who disagrees with you is eevvuull. Boring.

                As such, you are beneath my notice and will not have the opportunity to correct your many flaws from my instruction.

                Dismissed.

  2. The judge seems to have gained his knowledge of sexual predation from reading pulp fiction. Many, many more rapes and other sexual assaults are committed by “friends” and other close acquaintances than in the type of scenario described by the judge. His assertions suggest a serious detachment from reality. This “kid” is dangerous and needs to go away for a long time, and I assure you it won’t be a good time.

  3. Unless I am mistaken what happened here is the boy is not being tried, or will not be tried, as an adult which is what prosecution wanted. He is still going to be punished, but as a juvenile.

    Since the real facts of the case cannot be known, and the complicity of the girl cannot be known, or their relationship, nor their general milieu, I place guilt on both parties. Not equally though. The girl (and her family) have complicity here. And the boy certainly does, too. The boy has more, but the girl shares it.

    Therefore, a punishment is necessary for the boy, but not one that destroys his life. In the best of all possible worlds, and in a healthy society, the girl would be ordered into counseling or something to that effect. The parents should be called up as well.

    Could not find any other articles about this aside from the Times and just one or two other sources.

    • Since the real facts of the case cannot be known, and the complicity of the girl cannot be known, or their relationship, nor their general milieu, I place guilt on both parties. Not equally though.

      The “real facts” in this case are can indeed be known, because the male rapists recorded the act. Some of the details cannot cannot be publicly known to protect the victim, but barring gross prosecutor misconduct in characterizing the video, what is publicly known is damning.

      Therefore, a punishment is necessary for the boy, but not one that destroys his life.

      We are not to “destroy his life” based on what is publicly known? If this is what the male is capable of at age 16, juvenile detention (which ends at 21), is simply not adequate to ensure public safety. In five years, we are to believe that this man, whose identity would be SEALED as if tried juvenile, would be let loose WITHOUT any public warning that he is a menace.

      That a boy who locked a girl in a basement and raped on video would not REPEAT such an act, given unsupervised released following juvenile detention?

      the girl would be ordered into counseling or something to that effect.

      KABOOM! My head exploded….

      WHAT BUSINESS DOES A COURT HAVE ORDERING THE VICTIM TO DO ANYTHING???

      The court can provide referrals to community resources, but the victim did NOT commit a crime, thus constitutionally, the court cannot “order” her to do anything.

      She probably even should use those resources, as she has a duty to herself to heal. However, she has no duty to court, and certainly not to her rapist, to heal, and certainly should not be burdened by the external coercion of the court.

      Any treatment she elects to receive should between her and her doctors. The court ORDERING the parent’s of her rapist to pay the bill and other damages, is another matter.

      • At times … I am amazed. The two of your are steeped, like ciruela pasas (boiled plums) in hyper-liberal categories. I can help you! I do appreciate your theatrical flourishes though!

        The boy is said to have recorded, in some form, their copulation. That in itself does not mean much since the thing that matters is the act itself. Certainly the record of it is reprehensible. But the time we live in is ultra-perverse. Nothing is known about how they got into that situation. But there is a good deal of anecdotal description, as there always is in such cases. It is the prosecution’s version of the events.

        I have no trust in prosecution necessarily, nor any good reason to have trust. Given the climate of today, and the hysteria of the day, anything is possible. (And I studied, in some depth, the Brock Turner case where Jack, if I may say so, also took the same line as he has taken here).

        You are basing your assessment on your *mood* in relation to it. I am completely opposed to sexual misconduct and I do not in any sense condone what the boy did, but I refuse to see this as anything but an incident of collusion. These two children, in the absence of parental supervision, got into a situation together. If you see this differenty I suggest you examine yourself.

        That is how I look at it. He has a larger responsibility as I said, but she shares it. Therefore, I do not believe in your ‘victim’ nonsense. I reject it absolutely. And so should you, and so should Jack. I suggest that both of you examine it in detail because it fits into distorted narratives, distorted interpretations, of the sexual situation. It fits into hyper-liberal goop and I’ll not be stuck in it myself.

        All this about ‘locking up’ and such I would take with grains of salt. It is the prosecution’s version. Closing the door is not a crime in and of itself. You are embellishing this with emotionalism.

        In five years, we are to believe that this man, whose identity would be SEALED as if tried juvenile, would be let loose WITHOUT any public warning that he is a menace.

        Let me put it to you this way. If I follow and am influenced by your emotionalized appeal, I would be obligated to accept all your suppositions about the case. But you do not have all the facts. You have a specific narrative. And I start from an assumption, or some predicates, that are different. If a girls puts herself into such a dangerous situation, and if she participates in it, and this girls certainly did, she sacrifices a large portion of the crie de victime. And again you know nothing of how involved or willing she was, nor if they had had other encounters before.

        I am sorry your head exploded. But it is a head of papier-mâché. Very common these days, and very reprehensible. Pick your pieces up and put yourself back together! 😉

        If what I suspect is true (more complicity than the prosecution has indicated) a responsible ‘court’ (especially for juveniles) would be guided by certain long-standing conventions about the conduct of minors and their sexuality. This would happen of course in a holistic culture with established mores that were agreed on. But everything in this situation indicates lack of parental involvement, training, responsibility, and ‘proper ethics’. The boy’s acts were bad, I admit this, but they were in no sense very atrocious given the general ambience. He should be punished, this I also admit. But his entire life SHOULD NOT be destroyed (as they set out to destroy Brock Turner’s life). If possible, a moral lesson should be drawn for all involved parties: the house owners, the parents, the children themselves.

        She probably even should use those resources, as she has a duty to herself to heal. However, she has no duty to court, and certainly not to her rapist, to heal, and certainly should not be burdened by the external coercion of the court.

        You are quite wrong, in fact. And the reason is because you are not seeing clearly. You see through an imposed, and arbitrary, lens. True, I cannot know much more about this situation, and also true I am relying on intuition and supposition, but her conduct itself likely indicates that she is carrying on as her own parents did, otherwise she’d not have been in this situation and she’d have had the inner formation to avoid it. Your ‘healing’ sob-story has little weight with me. It is sentimental. Please don’t cry you’ll make me cry!

        The girl should be severely punished by responsible adults for getting herself into this situation. You see, if you had a strong sense of honor, and if you demanded more of your women, you’d not have the attitude you do have. You are (I would suppose) a participant in a decadent and fallen culture. I advocate for something far more demanding.

        I admit to feeling bad when I slaughter *you plural* so thoroughly. But you always come back to life as if nothing happened! So, that makes me feel better.

        • Perhaps you have too much faith in a juvenile system which has its limits. Sixteen is old enough to normall be striking for all the adult privledges of 18=year old adulthood. This is not taing someoe’s car for a joyride or stealing a tv from a store during a riot. The juvenile system weights the severity of the crime and the risk of the criminal repeating the offense at any age level. I have met enough teens in their mid to late teens who COUNT ON gaming the system to avoid all penalties.

          (And on a pragmatic level 16-17 is old enough to become a parent and MUST become responsible to earn and care for another, there never is a guarantee that there is an elder generation or social agencies available to let a teen have a do-over on youthful mistakes. So if he is old enough to become a parent, to apprentice himself for a career, to drive various vehicles, why is he not old enough to be responsible for his own malice aforethought? Rhetorical: no. Teens want to rush toward adulthood, for college, for booze, but with that power comes responsibility for your actions. You cannot have one without the other, and the late teens brings the gradual introduction of both adult privilege and adult responsibility. Clearly, the fool failed this test on many levels. Coming from a good family cannot change that fact.

          The arrogance and lack of any conscience to spread the crime on media makes the fool a prime candidate to repeat the crime, so the warning and teaching opportunities of the juvenile system is rendered moot. A16+ there is a very small window for rehab, if one exists at all. If he entered the juvvie system or worse was labeled incompetent, he will be outside juvvie supervision in months. He sees nothing wrong with what he did, and he will just look for targets who won’t be smart enough to report him.

          I am a great believer in atonement and redemption, but the offender will not seek that without a personal understanding they messed up. Recording the sin, and bragging about it after, makes this not a youthful mistake like stealing sneakers but adult cruelty.

          You also seem to be having an emotional response to the concept of a mid to late teen being held responsible for more dark actions, defending a forethought assault crime as if it was stealing sneakers. After this comment In five years, we are to believe that this man, whose identity would be SEALED as if tried juvenile, would be let loose WITHOUT any public warning that he is a menace. You said ‘Let me put it to you this way. If I follow and am influenced by your emotionalized appeal, I would be obligated to accept all your suppositions about the case. But you do not have all the facts.
          I would like to point out: neither do you! You are reasoning based on reports from a long distance away, filtered from a very different philosophcal base and legal system. The US is big enough that juvvie guidelines can vary widely between Jersey and the state I live in, which is next door. Both vary from California, though they are similar under national laws. This is a crime that is almost guaranteed to get people emotional because of fear when this has happened or could happen to loved ones. The dumb judge, putting all blame on the victim is a remnant of the puritan blame the victim, making mistakes in no way justifies or excuses the assault. Abstract philosophical approaches are not in the first dozen reponses to crimes like that, and will not speak to a vast majority of the population. Don’t speak Klingon to an angry biker, its a waste of breath.

          About forcing the victim into treatment you say: ‘You are quite wrong, in fact. And the reason is because you are not seeing clearly. You see through an imposed, and arbitrary, lens. True, I cannot know much more about this situation, and also true I am relying on intuition and supposition, but her conduct itself likely indicates that she is carrying on as her own parents did, otherwise she’d not have been in this situation and she’d have had the inner formation to avoid it. Your ‘healing’ sob-story has little weight with me. It is sentimental. Please don’t cry you’ll make me cry!’
          Several probems appear in this. One: here, you have the moral and legal right to refuse any medical treatment. So the courts cannot and will not victimize the woman a second time since you say so. This is not an ‘imposed and arbitary lense,’ that is the US standard. It requires unusual court hearing circumstance, like related crime to even require medication. Compelling the victim is not going to happen. Two: you admit you are relying on intuition and supposition, but you often coe off as if you are mansplaining to people with the experience of the system you use supposition to criticize, My brother did joyrides and got a second chance, but one acquaintance of his was still young when he was put away for statutory rape of someone underage, later withsomeone who was slow but older. Three: your comment about healing sob story sentimentality is callous, and just as meaningless as ad hominem attacks to the issue of a crime deliberately recorded on camera. Victimology is too prominent for many areas, but that does not mean that the victim’s rights for self determination and healing should be negated. The extreme of igmoring the victim means you would treat all like criminals, for there is no compassion for the victim, only the sinner.

          The sinner gets compassion when they have worked for admission and atonement, its not a freebie from some aging judge. Redemption takes time and wisdom, not likely in that short window of juvvie. Rape I consider one of the larger and unforgivable crimes because it breaks autonomy and agency and safety, and that opinion dates long before ‘me too’ ever existed.

          • Thoughtful, thorough response: it is appreciated. [The ‘mansplaining’ term I must oppose. I have been influenced by Gertrude von le Fort and therefore I prefer to see myself as an intellectual traditional woman who will stake her life on saying what it is she sees!]

            Jack presents us with scenarios taken from cultural reporting and asks us to adjudicate them. His supposition is that there is a sort of ‘ethical standard’ which everyone must see and should see and that if these are applied society could or would be more ethical. So, the purpose of these exercise is to stimulate ‘ethical reasoning’. Yet in many of the cases he presents only a sketch of a case is offered. And that is true in this case. The actual and detailed fact of the case, were they known, might influence either of us to modify our judgments. This case specifically has been defined through the prosecutor’s narrative, and indeed it looks bad. I do not deny this. The boy should be punished, as a boy.

            As you have gathered — that is if you read what I write — you know that I am interested in meta-political and meta-social questions. My approach is not admired very much, this I recognize. [Let’s be honest: it is despised, hated & ridiculed: tant pis!]. I tend to see the examinations that go on here as being of ‘surface’ and, therefore, I imply that there is ‘depth’ which — again I imply this is I do not state it directly — is not seen and not recognized. So, I assert that looking at and adjudicating ‘surface’ is simply not enough to arrive at clarity about the things that go on in our present. Allow me to interject here the case of Brock Turner (the Stanford ‘rapist’) as an example. The case was presented on EA in much the same way if not in precisely the same way: bad, horrible man who committed an unforgivable act upon a defenseless victim-woman. I examined that case in some depth and what I found shocked me and also woke me up. What I found is that what really happened there was significantly different from what was said about it. I further noticed that the motive power behind the false-narrative that framed Brock Turner was the creation of hysterical American (Californian) women who were trying to advance their cause, whatever that cause is, through an hysterical enactment of hyper-punishment. I won’t rehearse the details and I had done this months back. The ‘victim’ was counseled by a specially-trained woman and, as I came to see the situation better, concocted a story which, in today’s climate, could not but work against Brock Turner. The purpose? Destroy him.

            In my view, this demonstrated a number of things, but specifically the ‘meta-social’ aspect of a sort of Marxian feminist rage. You might think that the purpose of the entire enactment was to punish a man for a sexual misdeed or a sexual crime. No. It has ‘meta-social’ and ‘meta-political’ motives that stand behind it and propel it. I think it is fair to say, and I say it, that a great deal of the manifold situations that we read about or that are presented by media-systems, all seem to have layers of meta-political and meta-social content in them. So, it is less the specific of the story presented and more what it represents and what it *means*. (That is how I see the Times’ journalistic thrust for example).

            So, I performed on this particular case, the one of the victim girl and her demonic rapist, a kind of inversion. I don’t mean to imply that this was spurious. I did it sincerely and even fairly. My statement is simple: I suspect there is more that lies behind this situation than is allowed to meet our eyes, and that if that were known, and if we were responsible for its adjudication, we would likely see that there is greater complicity between the participants. Therefore, the ‘absolute blame narrative’ and the hysterical desire to punish, would be modified. I know that I am engaging in supposition, and I know that my complex interpretations run against the grain of many who write here, but my efforts are not without a productive result, even if they are not understood.

            I suspect that in many cases of this sort that the court is not prepared nor is it capable of really getting to the heart of the issues here. The court can only do what the legal system allows or determines. What I mean to say is that it is an improper vehicle for the administration of real justice, as I would define it. The real issue here? Is how the parents of these children allowed for this situation to come about. These are larger, more relevant, more important, social and moral questions. I admit that the boy committed a serious offense. And I also admit that it appalls me (shocks, scandalizes). But I have begun to see that it is toward this sort of brutality that culture is tending. I think that the causes of this are meta-social and meta-political and these questions very much concern me. So, within that context of view I am supposing, and aware that i am supposing, that these children, their families, and their social milieu are deeply complicit in the evil (or simply ‘badness’ if you wish) that they are living.

            You see? These things result from choices made long ago. The surface is just a limited story. The actual story is different, more complex, more troubling. Nevertheless, I tend to believe that the ‘justice system’ and how such questions as these are viewed by general society, have been skewed to condemnation of the male by *angry women*. That is, women filled with bottomless, irrational anger and frustration. (Recall the national reaction to Brock Turner and the many levels of content that become visible there).

            From a ‘meta-social’ perspective I am very interested in this *female rage* and its primary tool: Marxian feminism. And it may surprise you that I do not see men as mere ‘victims’ of this Marxian-feminist rage. Men have failed women. And that is why I mentioned the need to be much harder and more demanding of ‘your women’. But this implies, naturally, that men be much more demanding and strict with themselves. You see, it is men that corrupt women. And the reasons why this corruption goes on is, in my view, nearly entirely a male failing. A man should see: that is your daughter there. That is what you are doing to her. That is what is done to her in the atmosphere of today. And a whole system participates in it. I refer of course to the porno-culture which has developed for specific purposes, and I write about this often. [And I recognize that here I have further inverted the meaning of the situation by expanding it into other fields of consideration and of valuation].

            In a proper, in a genuinely moral and ethical social context, both the boy and the girl would be brought very severely to task here, and their families as well. Who is and where is the ‘just judge’ who could adjudicate the entire situation adequately, fully? There is no just judge. Because all values have been subverted in a fallen and falling cultural situation. Yet with all that said, I still must stick to my base assertion that this minor should not be tried as an adult. In a larger social context what he did was not really so outrageous. I mean, it is ‘par for the course’ and is in this sense becoming normal. I had to look up the term ‘joyride’ [a fast and dangerous ride in a stolen vehicle] but I would say that in some sense the way people — kids in this case — relate to sexuality is not unlike a wild adventure in a stolen vehicle! (but this opens up into other vistas of conversation and consideration).

            Well? How did I do? 🙂

          • PS:

            I would like to point out: neither do you! You are reasoning based on reports from a long distance away, filtered from a very different philosophical base and legal system.

            I am in this sense reasoning from a similar distance as everyone else. But I would give special consideration to people who have teenaged children and have been through or are going through all the tsoris that entails. However, I am somewhat closer to a child’s age than most who write here. And I can recall — as if it was only yesterday — many different situations I found myself in or got myself in.

            As to a different philosophical system, definitely not. All my categories are hyper-European. And the ‘legal system’ of Latin America is — I say this sincerely — utterly ridiculous.

          • The two of your are steeped, like ciruela pasas (boiled plums) in hyper-liberal categories.

            This was the most important statement, and it goes over nearly every head here. That’s unfortunate, but there you have it. And this is why I am always in hot water. Like in the movie Falling Down when the guy says: “See, this is what I’m talking about!” (at 3:20): [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlzm7-gvTRg ] this is What I Am Talking About.

            In the larger scope of things the time has come to challenge, and to reverse, Hyper-Liberal Categories. This is largely all that I write about. And for sure it is misunderstood and misinterpreted, but it is also understood at least in some sense and feared. Because it mean a turn against categories that have been established (agreed to) within the Self. Does anyone get what I mean when I refer to ‘the Self’? I’ve gotten not one agreement, ever, that this is understood.

            I noticed the array of Hyper-Liberal Categories expressed here.

            Here you have the *ideological underpinning* that describes America and Americanism, and therefore the causality that has gone into creating our out-of-control present which will rise up — is rising up — to destroy what has been created, that which was based on Value. Again, the attack is multileveled but at the base it is an attack on the original demographic. The root of the struggle centers in displacement and dispossession. And there are arrays of effect that emanate out. And this is what I am ultimately called upon to explain.

            What I terrible position I am in because no one understands how determining, and how destructive, are these operative categories. I am *hated* because I challenge the starers to examine what is the object of their fixation. The *trance* holds their eyes affixed, and I disturb the trance.

            The larger questions hold and contain the smaller ones. Here I refer to the *acid* which I explained to John Burger in detail but for my efforts received nought but ‘dynamic silence’: the most articulate form of silence! It still reverberates around my ears . . .

    • The difference between a juvenile and an adult conviction in the US is massive. At most a juvenile conviction is capped at a certain age and usually results in no more than a few years. At the end of the sentence, the conviction is expunged. As an adult, in most states he’d be looking at most of a decade, and a felony conviction that follows him for life. No ability to own a gun, many employment opportunities denied because the licensing prohibits felons let alone the hesitancy to hire felons, and possibly no right to vote depending on the jurisdiction. There is a large disparity between states, but in some states a juvenile first degree rape conviction doesn’t include a lifetime sex offender registry.

  4. Well, it sounds like this “kid” with his high SAT scores and sociopathic tendencies is headed for a promising career in politics. He should seek out a spouse like Hillary who can be a valuable asset in silencing drunk girl conquests who might be an obstacle in his political career.

        • My immediate thought was Kennedy, Weiner, Clinton…..

          Reading those names* as a sentence gave me a mental picture I cannot get rid of without mental bleach.

          Yeeeecchhh

          *says the person whose screen name could bring to mind a certain bit of male anatomy after being involved in a cooking accident involving vegetable oil.

  5. I’m starting to think our judicial system needs a mechanism whereby an appeals court can overrule a lower court judge with extreme prejudice, with the result that all prior decisions made by that judge must be reviewed. Sure, it would be expensive, but some cases (like, for example, a judge making up his own definition of what rape is, or showing leniency to a rapist because he got a good score on the SAT) are so egregiously wrong-headed that it calls the judge’s mental capacity into question seriously enough to warrant such treatment.

    At the very least, he needs a medical evaluation, because he very well may have undiagnosed closed-head trauma or brain lesions. Unbelievable.

    • overrule a lower court judge with extreme prejudice

      We cannot go around whacking judges, no matter how addled their reasoning seems to be.

      I mean, we would run out of judges…

  6. “The judge said “the traditional case of rape” generally involved two or more males using a gun or weapon to corner a victim into an abandoned house, shed or shack, “and just simply taking advantage of the person as well as beating the person”

    That…is so specifically limiting of a definition that I have to question his fitness right there.

    I’m not trying to get into Michael Dukakis What-If scenarios here, but would this judge not consider one man breaking into a house (like his own) with a knife and threatening someone’s life to get her cooperation to be an actual rapist?

  7. 36. Victim Blindness, or “They/He/She/You should have seen it coming.”

    THIS STORY, and this discussion that followed it are precisely the things that inspired #36.
    Let’s stipulate that he committed a rape.
    Let’s stipulate that she did things that made it easier for him to commit a rape.

    He is exactly, precisely, equally at fault and equally reprehensible for committing a rape whether she did things to make it easier or not. He was always, at every single moment before it happened, in a position where he could have chosen not to commit a rape.

    Assuming that she made errors in judgement as well, she is culpable for those errors in judgement BUT NOT ONE SINGLE IOTA OF BLAME FOR THE RAPE BELONGS TO HER. None of it mitigates his decision to commit a rape.

    Maybe she could have prevented it from happening by making different choices that night. That would just be moral luck.

    Good Grief this really isn’t THAT hard, is it? Are we really considering the “maybe she shouldn’t have worn THAT dress” line of thought?

    –Dwayne

    • Are we really considering the “maybe she shouldn’t have worn THAT dress” line of thought?

      Despite repeated assertions to the contrary which suggest a great deal of engineered collective social blindness, no; nobody has said anything remotely like that.

      This is really starting to creep me out, and I always thought my suspicion that people are thickly-laden with planted emotional responses to trigger words was as paranoid as it gets. There’s no bottom. It’s turtles all the way down.

      There are four fingers. There are five lights. Put as many rats on my face as you want; I’ll never break!

  8. He is exactly, precisely, equally at fault and equally reprehensible for committing a rape whether she did things to make it easier or not.

    That’s essentially what several people have been saying. In a general sense, in addition to appropriately punishing someone for a crime, it can be prudent to see if there are other factors that can also be addressed to lessen the likelihood that other such crimes can/will be committed. We can’t, out of hand, dismiss the idea that some of those factors may be under the control of potential victims. This is not the same as blaming a victim or excusing a criminal.

    • Just saw an old, old (that is, with Michael Moriority as the ADA and nobody used cell phones) Law and Order with this exact plot. A high young woman was raped at a party by at least two young men while she was too smashed to remember exactly who was involved. The jury acquitted the assailants, who argued that they assumed “she wanted it” based on her dress, demeanor and rumored proclivities. The jury acquitted.

      • I can sorta/kinda understand that verdict on the basis of insufficient evidence to convict, if the victim was unable to identify her assailant(s). Citing “she wanted it” as a reason for acquittal sounds like TV making us more ignorant.

        –Dwayne

      • When you say “…with this exact plot.“, I’m assuming you mean the TV drama meshes with the case in your original post, with the jury taking the place of the idiot judge, as you note below.

        For a look at an extreme real life example of a “he deserved it” case, check out the murder case described in the first couple of posts here:
        https://markweinguitarlessons.com/forums/threads/jason-isbell-behind-decoration-day.61808/
        It would have certainly made an EA topic, had it occurred more recently. I was surprised at how recently it did happen. When I first heard of it, I thought it must have been the 1920’s or so (or even earlier, had a car not been mentioned), not 60 years later. A friend who is a distant relative of the victim (but from a considerably more upstanding, successful, and law-abiding branch of the family) clued me in on it .

  9. “That’s essentially what several people have been saying.”

    Agreed, but my reading of a couple of posts here (not by you) seems to imply otherwise.
    I’m open to being wrong on my interpretation and, for that matter, I hope I’m wrong.

    –Dwayne

    P.S. BTW, the “dress” line is a rhetorical device: an extreme, exaggerated example of something that more clearly illustrates the characteristic that one is trying to call attention to than a more reasonable example would. Obviously, no one literally said that.

    • P.S. BTW, the “dress” line is a rhetorical device: an extreme, exaggerated example of something that more clearly illustrates the characteristic that one is trying to call attention to than a more reasonable example would. Obviously, no one literally said that.

      I understood your intentions as rhetorical, yes. I even interpreted them in the general sense of lessening-the-rapists-guilt-due-to-the-victim’s-choices. I responded to you, full throated, with the assertion that nobody said anything in that figurative sense. Even Alizia’s most afield stance is one of doubt due to seeing too many cases wherein the initial telling of the facts is deliberately slanted. These days, it’s probably the strongest position of all of ours. Mine accepts the telling of the facts as a given for the purposes of discussion, accepts therefore that the perpetrator is a monster, but goes on to indict those factors of a decadent culture, now openly celebrated, which never fail to create monsters out of children who could have been otherwise. This was in agreement with and extension of Slickwilly’s initial, much-harangued comment. No doubt I’ve gone to war for an idea few would bother to defend, but I can’t stand to see a good idea treated badly – especially not when tendency to do so is a particular manifestation of the aggregate cause of our children becoming rapists. “Kids will be kids” when they’re allowed drunken orgies, but not when they’re rapists. I’m not, nobody is, excusing the latter. I’m excoriating the former as a causal agent to the former and manifold other social ills, unimaginable as that may sound. I’m such a prude!

      So, no, I assert that not one person has attempted to shift blame away from the criminal onto the victim for the sake of anything the victim is said to have done. I have asserted this outright more than once. Indeed, the attempt to make me deny an absurd, nonsensical charge this repeatedly reeks strongly of that stripe of tribal bullying (a “Big Lie”?) which I jokingly alluded to before and name, openly, now. (Bullies, in life, weren’t terribly interested in me, and I always found it disappointing.)

      Jack’s cited Law & Order episode, I expect, was one example of entertainment media planting an emotional cue. The victim is portrayed as crushed and clearly victimized, the perpetrators are portrayed as entitled and unrepentant, and the outcome is portrayed as technically correct but morally wrong. I had my fill of such plots many years ago. The messaging is heavy-handed, one-sided, and clear. And now, the effects on the people who didn’t reject them as I did are taking their toll. You’ve learned to feel that the evaluation of teenage behavior on the large scale in the context of the rotten fruits of that failed culture is a form of ruthless victimization, not in your mind but in your glands. Crinkled, pale men in black robes chant “Good, let the hate flow through you!”. If your mind isn’t what needs to change, I can’t save you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.