4 ms·

If these guys wanted their reputations intact, maybe they shouldn't have sexually assaulted an incapacitated minor.

• vacri 14y ago
  You're implying that they're not minors themselves.
  • RobotCaleb 14y ago
    Other than the part where we don't typically release the names of minors, what's your point?
    • vacri 14y ago
      So we're engaging in the double-standard where minors make superior victims for the tabloids due to their immature status, but as perpetrators we're willing to try them as adults? The fact that minors have greater legal protection isn't because they're cute little kiddies, but because it's generally accepted that their decision-making isn't as mature. You get a bit more leeway for bad decisions when you're young - hell, in my state, people under 10 years of age simply cannot be tried for murder. Given your combative 'screw them even if they're minors' tone, would you really support trying minors as adults?
      • tatsuke95 14y ago
        I don't believe in an invisible line of maturity at 18 years old, no. If it were up to me, I'd decide it case by case, not by some blanket law. But that's pretty unmanageable. These were not kids. They were 17, committed a serious crime then bragged about it. Then they got their names mentioned in public by a victim who feels like this destroyed a part of her youth. I feel no pity that she may have found a way to return the favour.
        • vacri 14y ago
          So if 17 isn't a minor in your eyes, what's the point of referring to it as a crime against a minor, since the victim was also 17? The point I'm making is that the guy I was responding to was trying to have his cake and eat it too.
  • recursive 14y ago
    How so?
    • vacri 14y ago
      It's phrased such that the victim is painted as a minor, and therefore less able to make mature decisions, but no such leeway is given to the perpetrators - implying that they're not minors.
• chrischen 14y ago
  No one said those guys weren't irresponsible and immature as well.