Judge sets aside rape charges so ex-athlete can "enjoy a college experience" - Polidicks

[quote=]During that time, the former East Longmeadow High School student [B]was ordered to avoid drugs and alcohol, submit to an evaluation for sex offender treatment and stay away from the two 18-year-old victims.[/B] Becker, a three-sport athlete at the school, [B]will be permitted to serve probation in Ohio,[/B] where he plans to attend college, and [B]will not be required to register as a sex offender. No conviction will appear on his record if he complies with the terms of his probation.[/B] [B]Police found no evidence of previous sexual assaults, and one of the victims told the court that she did not believe jail time was necessary,[/B] and the judge closely followed the sentence recommended by Becker’s attorney. Becker had been accused of sexually assaulting the two classmates at East Longmeadow High with his finger after a house party in April. A classmate told a school resource officer about a rumor circulating that a high school senior had assaulted two senior girls while they were intoxicated. The victims told the resource officer t[B]hey had been drinking [/B]while a classmate’s father was out of town but stayed to help Becker and the classmate clean up. Police said the young women went to an upstairs bedroom, [B]where they talked to Becker until they all three fell asleep.[/B][/quote] Sexual assault with both parties being drunk is a legal quagmire. Not counting the claimed totally unconscious one which is more clear cut, if both parties are consenting and both are drunk, how is the man the rapist and the women is the one raped when both cannot consent due to intoxication? Wouldn't they both be rapist and raped at the same time? How does the law take that into account without being sexist? Are men in that situation always the rapist and the women always the victim? And how would a worse sentence make this ruling better? Is rehabilitation the goal, or revenge? How does being labeled a sex offender and thus being [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/what-do-sex-offenders-have-to-do-on-probation-2013-10"]doomed to a shitty life with [B]obscene requirements not even murderers get[/B][/URL], [URL="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123500941182818821"]with[B] draconian living requirements that don't make a lick of difference[/B] and actually prohibit them from certain jobs due to the areas those places are near[/URL], [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/us/states-struggle-with-what-to-do-with-sex-offenders-after-prison.html"]forbidden to reintegrate into society and [B]basically never discharged depending on the state[/B][/URL] because of a [URL="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/658483"][B]registry that is completely ineffective at reducing rates of repeated offense[/B][/URL] actually a good outcome for society? You can't look at laws as black and white, this crime = this many years, because all crimes have different levels of severity and different contexts. Making the law black and white is why we have so many issues with the sex offender registry as it is, and such shitty drug laws and overpopulated prisons. If you've ever read Freakonomics, [URL="http://freakonomics.com/podcast/making-sex-offenders-pay-and-pay-and-pay-and-pay-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/"]there's a good podcast[/URL] about how ineffective the law is with dealing with sex offenders and how idiotic it can be. [URL="https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/01/us-more-harm-good"][B]Even the Human Rights Watch thinks this shit is inhumane[/B][/URL]. A lot of you guys are anti-death penalty but I bet a lot of the offenders would rather face lethal injection than live with their name on that list. The empirical data for number of suicides of sex offenders is sorely lacking, piecing together the [URL="http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/resource_jails_prisons.pdf"]rates of suicides of pre-trial (7.5 times the normal population) and sentenced prisoners (6 times)[/URL],[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16040578"] a rate of suicide of child sex offenders (183 times the normal rate of suicide from this sample of "sex only" offenses)[/URL] , [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22661392"]this sample population with 14% of sex offenders attempting suicide compared to 3.7% of the regular population[/URL] and [url=http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/publications/federal-probation-journal/federal-probation-journal-september-2009]this excellent article from the Federal Probation Journal that I highly recommend at least skimming through[/url] (page 83, New Defendants, New Responsibilities: Preventing Suicide among Alleged Sex Offenders in the Federal Pretrial System) shows that suicide rates for sex offenders are much higher than the regular population and even higher than other crimes. So the judge spared this guy's life basically. Rape is bad, yeah. No debating that. But the world isn't black and white, and [URL="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/"][B]sex offenders can be rehabilitated and are not a lost cause, they do not have high recidivism rates compared to other criminals.[/B][/URL] The guy is already undergoing sex offender treatment, is forbidden to be near those two women, and has to stay away from drugs and alcohol and is on strict probation, which if you've heard the stories from can range from [URL="http://www.centralmaine.com/2012/01/30/sex-offenderssuicide-raisesquestionsabout-treatment_2012-01-29/"]helpful to deadly[/URL]. Putting him on the sex offender list is not going to help either the two victims or rehabilitate him, and he is not a danger to the public. Unless you have a hate boner for revenge and fucking up people's lives for an inflexible dogmatic approach to justice the outcome here seems fair.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;50943883]Sexual assault with both parties being drunk is a legal quagmire. Not counting the claimed totally unconscious one which is more clear cut, if both parties are consenting and both are drunk, how is the man the rapist and the women is the one raped when both cannot consent due to intoxication? Wouldn't they both be rapist and raped at the same time? How does the law take that into account without being sexist? Are men in that situation always the rapist and the women always the victim? And how would a worse sentence make this ruling better? Is rehabilitation the goal, or revenge? How does being labeled a sex offender and thus being [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/what-do-sex-offenders-have-to-do-on-probation-2013-10"]doomed to a shitty life with [B]obscene requirements not even murderers get[/B][/URL], [URL="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123500941182818821"]with[B] draconian living requirements that don't make a lick of difference[/B] and actually prohibit them from certain jobs due to the areas those places are near[/URL], [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/us/states-struggle-with-what-to-do-with-sex-offenders-after-prison.html"]forbidden to reintegrate into society and [B]basically never discharged depending on the state[/B][/URL] because of a [URL="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/658483"][B]registry that is completely ineffective at reducing rates of repeated offense[/B][/URL] actually a good outcome for society? You can't look at laws as black and white, this crime = this many years, because all crimes have different levels of severity and different contexts. Making the law black and white is why we have so many issues with the sex offender registry as it is, and such shitty drug laws and overpopulated prisons. If you've ever read Freakonomics, [URL="http://freakonomics.com/podcast/making-sex-offenders-pay-and-pay-and-pay-and-pay-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/"]there's a good podcast[/URL] about how ineffective the law is with dealing with sex offenders and how idiotic it can be. [URL="https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/01/us-more-harm-good"][B]Even the Human Rights Watch thinks this shit is inhumane[/B][/URL]. A lot of you guys are anti-death penalty but I bet a lot of the offenders would rather face lethal injection than live with their name on that list. The empirical data for number of suicides of sex offenders is sorely lacking, piecing together the [URL="http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/resource_jails_prisons.pdf"]rates of suicides of pre-trial (7.5 times the normal population) and sentenced prisoners (6 times)[/URL],[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16040578"] a rate of suicide of child sex offenders (183 times the normal rate of suicide from this sample of "sex only" offenses)[/URL] , [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22661392"]this sample population with 14% of sex offenders attempting suicide compared to 3.7% of the regular population[/URL] and [url=http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/publications/federal-probation-journal/federal-probation-journal-september-2009]this excellent article from the Federal Probation Journal that I highly recommend at least skimming through[/url] (page 83, New Defendants, New Responsibilities: Preventing Suicide among Alleged Sex Offenders in the Federal Pretrial System) shows that suicide rates for sex offenders are much higher than the regular population and even higher than other crimes. So the judge spared this guy's life basically. Rape is bad, yeah. No debating that. But the world isn't black and white, and [URL="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/"][B]sex offenders can be rehabilitated and are not a lost cause, they do not have high recidivism rates compared to other criminals.[/B][/URL] The guy is already undergoing sex offender treatment, is forbidden to be near those two women, and has to stay away from drugs and alcohol and is on strict probation, which if you've heard the stories from can range from [URL="http://www.centralmaine.com/2012/01/30/sex-offenderssuicide-raisesquestionsabout-treatment_2012-01-29/"]helpful to deadly[/URL]. Putting him on the sex offender list is not going to help either the two victims or rehabilitate him, and he is not a danger to the public. Unless you have a hate boner for revenge and fucking up people's lives for an inflexible dogmatic approach to justice the outcome here seems fair.[/QUOTE] Thank you for this strong, well-reasoned argument based on fair criticisms of the ineffectual and potentially inhumane sex offender registry laws as opposed to one arguing that molesting an unconscious girl "really isn't that bad." You've made some very solid points here, and I'll be considering this critique moving forward.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50939903]A "life lesson?" A life lesson about [I]what?[/I] Some dude molested them while they were unconscious. That's not just "boys being boys," that's straight up sexual assault. You're victim blaming unconscious girls, lmao.[/QUOTE] And you're refusing to acknowledge that there's this thing called "lust" which is amplified massively when combined with intoxicated stupidity. The guy made a mistake, maybe signals were read wrong or his creep levels gave in - I don't know, but seeing as barely anything happened and nobody got hurt then why ruin a guy's life for it? Hell, my girlfriend told me yesteday that she'd cheated on me after I left her at a party - told me she didn't know why she became "so easy" when she got blind drunk. Shit happens, and as long as only feelings were hurt then might as well let it go and carry on.

[QUOTE=Tools;50944681]And you're refusing to acknowledge that there's this thing called "lust" which is amplified massively when combined with intoxicated stupidity. The guy made a mistake, maybe signals were read wrong or his creep levels gave in - I don't know, but seeing as barely anything happened and nobody got hurt then why ruin a guy's life for it? Hell, my girlfriend told me yesteday that she'd cheated on me after I left her at a party - told me she didn't know why she became "so easy" when she got blind drunk. Shit happens, and as long as only feelings were hurt then might as well let it go and carry on.[/QUOTE] I could not disagree more. It might be one thing if both parties had been awake and consenting, but he molested at least one unconscious girl, and he tried to justify it by saying that he didnt do anthing wrong because she didnt stop him. That is rape, and he is a sexual predator. Alcohol is not a free pass to rape somebody any more than it is to commit any other crime. Drinking impairs your judgment, yes, and yet we should (and do) still hold drunk people accountable for their actions when they endanger or harm people, such as with drinking and driving. Why is sexual assault any different? Make any arguments you like about our sex offender laws being too harsh, but don't sit there and tell me that molesting an unconscious girl is tolerable behavior.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;50943883]Sexual assault with both parties being drunk is a legal quagmire. [/QUOTE] Excellent post! [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50940603]A couple years in prison and being added to the sex offender registry[/QUOTE] In my opinion, 3 months in jail would be more appropriate, seeing the circumstances. This is note a case where the victim is left with any mental or physical damage or anything, why destroy the guys life? [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50945330] -That is rape, -sexual predator. [/QUOTE] These are turning into buzzwords.

[QUOTE=taipan;50947289]Excellent post! In my opinion, 3 months in jail would be more appropriate, seeing the circumstances. This is note a case where the victim is left with any mental or physical damage or anything, why destroy the guys life? These are turning into buzzwords.[/QUOTE] How are those buzzwords, especially in this context? Rape: [quote]unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.[/quote] Rapist: [quote]A person who commits rape.[/quote] Sexual Predator [quote]a person who has committed a sexually violent offense[/quote] At least one unconscious woman, physically incapable of consent or resistance, was sexually violated. That is rape. The man who did it is a rapist. Rape is, by nature and definition, a sexually violent offense. Rapists are sexual predators. What is the problem here?

[quote=Article]“We all made mistakes when we were 17, 18, 19 years old, and we shouldn’t be branded for life with a felony offense and branded a sex offender,” Rooke said. “Putting this kid in jail for two years would have destroyed this kid’s life.” [/quote] Woops, silly me, I'm just a dumb 18 year old boy who doesn't know any better than to rape unconscious women! BTW since this guy doesn't seem to realize, going to jail for two years at 18 is a pretty good deal. They could've put him in for 20 years. [I]That[/I] would ruin his life. Getting out of prison at 20 is actually a super lenient sentence.

[QUOTE=Kylel999;50947633]Woops, silly me, I'm just a dumb 18 year old boy who doesn't know any better than to rape unconscious women![/QUOTE] You overestimate the human mind's abilities.

You can sit and criticize the intent, purpose, and execution of the sex offender registration, because it is fucked up, but you can't outright say that this 18-year-old young adult did not rape someone. Because he raped someone. He's a sex offender.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50947855]You can sit and criticize the intent, purpose, and execution of the sex offender registration, because it is fucked up, but you can't outright say that this 18-year-old young adult did not rape someone. Because he raped someone. He's a sex offender.[/QUOTE] We are not denying that he raped someone. By definition, yes, he's committed a sex crime. What we are saying is that he shouldn't be on the life-ruining sex offender list, and the leniency the judge gave was justified.

I'd say that the leniency to put him on a sex offender list when the registry itself is so inherently flawed may be justifiable, yes. But him not receiving any significant punishment at all is not. He was charged for the act. He should, at the very least, serve jail time.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50947955]I'd say that the leniency to put him on a sex offender list when the registry itself is so inherently flawed may be justifiable, yes. But him not receiving any significant punishment at all is not. He was charged for the act. He should, at the very least, serve jail time.[/QUOTE] Well, considering jail is a pretty bad way to deal with criminals I disagree. If you punish this guy, there's a chance you'll make him even worse. He's likely to lose trust in society or not reconsider his actions if he's imprisoned, not to mention that suicide rates among recently-released offenders are higher than average.

Then I'd like to see what sort of proposition there is for punishment. Because not serving punishment because of risk of them "coming back worse" doesn't make a whole lot of sense without the presence of jail time as an option. Not only that, but it sets a dangerous precedent for potential sex offenders who will realize that if they are discrete enough or were drunk enough, that they'll get off without consequence. I can admit that the prison system is flawed. I can admit that the sex offender registration is flawed. I cannot accept that a sex offender is let off without so much as a slap on the wrist.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50948034]Then I'd like to see what sort of proposition there is for punishment. Because not serving punishment because of risk of them "coming back worse" doesn't make a whole lot of sense without the presence of jail time as an option. Not only that, but it sets a dangerous precedent for potential sex offenders who will realize that if they are discrete enough or were drunk enough, that they'll get off without consequence. I can admit that the prison system is flawed. I can admit that the sex offender registration is flawed. I cannot accept that a sex offender is let off without so much as a slap on the wrist.[/QUOTE] The point is, punishment doesn't always work. I'm not saying there shouldn't be anything done about it, but I'd never consider a form of "punishment" to do the job.

Label it as a "consequence" then.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50948065]Label it as a "consequence" then.[/QUOTE] Well, not all "consequences" do their job, then. Besides, a dangerous precedent can also be set through these "consequences". If you give him jail time, you can make others think "Hmm, he was able to serve his sentence? Jail time must not be so bad!", or you can make others think "Fucking asshole-ish government! I'm gonna go show them that jail time isn't an effective deterrent by committing a crime!"

You picked a very weird argument against prison when there are like tons of better reasons why prison doesn't work.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50948119]You picked a very weird argument against prison when there are like tons of better reasons why prison doesn't work.[/QUOTE] The one about dangerous precedents? I was just countering what you said in the post before. There are many reasons I don't support prison, that's not the only one.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50948076]Well, not all "consequences" do their job, then. Besides, a dangerous precedent can also be set through these "consequences". If you give him jail time, you can make others think "Hmm, he was able to serve his sentence? Jail time must not be so bad!", or you can make others think "Fucking asshole-ish government! I'm gonna go show them that jail time isn't an effective deterrent by committing a crime!"[/QUOTE] I don't think "you're not going to be sentenced to death in jail" would exactly count as a "dangerous precedent". Since they would still have to go to jail and have that on their records. Nor is "the government sentences people to jail to stop crime? Fuck them, I'm going to commit a crime so I can be sent to jail [I]just to spite them[/I]". Hell, that isn't even logical in the slightest. You'd only have to worry about that from people who either have severe mental issues or have nothing left to live for and have no empathy. Because those types of people would end up doing something crazy anyway.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50947550] How are those buzzwords, especially in this context? -Rape: -Rapist: -Sexual Predator [/QUOTE] Yes by definition they are used in the correct context. But I find them way to strong to describe the situation sketched in the article. Especially the word "Sexual Predator" just seems so out of place and invented my media company's to make their headlines more sensational. They just slap them on everything. Meanwhile the actual meaning of the words shift. Resulting in everything that has anything to do with unwanted sexual acts needing the words Sexual Predator and Rape in them to gather clicks and views. Its like people now say: I hate ice cream instead of I dislike ice cream. While hate used to be a word that describes something much more excessive than dislike. This results in everybody being a rapist, and everybody being a Sexual Predator. No matter if they touched a friends butt or violently raped someone off the street. They all need the same sentence. Just the words [B]rape[/B] in this thread coupled with [B]short sentence[/B] is enough to get Facepunchers riled up against the judge, without even considering the circumstances. This worries me.