Page 1 of 10
#5
While I feel really bad for this girl, I can't help but take issue with this kind of public shaming that bypasses any sort of legal action. It's just another form of vigilante justice.
It was my privilege
#6
^I may have understood things wrong, but she has sent this video to the Police. From what I gather this was the only way she could get the law involved, because of the length of time that had passed, or something.
#8
Damn this is too awkward and painful to watch. I couldn't even make it halfway.
BOOM-SHAKALAKALAKA-BOOM-SHAKALAKUNGA
#9
Quote by Baby Joel
^I may have understood things wrong, but she has sent this video to the Police. From what I gather this was the only way she could get the law involved, because of the length of time that had passed, or something.


It doesn't matter if she sent it to the police. The problem is that she used her full name and workplace in the video and posted it publicly online. The fact that the teacher is guilty doesn't matter. This girl effectively denied her due process.
It was my privilege
#11
Quote by StewieSwan
It doesn't matter if she sent it to the police. The problem is that she used her full name and workplace in the video and posted it publicly online. The fact that the teacher is guilty doesn't matter. This girl effectively denied her due process.


it tends to happen when the "due process" is notorious for mishandling justice that victims will attempt that justice themselves.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#12
Quote by Eastwinn
it tends to happen when the "due process" is notorious for mishandling justice that victims will attempt that justice themselves.



Uh, ok?
It was my privilege
#13
A female student having 'relations' with a female teacher?

Niiiiiceeee.


Quote by StewieSwan
While I feel really bad for this girl, I can't help but take issue with this kind of public shaming that bypasses any sort of legal action. It's just another form of vigilante justice.


But Batman is a vigilante o.O
When I was eleven I broke the patio window and my mother sued me... She's always been a very aggressive litigator.
#14
Good for her.

No one gives a fucck about rape victims, and most of the time it has to be taken into their own hands. I'm glad she was able to do this video.
#15
I approve of the idea behind why she did this, but isn't it illegal to record somebody without their consent - especially to then put it on the internet/in a public place?
Hey, look. Sigs are back.
#16
Quote by DisarmGoliath
I approve of the idea behind why she did this, but isn't it illegal to record somebody without their consent - especially to then put it on the internet/in a public place?

no this is america not nazi germany/airstrip one/the uk.
#17
Quote by StewieSwan
While I feel really bad for this girl, I can't help but take issue with this kind of public shaming that bypasses any sort of legal action. It's just another form of vigilante justice.

She mentions that the statute of limitations has expired and so the legal avenue is unavailable. If that's true, she hasn't really denied her due process, the legal system has.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#18
Quote by DisarmGoliath
I approve of the idea behind why she did this, but isn't it illegal to record somebody without their consent - especially to then put it on the internet/in a public place?


There isn't a law stating it's illegal, but it can't be used in court as evidence in the UK.

Quote by Weaponized
no this is america not nazi germany/airstrip one/the uk.


In 12 states it's illegal without consent.
#19
Quote by Lemoninfluence
She mentions that the statute of limitations has expired and so the legal avenue is unavailable. If that's true, she hasn't really denied her due process, the legal system has.



Bullshit. She had 16 years to report it and she failed to do so.
It was my privilege
#20
Quote by Lemoninfluence
She mentions that the statute of limitations has expired and so the legal avenue is unavailable. If that's true, she hasn't really denied her due process, the legal system has.

actually statutes of limitations are part of due process. the victim is still denying due process
#21
Quote by StewieSwan
Bullshit. She had 16 years to report it and she failed to do so.

And because 16 years has passed, it's just fine for her to get away with it consequence free?

The amount of people who keep quiet about sexual abuse is staggering. In the UK we've got investigations of allegations of sexual abuse from 30-40 years ago because victims felt like they wouldn't be taken seriously or because the abuser would be protected by those around them.

It's not inconceivable that it's taken her 16 years to build up the courage to be able to confront her abuser, only to find out that she's essentially been given a free pass by the authorities.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#23
So what do you think it was? Diddling the inverse lady-pickle or like full on strap on in the butthole action?
BOOM-SHAKALAKALAKA-BOOM-SHAKALAKUNGA
#24
Quote by Lemoninfluence
And because 16 years has passed, it's just fine for her to get away with it consequence free?

well that's the law, yeah
Quote by Lemoninfluence

The amount of people who keep quiet about sexual abuse is staggering. In the UK we've got investigations of allegations of sexual abuse from 30-40 years ago because victims felt like they wouldn't be taken seriously or because the abuser would be protected by those around them.

and how do you even begin to find evidence for cases that old? sure some evidence will be available but statutes of limitations exist to protect people
Quote by Lemoninfluence

It's not inconceivable that it's taken her 16 years to build up the courage to be able to confront her abuser, only to find out that she's essentially been given a free pass by the authorities.

it's also not inconceivable that human beings deserve due process
#25
Quote by Lemoninfluence
And because 16 years has passed, it's just fine for her to get away with it consequence free?


Well yeah, that's kinda the point of a statute of limitations.



The amount of people who keep quiet about sexual abuse is staggering. In the UK we've got investigations of allegations of sexual abuse from 30-40 years ago because victims felt like they wouldn't be taken seriously or because the abuser would be protected by those around them.


So what? Being afraid doesn't make you exempt from the rules that everyone else has to follow.


It's not inconceivable that it's taken her 16 years to build up the courage to be able to confront her abuser, only to find out that she's essentially been given a free pass by the authorities.



See above

Also, she could have told her parents.
It was my privilege
#26
Wow, this whole situation blows. And there's no way I'm gonna be able to watch that video.
Each of us a failed state in stark relief
Against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.


My Soundcloud
My music, paino, guitar and otherwise - Updated SOMETIMES


DeviantArt
Please watch, fave and comment
#27
Quote by StewieSwan
Well yeah, that's kinda the point of a statute of limitations.

The point of statute of limitations is to protect people from having to defend cases that are so old that evidence to disprove a claim will be difficult to find. It's not that, after a certain time, it becomes ok that you did something, it's way of managing the practicalities of legal action.

She doesn't deny what she did. If we were talking about an allegation which she denied, I'd have more sympathy for her. But she doesn't.

She's not facing prison, she stepped down from working in a role where she regularly has authority over students who may be facing the exact situation she inflicted on a student. If nothing else, she's unfit for the job.

So what? Being afraid doesn't make you exempt from the rules that everyone else has to follow.

...

Also, she could have told her parents.

It's not that black and white, especially with things like sexual assault. In many of those cases and in this one, the victims were particularly vulnerable and the abusers were in a position of power/authority. Having blanket limitations doesn't really take into account the circumstances of each incident.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#28
Quote by snipelfritz
So what do you think it was? Diddling the inverse lady-pickle or like full on strap on in the butthole action?


hot karl
#29
Quote by Malchius
There isn't a law stating it's illegal, but it can't be used in court as evidence in the UK.


In 12 states it's illegal without consent.



Yeah, I was gonna say I think it's illegal in some states, but in others I believe you are allowed to record phone conversations that occur on your phone without consent. Could be wrong though.
#30
Quote by Lemoninfluence
The point of statute of limitations is to protect people from having to defend cases that are so old that evidence to disprove a claim will be difficult to find. It's not that, after a certain time, it becomes ok that you did something, it's way of managing the practicalities of legal action.


Yeah, no shit, but the only relevant point is that you can't be tried for a crime that is beyond the statute of limitations.


She's not facing prison, she stepped down from working in a role where she regularly has authority over students who may be facing the exact situation she inflicted on a student. If nothing else, she's unfit for the job.



It's still vigilante justice to go after someone because you feel like the legal system failed you. Additionally, it's a violation of privacy to do what this girl did. She is endangering the teacher/principle by making accusations of heinous crimes and revealing her personal information on the internet. This shit is serious.

It's not that black and white, especially with things like sexual assault. In many of those cases and in this one, the victims were particularly vulnerable and the abusers were in a position of power/authority. Having blanket limitations doesn't really take into account the circumstances of each incident.


It is that black and white.
It was my privilege
#31
Quote by StewieSwan
Yeah, no shit, but the only relevant point is that you can't be tried for a crime that is beyond the statute of limitations.

statute of limitations don't protect you from social consequences of abusing people. She's not facing criminal charges, she's facing social pressure to step down from a position of power after she admitted to abusing authority to molest someone under her care.

It's still vigilante justice to go after someone because you feel like the legal system failed you. Additionally, it's a violation of privacy to do what this girl did. She is endangering the teacher/principle by making accusations of heinous crimes and revealing her personal information on the internet. This shit is serious.


It is that black and white.

Fine, it's that black and white. The statute of limitation is in effect, she's facing no criminal charges. Instead she's just been exposed as a confessed child molester and has stepped down from her job in a school. I don't condone any physical violence against her, but I don't believe she should be free from any and all consequences of her actions such as losing her job.

We're done here apparently unless we want to berate a victim for falling foul of a flaw in the legal system. And if we're that bothered about due process, the abuser can sue her for defamation.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#32
Quote by Lemoninfluence
statute of limitations don't protect you from social consequences of abusing people. She's not facing criminal charges, she's facing social pressure to step down from a position of power after she admitted to abusing authority to molest someone under her care.


That could easily have been accomplished without posting it all over the internet. Try again.


Fine, it's that black and white. The statute of limitation is in effect, she's facing no criminal charges. Instead she's just been exposed as a confessed child molester and has stepped down from her job in a school. I don't condone any physical violence against her, but I don't believe she should be free from any and all consequences of her actions such as losing her job.


See above

We're done here apparently unless we want to berate a victim for falling foul of a flaw in the legal system. And if we're that bothered about due process, the abuser can sue her for defamation.


It's not a flaw in the system. The flaw was that she didn't report it when she was 12, or 13, or 14, or 15, or 16, or 17, or 18, or 19, or 20, or 21, or 22, or 23, or 24, or 25, or 26, or 27.

Look, I got zero love for this teacher, but I'm concerned with this growing trend of internet shaming people when the legal system doesn't give you the result you want.
It was my privilege
#33
Quote by StewieSwan
It's not a flaw in the system. The flaw was that she didn't report it when she was 12, or 13, or 14, or 15, or 16, or 17, or 18, or 19, or 20, or 21, or 22, or 23, or 24, or 25, or 26, or 27.


It's flaw in the system in that the system doesn't take into consideration the mental effort it takes to confront your abuser. It makes allowances for discovering that a crime has been committed, but not for things like coming to terms that it wasn't your fault or finding out that the person is still a danger to others.

Look, I got zero love for this teacher, but I'm concerned with this growing trend of internet shaming people when the legal system doesn't give you the result you want.

If the legal system had been involved and she'd admitted the abuse, she'd have been named publicly anyway. But the legal system didn't get involved, it was too busy saying 'tough titties, the passage of time means your abuser will face no consequences'.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#34
Good job ignoring the most important point in that entire post.


Quote by Lemoninfluence
It's flaw in the system in that the system doesn't take into consideration the mental effort it takes to confront your abuser. It makes allowances for discovering that a crime has been committed, but not for things like coming to terms that it wasn't your fault or finding out that the person is still a danger to others.


And getting rid of it would not take into consideration evidence tampering, unreliable accounts, and even character reformation.


If the legal system had been involved and she'd admitted the abuse, she'd have been named publicly anyway. But the legal system didn't get involved, it was too busy saying 'tough titties, the passage of time means your abuser will face no consequences'.


She'd be named, sure, but she'd have received due process and the extent of her shaming wouldn't be international like it is now. It's hardly the same thing.
It was my privilege
#35
Public shaming isn't a new thing by a long shot.

There isn't a statute of limitation on child molestation in California, not for the past 40 years.

edit: To be clear, they removed the statute of limitation on child molestation in the late 80s or early 90s so that even cases that had exceeded the previous limitation could be prosecuted. That kind of backfired, so they instituted this thing where the limitation is 10 years or within one year of reporting the abuse after any amount of time. I think last year they removed the limitation completely again.
Last edited by MakinLattes at Jan 20, 2014,
#36
Quote by StewieSwan
Yeah, no shit, but the only relevant point is that you can't be tried for a crime that is beyond the statute of limitations.


It's still vigilante justice to go after someone because you feel like the legal system failed you. Additionally, it's a violation of privacy to do what this girl did. She is endangering the teacher/principle by making accusations of heinous crimes and revealing her personal information on the internet. This shit is serious.


It is that black and white.


I see the term 'rape apologist' used here on a semi-regular basis, and in general feel it's used inappropriately and without basis.

In this case however, you seem to fit the appellation quite nicely.

Freedom from legal action doesn't mean freedom from all consequences. As long as the taping and subsequent release wasn't illegal, this is perfectly acceptable and in fact laudatory, IMO.

There is no legal right against the truth.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#37
Quote by StewieSwan
Good job ignoring the most important point in that entire post.


Fine... It could be done in other ways, but it wasn't. It could also have been plastered over the front page of a newspaper and nobody would have batted an eyelid.

And getting rid of it would not take into consideration evidence tampering, unreliable accounts, and even character reformation.


yes it would, those things are all taken into account in a normal trial. Witnesses can give unreliable testimony minutes after an accident, but juries are expected to deal with that on a regular basis. Evidence can be tampered with during the time between the offence and collection, or even between collection and trial.

These are all issues that are addressed in the course of a normal trial. All that would need to be added is a warning to the jury highlighting the difficulties of a case from long ago.

She'd be named, sure, but she'd have received due process and the extent of her shaming wouldn't be international like it is now. It's hardly the same thing.


It would be less of a story for sure, but it's the fact that she's escaped justice while admitting doing something that constitutes an offence which has made the story worthy of note. Not because someone made a youtube video about it.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#39
Quote by MakinLattes
Public shaming isn't a new thing by a long shot.

There isn't a statute of limitation on child molestation in California, not for the past 40 years.

edit: To be clear, they removed the statute of limitation on child molestation in the late 80s or early 90s so that even cases that had exceeded the previous limitation could be prosecuted. That kind of backfired, so they instituted this thing where the limitation is 10 years or within one year of reporting the abuse after any amount of time. I think last year they removed the limitation completely again.

Section 801.1

Notwithstanding any other limitation of time described
in this chapter, prosecution for a felony offense described in
Section 261, 286, 288, 288.5, 288a, or 289, or Section 289.5, as
enacted by Chapter 293 of the Statutes of 1991 relating to
penetration by an unknown object, that is alleged to have been
committed when the victim was under the age of 18 years, may be
commenced any time prior to the victim's 28th birthday.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=799-805

After a quick google, that's what I found. So it appears that she's just missed it.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#40
Quote by Arby911
I see the term 'rape apologist' used here on a semi-regular basis, and in general feel it's used inappropriately and without basis.

In this case however, you seem to fit the appellation quite nicely.


You forgot to tell me I hate women and probably gays, too. I'm basically a nazi, really. You got me, good job.

I really hate how hard it is to have discussions about things of this nature without morons (you) pulling this tired, old trick. Because I value our justice system and don't want to crucify every person that has been accused of rape I become a rape apologist? yeah, ok


Freedom from legal action doesn't mean freedom from all consequences.


Sure, but those consequences must stay within the law, and even if they do, that's not always enough justification. The problem with this kind of vigilante justice is that it assumes guilt right off the bat. Can you not see why that could be a problem?

As long as the taping and subsequent release wasn't illegal, this is perfectly acceptable and in fact laudatory, IMO.


Quote by MakinLattes
It's illegal to record phone conversations without the consent of both parties in California.


Well then.


Quote by Lemoninfluence
Fine... It could be done in other ways, but it wasn't. It could also have been plastered over the front page of a newspaper and nobody would have batted an eyelid.


"It could be done the right way, but it wasn't"


Yeh, that's my point.

yes it would, those things are all taken into account in a normal trial. Witnesses can give unreliable testimony minutes after an accident, but juries are expected to deal with that on a regular basis. Evidence can be tampered with during the time between the offence and collection, or even between collection and trial.

These are all issues that are addressed in the course of a normal trial. All that would need to be added is a warning to the jury highlighting the difficulties of a case from long ago.


Then do you feel that no crime should have a statute of limitations?
It was my privilege
Last edited by StewieSwan at Jan 20, 2014,