The alleged facts of the case are unpleasantly familiar, though that in itself can lead to misjudgment. There will be no trial, though the accused allegedly admitted the rape. He is a popular football player, a relative of an influential politician. The family claims to have been driven out of town by the community because they wouldn't let it drop. The mother lost her job, and the charges were dropped in spite of the confessions and the conviction of the sheriff that the crime had occurred.
The American way is to move on. Let it go, as the sheriff says. There will be no trial, so there can be no overcoming of the presumption of innocence.
It's interesting that Anonymous is making these kinds of rape cases one of its forefront issues. In a way that's praiseworthy, but it's worth remembering that the KKK did just the same thing. Vigilante groups that hunt down and destroy alleged rapists often come to enjoy huge community support, as the Klan did during the height of its lynching program.
That's not to say that Anonymous are the same as the Klan. They certainly aren't. They aren't going to turn up at this kid's door and hang him. They aren't motivated by racism, but somewhat more purely by outrage over the repeated failure of the American system to address this kind of rape case.
It's an interesting problem. The system certainly has failed, repeatedly and consistently, in cases like this.
Sometimes I think vigilantes are really the answer to the failures of the system. Sometimes -- as in the case of the Klan -- they're a worse problem. Where are we here, I wonder?
7 comments:
I see the difference between the two and their actions is that the Klan hunted and hung people for the color of their skin while using perceived affronts to society as their only justification. Anonymous seems to be focusing on actual lawbreakers who have managed to escape delivery of the justice their victims deserve.
Or at least Anonymous' law. Then they set out to try to destroy the business or person of whom they disapprove by cutting them off from the Internet.
Eric Hines
I wish I could be certain- After reading the two links and some comments, the only thing I'm sure about is that I'm not sure about it. Don't get me wrong- I think those boys are scum and deserve to be punished, but given the nature of the law, I don't know that the D.A., the Sheriff or the town deserve to be smeared in the way it's starting to happen. I think Anonymous will only make that worse, and make clarity more difficult, and so I can't support them- too anxious to be perceived as 'do-gooders'.
I see in the comments that a lot of people are using this story to bash small towns. They seem to think big cities are better, because they don't hear about that stuff there- of course not, there are too many people you never hear anything about in a big city, heck you barely know most of your neighbors. Grass is always greener, I suppose.
I find myself wondering what's going on in the family of the 17-year-old who didn't serve time in the juvenile system. Granted, the family probably thinks the facts of the case are all confused, that the young women were willing sexual participants because they sneaked out of the house in the middle of the night, got drunk, and hung out with a bunch of guys probably well known for their appetites. But when it became apparent the 17-year-old had videotaped his exploits, when they realized how young the girl was, when they found she'd been propped up against the outside wall of a house vomiting in freezing temperatures, did they still try to pass it off as boys being boys? Why did they help their son avoid facing up to his crime? Why didn't a single student at that school keep a copy of the widely distributed videotape and turn it over to the police? Sometimes it seems that a determination to refuse to view sex as a transgression bleeds over into a blindness about cruelty and violence.
That's assuming I've gotten any kind of accurate picture of what happened from those thoroughly confused written accounts. The video isn't available any more.
Ya, that bit about sneaking out at 1 am hit me wrong, too, which is exactly why this mess should have been tried before a jury. It was, at minimum bad judgment all around, but the sheer meanness of leaving that girl outside to be sick is a fairly clear indicator of the state of mind of the boys.
The time frame makes me wonder if there wasn't something in those drinks besides liquor, or if the girls chugged those drinks. Investigators who don't want to find out have been known to ignore such details.
Valerie
Well said, Bob.
It depends on the case. I am always reminded of the case of Ken Rex McElroy, wherein justice prevailed after the law had repeatedly abandoned the citizens that he terrorized.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/us/16bully.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
How often is this scene repeated?
Post a Comment