Which is precisely why we need adults to be adults. The chaperone has one job (one job!), whatever the challenges may be.
Yep, which is why I have only modest sympathy for the adults in such a situation. The laws are the laws, the moralists (many of whom themselves were having plenty of high school sex when they were underage, and sometimes with adults) will be the moralists, and if some of it is a steaming pile, well then it's a steaming pile that has been legislated and will be prosecuted. Deal with it.
Either Tallahassee Police Department is really bad at policing Tallahassee or they were hellbent on setting Jameis Winston free even if they looked like total dipshits in the process (paraphrased).
When OSU was going through their Tat-gate scandal there were hordes of ESPN-type investigators here looking, digging, until they found something. In the South it's just "eh, he's a football player".
Well, those Ohio State guys committed the heinous crime of trying to benefit from their fame. That's an NCAA violation. Rape, on the other hand, isn't a crime against amateurism. You can ask Lizzy Seeburg what happens when you accuse a football player of sexual assault in the Midwest. And there's also the Mizzou case, though in fairness, both cases were (horribly) handled by the university and were never investigated by the non-campus police.
I don't understand why Notre Dame alums put up with that. Are they not deeply shamed? Why would they not pressure the university? If this were my alma mater, they would get the message loud and clear that I want visible, rapid proof of reform or you're never getting another dime.
The average alum who can make such a statement and affect change may not care much about rape unless it's his daughter. The guys who give $50 here, $50 there, they're gonna get drowned out.
I don't really understand the reluctance to condemn the players involved in that FSU story. Most of the people who call into question the actions of the cops and the university give a free pass to the supposed rapist(s) themselves. All under the pretense of assumption of innocence. But even if it was not rape, it does present a pattern of questionable behavior.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...most-perpetrators-of-violence-are-normal-guys Interesting discussion....
Yes, but our daughters aren't skanks who get drunk and wear short skirts to parties, see. We've taught our daughters better, obviously. The slut-shaming by the adults, implicit or otherwise, is a huge part of what enables the rape culture on college campuses. Again, the responsibility is always on the victim. The boys can't help themselves.
The most poignant question: how was a cretin who at that point had raped or attempted to rape at least seven women (two of whom had been minors at the time) a free man?
Who believes that this side of Bill O'Reilly? Whatever is going on with the lack of persecution with college rapes -- and there definitely is something going on -- it's not because most people think girls with short skirts deserve what's coming to them.
What else are you going to do as a defense lawyer? First deny that sex happened. If that fails, say that she wanted it. If that fails, say that she made the guy think she wanted it. It's worth a shot. Maybe I am fortunate in my friends and co-workers. I can't even imagine pulling this shit around them, arguing that some girl deserved rape because she was slutty. Are you kidding me? I'd probably be reported to HR for voicing offensive, sexist views.
If this notion is as outrageous as you say, wouldn't it then also become obsolete as a defense strategy? Surely it would be no good to antagonize a jury?
Well fair enough. No doubt if you assembled a jury of Rush Limbaugh listeners, the tactic would work great. And there are a lot of Rush fans in this country. Not a majority, not by any means, and they tend to make the rest of us slap our heads and wonder if 1960 ever arrived, but yes they are around.
You'd be surprised. Folks may not come out and say "She had it coming", but all too often, the first things you hear are "Okay, was she drinking?" or "Why did she get in a cab with guys she just met?"
Irrelevant to the crime, no? I wouldn't think that such questions would be permitted in a trial, and I don't know why people outside a courtroom would think those things mattered. I mean, I might talk in a different context about risky behavior, but that is NOT the same as determining if a crime took place and, if so, what is the appropriate punishment. Those have nothing to do with drinking and riding in a cab.
We just had a case here were a priest was busted for, fifteen years ago, fondling the feet (and likely wanking... hard to tell from the stories in the press) of a girl who was 13 at the time. He was giving her a ride home after a midnight Christmas eve mass at 3:00 a.m., and apparently he'd given her alcohol. A shocking number of responses in the comment section of the paper say things like "where were her parents? Why was she out at 3:00 on Christmas eve..." as if that made it less of a crime (my first thought is, if her parents were leaving something to be desired as parents, that's all the more reason for the priest not to take advantage of her.) So I'm not surprised (any more) when people try to relieve the perpetrator of at least some responsibility.