I'm sure the therapist will tell her it wasn't legitimate.

That's okay, she made sure to let Twitter know that those boys are most definitely rapists.

Well it obviously wasn't rape, she was just an unwilling sperm recipient.

They said they lifted her shirt, pulled down her pants and penetrated her vagina with their fingers because, according to one of the teens, "we thought it would be funny, but it wasn't."

They are required to do 50 hours of volunteer work and the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice will determine the level of supervision and treatment needed. The conviction could be set aside and erased when the teens turn 19½ if they complete a diversion program.

Seems light.

Weaver95: Dietrich's lawyer, Thomas Clay, told the court that Richwalsky gave the teens favored treatment because they were athletes at Trinity High School, where Richwalsky is an alumnus, serves on the reunion committee and supports the sports teams.

why didn't the prosecutor recuse himself from the case?

Because he's an idiot who needs to be run out of office for his obvious favoritism?

Weaver95: SilentStrider: Sorry you're traumatized, but they didn't really mean to commit a crime, so we're letting them off with a slap on the wrist.
You'll get over it.

I wonder if the outcome would have been different had the boys not been football players...?

Is Tatsuma a Jew? Is Drew drinking at this very moment?

This About That: The_Cisco_Kid: she was just an unwilling sperm recipient

Well, see, no, she wasn't. RTFA
In this I just made a smartass comment without reading the article. Didn't care to - my own fault for not checking if that gem was appropriate here. Whatever. Obviously it was wasted on this one, but especially In this case I am glad that this is so. The girl made a mistake getting intoxicated to begin with but what those teenagers did was inexcusable and they got off lightly.
.........wanders off to save the Carlin quote for something better later on where it will still be tasteless but would fit better

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: They said they lifted her shirt, pulled down her pants and penetrated her vagina with their fingers because, according to one of the teens, "we thought it would be funny, but it wasn't."

They are required to do 50 hours of volunteer work and the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice will determine the level of supervision and treatment needed. The conviction could be set aside and erased when the teens turn 19½ if they complete a diversion program.

Seems light.

Wouldn't that be considered sodomy or non-penetrative sexual assault, not rape? I thought for rape to occur, you had to have genital penetration of an unwilling party by an assailant?

Any of you legal types want to correct me if I'm wrong?

I can't even think of anything. This is too absurd, so farking out of date goddamn worthless farking piece of shiat gah. I can't think of anything coherent.

And of course they go to Catholic School. Those boys are such classic examples of what Christianity is, of how I see Christianity in this country, and the judge with them. I'm sure that's exactly why he let them off the hook.

I keep reading shiat like this and I keep wondering, how is it possible to stop such out of date Christian destruction of anything good in this country, and I can't think of any way to stop it. Christians certainty don't give a fark, and that's 3/4 of the country. Nothing can possibly happen to fix this within the laws of this country. And that's the horrifying part: I can't think of any legal way to make sure this doesn't happen even again, to see to it that Christianity is put back into it's place and common sense restored to this country.

Ugh. And people wonder why I simply loathe Christians.

serial_crusher: GAT_00: Ugh. And people wonder why I simply loathe Christians.

You've got some strange notions about just how involved the Church is in day-to-day activities of the students at Catholic schools.

I went to a Catholic school, but you only would have known it was Catholic because of the name and the fact that we wore uniforms. Really, Catholic schools are pretty much secular. It's not like they've got nuns brainwashing students into molesting each other.

Well, that simply makes everything all right then. 50 hours community service for rape is definitely a good sentence. Thanks for clearing that up!

Lionel Mandrake: The older of the two teens told police in his interview that he molested Dietrich because "she was fine with it."

"How do you know she was fine?" police asked him.

"I mean she could have definitely been like, 'Stop, don't do this' and we would have stopped, but she didn't," the boy responded

I generally don't approve of corporal punishment, and certainly not from the "justice" system, but this little shiat needs a real good beating.

And we can keep beating him after he's unconscious because he won't say "no"

Hey, people keep saying we need to keep the death penalty around. Why not use it? He won't be able to say no once we start.

Lionel Mandrake: serial_crusher: Well, usually the idea behind protecting football players is to protect their contributions to the football team.
Since TFA says both perps had to leave the school, I doubt they got much special treatment.

Tossing them out of the school may have little effect on the attitude of the sports-fan alumnus prosecutor who negotiated their plea.

Interesting how the opinion shifts from the Penn State threads once the school changes.

Someone needs to inform the chief prosecutor that forced penetration with foreign objects, and forced penetration with fingers is still rape.

penthesilea: Don't these pics count as child porn?

Again, they go to a Christian school, and I see no reason to not assume the judge is a Christian. The rules don't apply. It's basically a given from schools like this that the boys will never been seen to be at fault.

Lionel Mandrake: penthesilea: Don't these pics count as child porn?

Good question. The age of consent in KY is 16, so I'm not sure she's even considered a child. Of course, she was in no condition to consent anyway, but her age might be a factor in charges like "possession/distribution of child pornography"

I'm sure there are other laws that cover taking and distributing naked pictures of unwilling people, regardless of age. Well, I'm probably sure.

/not a law-talking guy

From what I understand, while the age of consent varies, child porn is 18 years of age, no matter what, no exceptions. So if they took naked pictures of her, they are in possession of child porn.

GAT_00: From what I understand, while the age of consent varies, child porn is 18 years of age, no matter what, no exceptions. So if they took naked pictures of her, they are in possession of child porn.

However, the intent of the law, as written, was not to punish teenagers who take pictures of other teenagers and don't distribute them, but rather to punish actual child pornographers and molesters.

The problem is that the language of the law doesn't match up with the intent.

BronyMedic: GAT_00: From what I understand, while the age of consent varies, child porn is 18 years of age, no matter what, no exceptions. So if they took naked pictures of her, they are in possession of child porn.

However, the intent of the law, as written, was not to punish teenagers who take pictures of other teenagers and don't distribute them, but rather to punish actual child pornographers and molesters.

The problem is that the language of the law doesn't match up with the intent.

Have you seen the number of stories that come in here all the time of 17 year olds arrested for child porn of their girlfriends? Added together with the utter lack of sentence, it screams judicial bias.

GAT_00: BronyMedic: GAT_00: From what I understand, while the age of consent varies, child porn is 18 years of age, no matter what, no exceptions. So if they took naked pictures of her, they are in possession of child porn.

However, the intent of the law, as written, was not to punish teenagers who take pictures of other teenagers and don't distribute them, but rather to punish actual child pornographers and molesters.

The problem is that the language of the law doesn't match up with the intent.

Have you seen the number of stories that come in here all the time of 17 year olds arrested for child porn of their girlfriends? Added together with the utter lack of sentence, it screams judicial bias.

Oh, I know, and it's rather annoying the double standard. Actual child pornographers go free to continue their crimes and victimization, and consenting teenagers taking pictures of each other, who don't even share the pictures have the book thrown at them and are treated as hardened criminals.