Yes, at the end of the day he should have known better and said no. And he was convicted of a crime and will have to register as a sex offender, had to go through a sex offender treatment course etc. (assuming the facts in the article are correct).
The girl's involvement/awareness is only a factor in sentencing. Given that, the above stuff, the low risk of re-offending, it seems the judge found that a lengthy prison sentence wasn't proportionate. If locking someone up for 15 years isn't going to do anyone any good, surely it is right not to?
Means don't always justify ends. But when passing sentence, the sentence should be based on facts and reason, not emotion.
Are there any means you can even imagine that would justify this end of a 30 day sentence for the rape of a child?
Yes. If greater than 30 days in prison was not necessary to pursue a legitimate aim. So, for example, if there was a zero (or effectively zero) risk of re-offending.
I'm all for convicting the guy of a crime (on these apparent facts); a teacher should know better and the risk of an abuse of position seem high enough to justify a blanket ban on young-student / teacher relationships. But I don't think that people should be locked up for what they've done (that is vengeance or retribution), but for what they might do.
What exactly does a judge mean by saying that the girl "was older than her chronological age".. That is quite different from saying she looked older, it sounds more like he is basing this on her actions rather than her looks..
From the article, it seems he was commenting more on her awareness of what she was doing, and how she was "as much in control of the situation" as the defendant. But without seeing transcripts etc. it is difficult to know for sure (which is perhaps why we shouldn't be quick to judge...).
They can in some places, depending on the facts. English law makes an exception if the defendant reasonably believed the person was over 16 (or 18 in other cases), provided they were over 13. It has been used in a couple of cases (and criticised "because children!") where the defendant was deliberately misled by the complainant as to how old they were.
Which obviously wouldn't apply here. But then this wasn't an exception, it was a mitigating factor in sentencing. And it doesn't seem to have been the girl's looks that the judge was commenting on, but her understanding of the situation:
[The judge] said he listened to recorded statements given by Morales before her death and believes that while she was a troubled youth, she was "as much in control of the situation" as Rambold. The judge also said Morales was "older than her chronological age."
So it is more about mental, than physical maturity.
"She looked old for her age" can be a defence to age-related sexual offences in some places. For example, in English law there is a "window" whereby if someone is over 13 and under 16 but the defendant "reasonably believed" the other person was over 16, they have a defence.
Which obviously wouldn't apply in this case, and the defendant would probably have known how old she was.
As an aside, the maximum sentence this person could have got under English law would have been 14 years. So maybe this is just part of the differences between the two criminal justice systems.
I'm stating some facts from the article that aren't in the above summary, but may be relevant. I'm also suggesting others do the same. I really hope you don't see anything wrong with that.
Having seen similar stories elsewhere, involving sexual offences and children where the moral panic gets in the way of reason, I thought it appropriate to double-check some of the facts of the case. After reading the article, I am of the opinion that there aren't enough facts presented to judge this specific case, so I don't think it is appropriate to comment directly on whether this sentence was right or wrong.
30 days for rape which led to suicide while some punk teenager makes a random comment on facebook that ends up with him facing 7-8 years in prison?
Surely the key word there is "facing"? The person here faced at least 20 years in prison. Which is the appropriate and proportionate exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing comes into play.
-------------------------
As for whether the sentence is appropriate in this case... at least people could read the article before commenting on how outrageous this is. Surely Techdirt readers should know better than to leap to conclusions on something this serious without doing that much research?
Some more facts gleaned from the article:
- the girl committed suicide some 2-3 years after the relationship (as the trial was dragging on),
- the case was put on hold, with an agreement to dismiss the charges, if the defendant agreed to complete a sex offender treatment program,
- the case was resumed when he was kicked off the program for "minor" violations, including being alone with some of his family, and being in a relationship without telling the staff,
- the judge found that these reasons weren't enough to warrant a lengthy prison sentence (particularly as the defendant had completed a course elsewhere).
- Perhaps most importantly, an evaluation found he was a low risk of re-offending and could be treated by the community.
So, maybe a month is prison isn't long enough or maybe it is too long given he was on course for the case to br dropped (although call be a European liberal, but I fail to see how a month in prison could ever be necessary and proportionate).
As for the "The Internet Is Mean" argument, there's no indication in the article that the judge bought that, it comes from one part of a sentence in one paragraph out of the entire article.
Next you'll be telling us that killing sprees are caused by computer games because an article on a murderer noted (s)he played certain games...
Again failing to check with the lawyers before talking to the press...
This article was amended on 23 August 2013 after a request from the deputy prime minister's office based on legal reasons. The footnote was amended on 25 August 2013 to give greater clarity.
For anyone interested, before it was amended the article contained an extra sentence:
The intent behind detaining Miranda was the same: to retrieve or destroy classified information. I was not consulted on the plans to detain him before it happened...
This was the justification originally given by the Government for the detention, and mostly accepted by the public and press. Except if that was the actual purpose for the detention, it would have been illegal, and the Government are currently being taken to court over it.
So either Nick Clegg admitted the UK police broke the law, or he fell for his government's own misinformation campaign.
The leaks will keep leaking and eventually may cause some harm, possibly even deaths.
See, the interesting thing about this for me is that so far it doesn't seem that any information has leaked from the Guardian/Snowden.
Unlike the NSA. Or the UK Police.
Both of whom are proven security risks. The former due to letting a random contractor infiltrate them and walk out with thousands of documents (which they can't even identify), and the latter through ongoing bribery and corruption scandals involving tabloids.
I find it a bit ironic that these groups are suggesting that it is the Guardian which is a national security risk...
Maybe this is why the UK authorities were so desperate to get their hands on the documents Miranda was carrying, then they could let the US Government know some of what was copied.
Either that or they want them for themselves; no need to spy on the NSA if you can just grab their internal documents from a third party...
For those interested, the Guardian have posted the full letter before action Miranda's lawyers sent to the Home Office here. It sets out their version of the facts and their arguments.
It's also worth nothing that they are also seeking to challenge the validity of the law itself (see for example, paragraph 11), and so are saying they will go ahead with the proceedings even if the UK Government backs down, admits his detention was unlawful and returns all his stuff.
From what I understand there are a couple of other cases on this law pending judgment, but if this does go all the way, it could be a nice smack-down for the Government. Unless the courts chicken out and just blame the police.
If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that.
Except the law they used doesn't provide a framework for doing this. It only lets them question someone to work out whether or not they're involved with acts of terrorism, not to find out of they're in possession of classified information.
I have a feeling they may have to take some of this back, particularly now that Miranda has begun legal proceedings against them...
These people should really talk to their lawyers before talking to the press.
The UK government has been defending this detention by claiming it was because they suspected he was carrying sensitive documents likely to be of use to a terrorist (something which is illegal in the UK). And now the US are saying it was to "send a message".
Except if either is the case, the detention was illegal. The disturbingly-broad power they used can only be used to determine whether or not someone is a terrorist. There's even a case where a court found the use of this power was illegal because the guy they detained was a terrorist and the Government already knew this.
I almost feel sorry for the UK Government's legal team...
Why is the director of the NSA quoting a Congressional review of the NSA to tell us what's going on there.
So he can say what he did without lying. He didn't say that "no one at NSA had ever gone outside the boundaries" he said that "[Congress] found no one had ever gone outside the boundaries", which is a completely different statement.
The latest report that exposed all of these violations was an internal NSA report, rather than the Congressional one. The latter somehow missed all of these abuses, demonstrating how meaningless their system of congressional oversight is.
In the UK you shouldn't call it "child abuse content" either, because that implies that there is always "abuse."
The legal term is "indecent images of children", and there's a court ruling that say it is the "image" that has to be indecent, not the child. The image could be a self-portrait by a teenager, or a married couple, or could be adults with a random child somewhere in the background (or photoshopped in).
Yes, much of the stuff that gets people sent to prison involves child abuse, but far from all of the stuff that's illegal.
At least the FISA version has to get a real warrant, actually approved by a judge. The UK version seems to rely on ministerial warrants simply signed by a senior politician.
From what I remember of quotes at the time, these warrants involve the Foreign Secretary signing a piece of paper every 6 months saying that GCHQ can do whatever it wants to do. I'm not even sure if he is required to read it first.
The current wording of the UK proposals don't allow this, but it is something I will be bringing up with the IPO (and other people may want to as well, if they send in comments) - either we should be allowed to circumvent DRM to do something that would otherwise be legal, or we should be able to acquire are "personal copy" from any source (or both).
Under UK copyright law, if the right holder does not provide an effective workaround, you may issue a ‘notice of complaint’ to the Secretary of State. If your complaint is upheld the Secretary of State may issue directions on how to ensure that you are able to make use of the work in the way permitted by law.
Iirc when the Hargreaves review looked into this they found out that there was no record of anyone ever using the complaints procedure. I'm not sure if this means that no one wants to circumvent DRM to do something legal, or that no one cares about circumvention of DRM being illegal.
I'm also not aware of any cases being brought against someone for circumventing DRM (merely for producing/selling stuff to help with it) - and the law itself is a bit ambiguous as to what it actually covers.
The DoJ is trying to seal their attempts to get a warrant to spy on someone. In one of their four paragraphs of "facts" in support of why they need the seal, they stated that they need it because nothing else will help them "locate and prosecute those responsible for the bombings."
While this is an obvious error, the implication is that their spying is related to this "locating and prosecuting", implying that the person they are spying on was involved somehow.
If they weren't suggesting he was involved, why would sealing the warrant be relevant?
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re: Re: Re:
The girl's involvement/awareness is only a factor in sentencing. Given that, the above stuff, the low risk of re-offending, it seems the judge found that a lengthy prison sentence wasn't proportionate. If locking someone up for 15 years isn't going to do anyone any good, surely it is right not to?
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is sick...
Yes. If greater than 30 days in prison was not necessary to pursue a legitimate aim. So, for example, if there was a zero (or effectively zero) risk of re-offending.
I'm all for convicting the guy of a crime (on these apparent facts); a teacher should know better and the risk of an abuse of position seem high enough to justify a blanket ban on young-student / teacher relationships. But I don't think that people should be locked up for what they've done (that is vengeance or retribution), but for what they might do.
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re:
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re:
Which obviously wouldn't apply here. But then this wasn't an exception, it was a mitigating factor in sentencing. And it doesn't seem to have been the girl's looks that the judge was commenting on, but her understanding of the situation:
So it is more about mental, than physical maturity.
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re:
Which obviously wouldn't apply in this case, and the defendant would probably have known how old she was.
As an aside, the maximum sentence this person could have got under English law would have been 14 years. So maybe this is just part of the differences between the two criminal justice systems.
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re: Re: Re: This is sick...
I'm stating some facts from the article that aren't in the above summary, but may be relevant. I'm also suggesting others do the same. I really hope you don't see anything wrong with that.
Having seen similar stories elsewhere, involving sexual offences and children where the moral panic gets in the way of reason, I thought it appropriate to double-check some of the facts of the case. After reading the article, I am of the opinion that there aren't enough facts presented to judge this specific case, so I don't think it is appropriate to comment directly on whether this sentence was right or wrong.
On the post: Man Who Raped 14-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days In Jail Because Girl Looked Kinda Old And The Internet Is Mean
Re: This is sick...
-------------------------
As for whether the sentence is appropriate in this case... at least people could read the article before commenting on how outrageous this is. Surely Techdirt readers should know better than to leap to conclusions on something this serious without doing that much research?
Some more facts gleaned from the article:
- the girl committed suicide some 2-3 years after the relationship (as the trial was dragging on),
- the case was put on hold, with an agreement to dismiss the charges, if the defendant agreed to complete a sex offender treatment program,
- the case was resumed when he was kicked off the program for "minor" violations, including being alone with some of his family, and being in a relationship without telling the staff,
- the judge found that these reasons weren't enough to warrant a lengthy prison sentence (particularly as the defendant had completed a course elsewhere).
- Perhaps most importantly, an evaluation found he was a low risk of re-offending and could be treated by the community.
So, maybe a month is prison isn't long enough or maybe it is too long given he was on course for the case to br dropped (although call be a European liberal, but I fail to see how a month in prison could ever be necessary and proportionate).
As for the "The Internet Is Mean" argument, there's no indication in the article that the judge bought that, it comes from one part of a sentence in one paragraph out of the entire article.
Next you'll be telling us that killing sprees are caused by computer games because an article on a murderer noted (s)he played certain games...
On the post: UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg Defends Hard Drive Destruction, But Not Miranda Detention
Again failing to check with the lawyers before talking to the press...
This was the justification originally given by the Government for the detention, and mostly accepted by the public and press. Except if that was the actual purpose for the detention, it would have been illegal, and the Government are currently being taken to court over it.
So either Nick Clegg admitted the UK police broke the law, or he fell for his government's own misinformation campaign.
On the post: Snowden Accuses UK Gov't Of Leaking Documents He Never Leaked To Make Him Look Bad
Re:
Unlike the NSA. Or the UK Police.
Both of whom are proven security risks. The former due to letting a random contractor infiltrate them and walk out with thousands of documents (which they can't even identify), and the latter through ongoing bribery and corruption scandals involving tabloids.
I find it a bit ironic that these groups are suggesting that it is the Guardian which is a national security risk...
On the post: US Still Can't Figure Out What Snowden Took; What Happened To Those Perfect 'Audits'?
Either that or they want them for themselves; no need to spy on the NSA if you can just grab their internal documents from a third party...
On the post: Miranda To Take Legal Action Against UK, Demand Return Of His Electronics
Full letter before action
It's also worth nothing that they are also seeking to challenge the validity of the law itself (see for example, paragraph 11), and so are saying they will go ahead with the proceedings even if the UK Government backs down, admits his detention was unlawful and returns all his stuff.
From what I understand there are a couple of other cases on this law pending judgment, but if this does go all the way, it could be a nice smack-down for the Government. Unless the courts chicken out and just blame the police.
On the post: UK Home Office Says Miranda's Detention 'Fully Justified,' Attacks Press And Public For Condoning Snowden's Leaks
Re: Re: Irony of it all
I'm not sure rationality was ever a major factor.
On the post: UK Home Office Says Miranda's Detention 'Fully Justified,' Attacks Press And Public For Condoning Snowden's Leaks
I have a feeling they may have to take some of this back, particularly now that Miranda has begun legal proceedings against them...
On the post: US Official Admits That UK Detention Of Glenn Greenwald's Partner Was 'To Send A Message'
The UK government has been defending this detention by claiming it was because they suspected he was carrying sensitive documents likely to be of use to a terrorist (something which is illegal in the UK). And now the US are saying it was to "send a message".
Except if either is the case, the detention was illegal. The disturbingly-broad power they used can only be used to determine whether or not someone is a terrorist. There's even a case where a court found the use of this power was illegal because the guy they detained was a terrorist and the Government already knew this.
I almost feel sorry for the UK Government's legal team...
On the post: Just Weeks Ago, Keith Alexander Said Review Of NSA Found Not A Single Violation; Reality: Thousands Of Violations
Re:
The latest report that exposed all of these violations was an internal NSA report, rather than the Congressional one. The latter somehow missed all of these abuses, demonstrating how meaningless their system of congressional oversight is.
On the post: UK Anti-Porn Crusader Responds To Website Hack By Threatening Blogger Who Covered The Story
Re: Re:
The legal term is "indecent images of children", and there's a court ruling that say it is the "image" that has to be indecent, not the child. The image could be a self-portrait by a teenager, or a married couple, or could be adults with a random child somewhere in the background (or photoshopped in).
Yes, much of the stuff that gets people sent to prison involves child abuse, but far from all of the stuff that's illegal.
On the post: Investigation Finds The UK's Spy Agency Did Not Break Any Laws When It Tapped Into PRISM Data
Not just any kind of warrant...
From what I remember of quotes at the time, these warrants involve the Foreign Secretary signing a piece of paper every 6 months saying that GCHQ can do whatever it wants to do. I'm not even sure if he is required to read it first.
On the post: Copyright Exceptions Gaining Ground Around The World -- But Not For The Blind
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Exceptions Gaining Ground Around The World -- But Not For The Blind
Re: Re:
Iirc when the Hargreaves review looked into this they found out that there was no record of anyone ever using the complaints procedure. I'm not sure if this means that no one wants to circumvent DRM to do something legal, or that no one cares about circumvention of DRM being illegal.
I'm also not aware of any cases being brought against someone for circumventing DRM (merely for producing/selling stuff to help with it) - and the law itself is a bit ambiguous as to what it actually covers.
On the post: DOJ Falsely Claimed That Reporter James Rosen Was Involved In Bombings In Trying To Hide Fact It Spied On Him
Re: I still don't get there from here
While this is an obvious error, the implication is that their spying is related to this "locating and prosecuting", implying that the person they are spying on was involved somehow.
If they weren't suggesting he was involved, why would sealing the warrant be relevant?
Next >>