Should a teenage rape derail a college football career?

Edited

So this is actually pretty interesting on a lot of levels.

First to @Greenseats point, about why they were given a relatively minor sentence, specifically (emphasis mine) -

A juvenile court judge found both boys guilty of rape, sentencing Ma'Lik Richmond to a minimum of one year in a juvenile facility and Trent Mays to two years for digital rape and disseminating video of the assault.

And the answer is there, that it was juvenile court, which carries far less penalties for crimes than adult courts. Which makes sense in its own way; a dumb 15 year-old who does dumb-ass things because his parents didn't raise them right probably deserves a second chance, if they can be rehabilitated reasonably. Whether these two should have been in adult or juvenile court is a tricky question, and on the case itself 5 years ago, this article is completely scant on details outside the most basic of facts about the case. So it's hard to say, without any information, if it was a good call or not.

Incidentally, they both must still register as Tier 1 sex offenders (which carries with it a massive social stigma), so it's not like this is completely forgotten from their perspective, either.

So, now that we're here, and it's done, the question the article raises is, "how much does society choose to forgive?" Which is really more like "how much should individuals choose to forgive?" And that really comes down to your own values.

For myself, I dislike individuals giving additional punitive penalties on someone who has already paid his debt to society for his crime; although I can see instances where it might be justified. Individuals still have the freedom to do what they wish, and many (like the author, and those who signed the petition), will continue to argue that they should be further restricted beyond the bounds of the punishment originally set for them. And other individuals can decide on their own whether to agree or disagree with that. But it seems somehow immoral and unjust to say "We find you guilty of X crime and you will serve Y punishment", but then for society, more-or-less collectively, to then impose additional punishments once the first punishment is done.

Finally, there are two point the author makes to the end I want to highlight. First is a logical fallacy, specifically an appeal to emotion -

Still, it remains a challenge to forgive and to forget. What happened to the 16-year-old victim whose assault went viral on social media? What if she were a girl in your life?

...which is completely meaningless when it comes to whether someone who has committed a crime should be allowed onto a football program (in Richmond's case, not even scholarship, as he's a walk-on). That question the program and the coach must answer, for themselves, is "Do I believe this person should be given an opportunity to improve themselves and become a better person in the future, even with what he did in his past?" If it's yes, you let them on. If no, you don't.

And the other thing -

I have no skin in the game. I only wish the victim had a say in this matter. She has lost more than either football program ever will.

The idea that victims of crimes should have final authority in the punishments of the perpetrators of crimes is completely bonkers. There is a case for a victim arguing why someone should receive a particularly short or (more likely) long sentence, but it should still be within the minimums and maximums set by law. I think this is already done to a limited extent (victims and/or their families speaking during sentencing procedures after trials are finished, and the judge possibly taking it into account).

And as for if the football programs should reach out and ask, there are two issues. One, you could potentially do quite a bit of harm asking victims of crimes about it, and possibly do some psychological harm (I don't really know enough to speak with any authority, though). And finally, it's also a logistics thing. A university in California has to track down and ask some person in Connecticut about an athlete who's willing to join the team? And it's not like the person will have glowing things to say about them if they were wronged in some way. So I'm not sure there's any real benefit or use in that case either.

So this is actually pretty interesting on a lot of levels. First to @Greenseats point, about why they were given a relatively minor sentence, specifically (emphasis mine) - > **A juvenile court judge** found both boys guilty of rape, sentencing Ma'Lik Richmond to a minimum of one year in a juvenile facility and Trent Mays to two years for digital rape and disseminating video of the assault. And the answer is there, that it was juvenile court, which carries _far_ less penalties for crimes than adult courts. Which makes sense in its own way; a dumb 15 year-old who does dumb-ass things because his parents didn't raise them right probably deserves a second chance, if they can be rehabilitated reasonably. Whether these two should have been in adult or juvenile court is a tricky question, and on the case itself 5 years ago, this article is completely scant on details outside the most basic of facts about the case. So it's hard to say, without any information, if it was a good call or not. Incidentally, they both must still register as Tier 1 sex offenders (which carries with it a massive social stigma), so it's not like this is completely forgotten from their perspective, either. So, now that we're here, and it's done, the question the article raises is, "how much does society choose to forgive?" Which is really more like "how much should individuals choose to forgive?" And that really comes down to your own values. For myself, I dislike individuals giving additional punitive penalties on someone who has already paid his debt to society for his crime; although I can see instances where it might be justified. Individuals still have the freedom to do what they wish, and many (like the author, and those who signed the petition), will continue to argue that they should be further restricted beyond the bounds of the punishment originally set for them. And other individuals can decide on their own whether to agree or disagree with that. But it seems somehow immoral and unjust to say "We find you guilty of X crime and you will serve Y punishment", but then for society, more-or-less collectively, to then impose _additional_ punishments once the first punishment is done. Finally, there are two point the author makes to the end I want to highlight. First is a logical fallacy, specifically an appeal to emotion - > Still, it remains a challenge to forgive and to forget. What happened to the 16-year-old victim whose assault went viral on social media? What if she were a girl in your life? ...which is completely meaningless when it comes to whether someone who has committed a crime should be allowed onto a football program (in Richmond's case, not even scholarship, as he's a walk-on). That question the program and the coach must answer, for themselves, is "Do I believe this person should be given an opportunity to improve themselves and become a better person in the future, even with what he did in his past?" If it's yes, you let them on. If no, you don't. And the other thing - > I have no skin in the game. I only wish the victim had a say in this matter. She has lost more than either football program ever will. The idea that victims of crimes should have final authority in the punishments of the perpetrators of crimes is completely bonkers. There is a case for a victim arguing why someone should receive a particularly short or (more likely) long sentence, but it should still be within the minimums and maximums set by law. I think this is already done to a limited extent (victims and/or their families speaking during sentencing procedures after trials are finished, and the judge possibly taking it into account). And as for if the football programs should reach out and ask, there are two issues. One, you could potentially do quite a bit of harm asking victims of crimes about it, and possibly do some psychological harm (I don't really know enough to speak with any authority, though). And finally, it's also a logistics thing. A university in California has to track down and ask some person in Connecticut about an athlete who's willing to join the team? And it's not like the person will have glowing things to say about them if they were wronged in some way. So I'm not sure there's any real benefit or use in that case either.

[–] Greenseats 2 points (+2|-0)

I get that is was a juvenile court that did the sentencing, but the whole system makes no sense. Juvenile sentences rarely extend into adulthood ("blended sentencing") so we have a system where a 16-year old gets nearly no jail time where someone who could be just 13 months older may spend over 10 years in jail for the same crime. These two got almost no punishment in terms of jail time except that they will have to register as a sex offender for life. The system didn't work for anyone in this case. The rapists got almost no immediate punishment, but will never be able to "serve their time" and rejoin society because they will never be able to shed the stigma (and social/employment problems) of being a sex offender for life.

I agree with you with all the emotional appeal garbage in the article was pointless.

[–] TheRedArmy 1 points (+1|-0)

Yeah, you bring up a very real and serious issue, two really.

The first is juvenile courts, and when they should be used, and when they shouldn't (as 15 year-olds and younger, I'm sure, have been tried as adults in some cases). What is "the line" that you use to differentiate who is a child, who is not fully responsible for their actions because they have not completely developed, and who is an adult, who is developed and who is responsible for their actions?

The best answer I have is also a very unsatisfying one: I don't know.

The second was their having to register as sex offenders, and combined with a minimal jail time sentence, makes their punishment very...I can't think of the word I want. Like chaotic. They're almost contradictory. So we ended up with this kind of unhappy middle ground where no one is really satisfied, I feel like.

Should a teenage rape derail a college football career?

5 comments

/s/Sports