Untitled

Due to a platued economy, I have returned to school to gain my Masters, and I am currently enrolled in a Student Service in Higher Education and Sociology of Juvenile Delinquency. Both of these classes require that I keep up with current events, which I often avoid due to the sensationalism of the media. I am usually so good about not discussing the red-hot cases but this one got my goat.  There is a case buzzing around mainstream media outlets that just truly have me shaking my head not only at the crimes, but the media + governmental responses to the events. The case I am referring to is Steubenville, OH Rape.


This case is odd to me on so many levels. I will began with the obvious, why were these 16 and 17 year olds tried as juveniles? I feel it much more commonplace for older teens to be tried as adults.And also why were the teens only sentenced to one or two years, which is one-fifth of the maximum sentence for a similar crime tried in adult courts. Not to mention that once they serve whatever reduced sentence will actually serve due to over-populated facilities. The offenders record will be sealed and there actions of no consequence after they are released. I fear that the fact their crime was against a women may have lessened the punishment served by the justice system.

The bigger picture: The most disturbing aspect of this crime is the role that social media played. Twitter and Facebook acted as a digital archive of the assault and actually led to the the victim even knowing she had been assaulted, because of her severe alcohol consumption. The sick and macabre relationship that digital natives posses is highlighted in this extreme case. The bystanders were not paralyzed, they did act, they acted by filming and documenting, discussing, and sharing the act they themselves identified as rape without interfering or suggesting the offenders stop. Rather they encouraged the assailants and verbally bashed the unconscious stranger from out of town.

Even Bigger Picture:
When I was in Psycology 101 we dicussed the case of Kitty Genovese:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/3.html
Although Genovese's crime was more brutal and resulted in death, there is a common theme in the presence of  bystanders who did act, but only to increase their awareness of the crime, not to act to contact the police. Kitty Genovese's case took place long before Facebook or Twitter's creators were even born. Is this just a negative side affect of human nature and group think. The assumption that it is not your responsibility but instead someone else's? And the choice to take action but not to help another, especially another who is in obvious need of assistance.

The goal of this blog is to spark dialog, if you agree of disagree please feel free to respectfully share your opinions.

Links:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/3.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/justice/ohio-steubenville-case/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/17/opinion/simmons-steubenville-verdict/index.html