It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
[
Lets clear some things up..
*The Sheriff's Department was NOT the agency responsible for the investigation.
* The Steubenville Police Department is the origionating agency and is responsible for the investigation.
*The Police nor Sheriff is the final say on whether or not charges will be filed nor are they the final say on what those charges are.
*The Prosecuting Attorney, NOT Law Enforcement, is the final say on whether a person(s) are prosecuted for a crime. The PA is also the final say on what charges will be brought.
*The Police / Sheriff could announce they are not filing any criminal complaints, however the PA is not bound by those decisions and can in fact proceed, even if law enforcement does not support it.
The age of the people at the time of this occurrence are all 16 years old, making them minors. Because of that the law behaves differently in terms of how all of this proceeds. Generally speaking when an adult crime is committed by a minor, the adult courts will not have jurisdiction. Having a minor certified as an adult is a lengthy process that will involve age / mentality / crime / etc etc etc.
The leaked video was already in the hands of the prosecution, so again, releasing it has jeopradized the trial. There is a reason people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The court of public opinion is based on half information, ignorance and emotion while being devoid of all facts. Justice is not a lynch mob, and attempting to seek justice through that mentality will mean the victim will suffer even more when the accused walk free because of a technicality caused by mob justice.
I am all about shinging lights on these types of situations, and I support keeping pressure on.. What I dont support is the intentional release of potential evidence solely because people dont like the way the system works.
Change the system by using the proper procedures and dont attempt to do it by using the victim and situation for a personal vendetta.edit on 6-1-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AdamOver
When a crime is seen being committed with video/audio and picture evidence. So what if the public saw them first.
That does not change their contents nor intent.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
What you and others ignore is that little protection we call innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not public opinion. The female in this case is a victim, no arguments there.. The kids involved are suspects, and again no issues there either.
By releasing this type of info it not only can prejudice the jury pool, it opens the door for a mistrial / acquittal.
Its bad enough what this girl went through.. Do you want to be the one who has to explain to her that they cant stand trial because of a technicality?
Once the first person is officaly seated on a jury / offical depositions occur, double jeopardy attaches. That means the PA cannot refile the same charges against them unless they obtain new evidence that is not connected to the video.
Originally posted by AdamOver
And if any backward system wants to throw out VIDEO evidence because of some technical legal loophole B#,
The age of the people at the time of this occurrence are all 16 years old,
Nothing in Ohio’s criminal statutes makes it a crime for someone to ridicule a rape victim on a video or otherwise say horrible things about another person. Further, nothing in the law allows someone who says repugnant things on Twitter, Facebook, or other Internet sites to be criminally charged for such statements. Steubenville Police investigators are caring humans who recoil and are repulsed by many of the things th ey observe during an investigation. Like detectives in every part of America and the world, they are often frustrated when they emotionally want to hold people accountable for certain detestable behavior but realize that there is no statute that allows a criminal charge to be made.
I wonder if the members of the Big Red football team are planning to show up wearing full uniforms at the trial in February?
Serious Youthful Offender (SYO) and Juvenile Blended Sentencing
If a juvenile is qualified as a "serious youthful offender" or SYO, he may be tried in juvenile court and sentenced both as a juvenile and as an adult. In this case the adult sentence is suspended pending successful completion of the juvenile sentence. At any time while the juvenile is still in institutional custody, on escape status, or subject to parole, aftercare, or community control, the juvenile court may conduct a hearing to invoke the suspended adult portion of an SYO sentence. But the court may only invoke the adult sentence if clear and convincing evidence exists that the juvenile, after reaching the age of 14:
1.Committed a violation of institutional rules or conditions of supervision that rises to the level of a felony or violent first-degree misdemeanor, or
2.Engaged in conduct that "creates a substantial risk to the safety or security" of the community, the victim, or (in the case of juveniles who are still in custody) the institution, and
3.The violation or misconduct "demonstrates that the person is unlikely to be rehabilitated during the remaining period of juvenile jurisdiction."