India Convicts Youngest Delhi Gang Rape Defendant

http://news.yahoo.com/india-juvenile-court-convicts-1-delhi-gang-rape-100222306.html

This guy gets 3 years and he is out!

And yet the victim will be dead forever. Three years is nothing.

Three years? In a "reform home"....damn...Talk about crappy justice.

Three years? Wtf.

"They used a tire iron on her vaginal area.. ripped her interior and her intestines came out of her body..."

This isn't a human being. This is a devil in man's form. Such individual shouldn't be allowed to live another second.

It's primarily as a result of this that they're moving to have the juvenile offenders' age rule altered so that you can be tried as an adult beyond the age of 16.

The other offenders are all adults and are pretty much guaranteed to get life in prison. One of them already hanged himself in jail.

Welcome to India. You should have seen the way the public thirsted for his blood. He should have been handed over to the public. That would have been the best form of justice.

There is so much wrong with this reporting and situation...

1) Murder is the worse crime and it should murder that these articles talk about, not rape

2) The report all but completely leaves out that she was not the only victim... The other victim being male.

3) "He wasn't a juvenile" such a dumb accusation v.v

4) They pretty much gloss over the fact that, no matter what he's got the death sentence since criminals kill rapists in jail, like they did that other convicted felon which ISN'T justice, and yet this article paints that as something to gloss over with "found dead" what is should say is "He was likely brutally raped and tortured to death by fellow inmates" and it should be pointed out that this is what the prosecutors want.

5) They are promoting that it's a good thing that the other 4 defendants have been "fast tracked" which should actually say, "they are being stripped of their rights of a FAIR trial and have DUE PROCESS"

6) They are hoping to subvert the law by reducing the age from 18 to 16 when in no other circumstance would that even be a question that that should be done. Sexual assault is not special and does not warrant a reduction in the age to try as an adult. The whole point point of those age of majority laws is pretty much to account for hormonal imbalances and to have a clear delineation between "responsible" and "not responsible" so as to not waste the courts time trying to establish how informed a person is

7) They completely ignore the facts of what they are saying. Granted rape and murder is wrong, but this was a 23 yr old woman supposedly with a 23-25 yr old man who were "tricked" into following 6 teenagers into a an isolated place. Why would you ever put yourself in that situation? There is nothing that you could say to me if I were with a friend and were approached by 6 teenagers to follow them to make me actually follow them. I don't recall a time in life when this wouldn't be true for me...so it really makes me question why the victims themselves aren't being questioned in terms of what they thought they were doing. You don't go someplace shady less you plan to do something shady generally. Again that doesn't say that the murder, assault, and rape of people are permissable or the victims fault but it does make me question why they were irresponsible about their own safety.

The point I'm making is not that these criminals aren't deserving of prison time and all that, but rather to point out that poor reporting and the blatant lack of care for ACTUAL JUSTICE. You can not revoke people's rights and report this badly and call it justice. You must be fair and truthful or you are only setting up people for these types of crimes to happen to begin with. Justice is only justice when it applies to everyone equally and you shouldn't be able to modify laws on the fly to serve your purposes as they want to do. When you allow that you don't have a Law or a Legal system. You have barbarity and injustice.

I can imagine. This isn't a problem exclusive to India either. On Brazil, there were cases of little monsters under the age of 18 that committed torture and murder but weren't convicted because they were still minors. What is worse is that they exploited this loophole specifically so they wouldn't receive adult punishment.

They went to a late movie screening when they got onto a bus to return home. The conductor, driver and a few of their friends were the ones who beat the man and raped the woman. They were not going anywhere shady or doing anything shady. I actually live in Delhi and I was in the city when all of this went down, and it's pretty reprehensible that you're claiming they were responsible when you evidently have little to no idea about the facts of the case and are making up details like the offenders being teenagers. Only one of them was a teenager. The others were all adults. And when the victims noticed that the bus wasn't going to the right place, they tried opening the door and getting out. It had been locked from the inside.

The guy gets three and a half years, yeah that seems low. But do take into account that he is going to sit them out as a sex offender (the lowest class of inmate) in an Indian prison. The sentence might sound short, but what are the chances of him actually surviving the sentence?

@citizenbane: I know this is completely off-topic and I'm sorry but you're from India? I'm from India too.

@darkazrael999: Yes. Where are you from?

I'm from Assam. But I am studying in New Zealand right now.

@durakken: Just to be clear: you've already received a warning for swearing, and there have been complaints of misogyny regarding your posts on other threads. Tread very carefully.

@darkazrael999: I'm from Delhi but I go to college in Chennai, so I'm only home in the summer and winter.

@citizenbane: Oh. Cool. A good friend of mine is studying in Chennai too, in SRM I believe.

That's the problem. Being a minor can get you out of almost anything. No one does something like this because they are too young to know that its wrong. Really? Hang him. Or let him hang himself like that other guy did. Just one news in the evening and world will be free of one monster.

@citizenbane:

First off, I took all my information from that article. It's idiotic that this is international news in the first place and so I don't really care about looking up every article to correct poor news outlets' bad reporting. And not to mention this took place several months ago now. Something happening to some person in another country that doesn't or shouldn't effect the world is not something I care about to investigate and look into, but if I were, it still wouldn't be a blip on my radar because I would still care about EVERYONE that is a victim of violent crimes and rape is like 1%, if that of a ll violent crimes in the world, so again, it's not important on any level any of us should care about. From what was reported IN the article they come off irresponsible. If you think I'm reprehensible for taking my information from THEM, then you should be on my side for pointing out that THEY are reprehensible for misreporting and misemphasizing things that are important, such as, maybe you need to be careful of getting on buses now because people doing this... Just like here in Detroit it's a red flag to not trust police any more since there have been cops robbing people, not people dressed as cops, but cops themselves.

2ndly. EIGHTEEN is a TEENAGER. An 18 year old maybe an adult, but they are still a teenager.

3rdly. I've been warned, I think, twice for swearing...I accept that, but that also happened several months ago for 1 and the other I believe years ago. The last warning which you might be counting, I didn't swear, or at least nothing I would consider swearing and nothing most people I know would consider swearing... I also don't know if that person that said "please don't swear" was a moderator or not. If you know where that (or those) post(s) is(are) I'll be more than happy to go back check and fix it. Further, it's pretty clear from rules and enforcement that swearing from time to time is ok so not really a problem, especially if you just use ***. For you to come down on me for this you'd have to come down on other people who are far worse than me about this... and it is completely unrelated to anything here and I'll get back on that in a second... in combination of the 4th point

4th, I'm not a misogynist. In fact I have been clear I'm for the rights of all and in opposition to feminism which is oppressive and point out where how they are which requires point where men and women are being oppressed and oppressive, for example in this article, little care is being taken for the justice received by the murdered convict or the male victim which we have no clue his state. I bring up male issues inordinately because the topics that are brought up already present the Female rights side of the issue. There is no point to reiterate it, but there is a point in destroying the false claims made by feminists which are damaging to everyone, but again whether I am or not has no baring on this conversation, nor is it against "the rules" to be so. And likewise in society and what social justice means in this situation is since i have an unpopular view, just like atheism is an unpopular view, you get to ostracize me, but you do not get to inflict legal, or in this case "rule based" punishment...

The ONLY reason you have of bringing this up in fact is as a THREAT. That's what you are doing "shut up or I'll silence you!" and that is you breaking 3 rules (6, 7, and 8). AS I pointed out. Rules are there for everyone to follow. Oh and also the word misgonyst is actually quite a bigoted word the way feminists and people tend to use it today just like mansplaining, and "privilege" is, as I've pointed out in one thread they are used to silence opposition and say your opinions are not valid, regardless of what they are, because you are x. That is precisely what slur is. The fact you brought it up is you calling me pointing out how terrible the reporting is which, yes has to do with gender, but I'd say it if it was the opposite too, is you saying that. Which makes it a slur. That means you've broke 4 rules, and that last one is an auto-ban.

So, I've pointed out what is wrong with the article, why your perception of what I said as me being disgusting shouldn't be that for me, but rather towards the article writer, and why your second post is rude, disrespectful, wrong, and against the rules on 4 (2 of which are pretty much auto-bans) separate points. And unfortunately, more than half of this shouldn't have even needed to be written and I'll gladly erase it if you erase your threat, but hey, I have no power here and for all I know it could be like so may other site where the mods get to break the rules and all of us little peons have to deal with it. I don't know, it certainly doesn't sound that way in the rules.

This is sad.

@durakken: The only thing the article says is that the two of them were tricked into entering the bus, which was true. It was an off-duty bus that the offenders told them was doing its rounds. Every thing else you wrote is completely fabricated. They were not doing anything shady, nor did the article say anything to that effect. The article did not say anything that any rational person would infer irresponsibility from. You are casting aspersions on the character and decisions of a woman who was raped and murdered based on a position of abject ignorance and outright lies. Hiding behind the content of a report that makes no such aspersions, as you did, is some kind of joke, right?

I stated clearly that one of them was a teenager. He was 17 at the time of the crime. The rest all ranged in ages from 20-33. The male victim wasn't mentioned in the article because he's still alive and didn't suffer many injuries. The woman didn't fare quite as well. The convict was not murdered. He hanged himself in his jail cell. You can draw up as many conspiracy theories as you want about that, but the police and coroners deemed it clear-cut suicide. Of course, you could draw up conspiracy theories about that too.

3 days and 4 hours ago, you used the f-word and the n-word on that thread about PC comedy. You dropped multiple f-bombs in the threads about domestic abuse in Saudi Arabia and abortion. You made several offensive generalizations about women in the aforementioned threads that were the subject of complaints. This is not allowed. You are not permitted to make offensive posts about a group that comprises a substantial portion of the forum you're posting on. Swearing is not allowed regardless of whether the enforcement is lax or not, much less repeated swearing. There are a host of reasons behind the potential lack of enforcement against swearing --- primarily the fact that not much flagging occurs on the Off-Topic forum unless there's a volatile thread. That does not change the fact that swearing is against the rules. The staff do not permit it, and so you are not allowed to do it. If you think others are getting away with it, feel free to use the flag button at your discretion. That's what it's there for.

Here's the deal: I do not care if you think you are being edgy or subversive or if you think you're just "telling it like it is". I do not care if your MRA section of the universe considers "misogynist" a slur ----- in the reality everyone else prefers to reside in, it's the term ascribed to people who describe women as conniving cheats and rape victims as not really victims because they had it coming on account of how irresponsible they were ---- people like you. The persecution complex is cute, but you're not the first person to think it was a good idea and you certainly won't be the last.

All the swearing and misogyny gets you a final warning. One more offense and you will receive a ban. If you think anyone in their right mind is going to buy the misogyny-is-a-slur-and-my-rights-are-being-trampled defense, go right ahead and try.

He should be tortured on live news for entire world to see and then hanged in the main part of New Delphi, only this will send these monsters a message that human lives are the most valuable things in the world. I'm from Serbia and here we also have these stupid low sentences.

@citizenbane: @durakken: The only thing that matters is that the girl is raped and dead. Even if she did anything shaddy or bad, no one deserves that. Also it doesn't matter if he was teenager, he was 17 when that happened he wasn't a baby for Odin's sake.

@citizenbane: The article says they were tricked onto a bus. It does not state how they were tricked or anything like that. In your account, they weren't "tricked onto" the bus. They were "tricked that the bus was on duty". That makes a world of difference as to how it comes across. The "onto" makes it sounds like 6 guys came up to them and were like "hey come over here" rather than "yeah that bus goes that way"

Your right... I got mistaken because they kept saying 16, 17, and 18. I re-read and no mention of their ages in the article other than the 1.

I did use those words, however it was making a point that you're still using the meaning and the word isn't the problem. It's the meaning. Again I also did swear in that post, appropriately to emphasize the point.

I didn't make generalizations about women. I pointed out the facts of the matter and the conclusions that I have come to, where feminism lies, and how I came to those conclusions. That is not generalizing and if I did I make it clear that I am generalizing several times and or have a "if this then that" which means I'm not generalizing but speaking specifically that if you are doing x then you are y. If it just so happens that a majority of a group do that and find that being y is horrible then they shouldn't do x. Notice the assumption of "doing x" is that you have a choice and agency and so whatever it is you do is on you, ie choice = responsibility.

Actually lax enforcement of the rules point to the fact that the rule isn't a rule. It's a suggestion. And it shows a favoritism to a degree when it's not enforced. Saying that sometimes it's allowed and sometimes it's not confuses the issue and leaves it open to abuse, like right now. The reason you bring it up is as a threat, not to correct it. It's kinda like the whole Al Capone thing where they couldn't get him on anything real so they did their job, but only to put him in prison. It's completely over looked that the IRS wasn't doing their job in the first place.

We can look at the rules...

Be careful what you might consider an insult as well, the Vine is made up of a vast number of backgrounds, cultures and experiences. What you might think is an acceptable word to call someone might not be according to them. An example of this is the word "liar" which is often used in debates

ie. It does matter what I consider a slur. Also I should point out this is a rule that covers abuse, and I very much consider people flagging things I say and calling it misogynistic abuse. Especially since I don't know who these people are and they have presented no counter argument. That is what people who are abusing a system to silence people do, not honest people who actually care do. As shown above, where you have pointed out where I am wrong I have admitted so or explained what my thinking is. This is what reasonable, honest people do. Abusing the system like you are describing is what dishonest people do.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slur

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative

n. 1) an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.

I don't know anyone that doesn't consider being called a misogynist as not insulting and it certain is damaging to someone's reputation. Gee. It looks like reality agrees with me.

@bigcimmerian said:

Not true. It matters, because it creates a false impression of what happened which means people can't defend themselves properly.

I also have to point out that it does matter that he was 17, because we shouldn't just change the laws for specific incidents when there is nothing special about the crime that makes them more or less culpable than for any other crime. It's distasteful, but regardless it is how justice should work. If you lower it then you should recognize that it should be lowered universally and likewise you should lower statutory rape laws as you are now saying that these people are responsible to make this decision. It has a lot of implications and problems associated with it when you look at it fairly.

Also, there are things like peer pressure that can cause people to do heinous things that they'd never do in any other circumstance, which we must look at to decide fairly what to do while not wasting resources. I'm not saying it is the case or that it makes it better, but it is possible that he thought they were just going out to have fun and thought that they were just going to scare the couple and then someone went too far and then pressure or threat of force and mob mentality drove the actions forward. I certainly would be afraid if I didn't participate that I might end up as victims in this whole mess and self preservation kicks in.

Again, it doesn't make it right, BUT you have to take it into consideration.

You're really arguing completely meaningless semantics as far as the victim's responsibility for getting raped and murdered goes? Are you for real?

I did use those words, however it was making a point that you're still using the meaning and the word isn't the problem. It's the meaning. Again I also did swear in that post, appropriately to emphasize the point.

That only applies to the thread on PC comedy, not the ones on domestic abuse and abortion. I do not care if you are swearing "appropriately". There is no such thing as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't make generalizations about women. I pointed out the facts of the matter and the conclusions that I have come to, where feminism lies, and how I came to those conclusions. That is not generalizing and if I did I make it clear that I am generalizing several times and or have a "if this then that" which means I'm not generalizing but speaking specifically that if you are doing x then you are y. If it just so happens that a majority of a group do that and find that being y is horrible then they shouldn't do x. Notice the assumption of "doing x" is that you have a choice and agency and so whatever it is you do is on you, ie choice = responsibility.

Again, are you for real? You're arguing that you're not generalizing but drawing conclusions that lead directly to obvious generalization. I don't know why you think giving semantics the workout of the century is going to make a difference.

I'm well aware of your choice = responsibility position. It went down very well in the thread where you were arguing about women intentionally getting pregnant to prey on men and holding the threat of jail over their heads.

Actually lax enforcement of the rules point to the fact that the rule isn't a rule. It's a suggestion. And it shows a favoritism to a degree when it's not enforced. Saying that sometimes it's allowed and sometimes it's not confuses the issue and leaves it open to abuse, like right now. The reason you bring it up is as a threat, not to correct it. It's kinda like the whole Al Capone thing where they couldn't get him on anything real so they did their job, but only to put him in prison. It's completely over looked that the IRS wasn't doing their job in the first place.

I love how you can quote the Site Rules in the same post where you're denying the Site Rules. Again, if you see swearing, flag it. It's what I always did as a user. The mods aren't everywhere and they can't see everything; flagging something sends it straight to us so that it gets our attention. I have never said flagging is allowed sometimes and not allowed other times. It is not allowed, period. No one ever doubted Al Capone was a criminal.

e. It does matter what I consider a slur. Also I should point out this is a rule that covers abuse, and I very much consider people flagging things I say and calling it misogynistic abuse. Especially since I don't know who these people are and they have presented no counter argument. That is what people who are abusing a system to silence people do, not honest people who actually care do. As shown above, where you have pointed out where I am wrong I have admitted so or explained what my thinking is. This is what reasonable, honest people do. Abusing the system like you are describing is what dishonest people do.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slur

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative

n. 1) an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.

I don't know anyone that doesn't consider being called a misogynist as not insulting and it certain is damaging to someone's reputation. Gee. It looks like reality agrees with me.

Insinuations and allegations by their very nature typically feature little by way of proof. Hardly the case here considering there are multiple threads filled with your rants about the essential nature of women. You can consider being called a misogynist a slur and an infringement of your rights, although you do not actually have any rights on a private internet forum. I'm going to ban you now, after due consideration. If I have to pick between making sure you don't get offended about not being able to bash women at will and making sure female users don't get offended about you insinuating that they're cheats and manipulative shrews, it's not going to be a very hard decision to make.