<p>Do you have reason to believe, kayf, that the sentencing for these types of crime is markedly different for kids from different socioeconomic tiers? If you do, please share. </p>
<p>No one is saying that 50 hours of community service is sufficient. Did someone here lay down that sentence? </p>
<p>Maybe a PSA campaign would be helpful. You’re probably right. </p>
<p>The reason I continue to stress education, though, on top of any law enforcement deterrents, is that the scope of the problem suggests that there are probably plenty of young men whose own parents didn’t teach them adequately. I’d rather step in and address the deranged thinking in kids who can be reached, in addition to scaring the ones who otherwise might consider this horrific behavior acceptable.</p>
<p>ABS, there are many kids put in juvi in Jefferson County – numbers far in excess of the number of murders and aggravated rape. So who does go to juvi and for what? You are right, we do not know? Is it that well off kids dont get incarcerated? Or is that crimes against women are not taken seriously? </p>
<p>I do not know how much how things are changing. There is another thread right now about a girl withdrawing from college after an attempted assault. She was not drunk.</p>
<p>I would have liked to see the plea bargain include the parents being required to fund PSAs for these issues. I would like to know what Trinity HS is doing? Guidance conselors make recommendations about getting into college, is the school relying on morality (which obviously isnt working – and btw, how many kids who are still at THS received the pictures?), or are they getting and saying if you get caught, you will get expelled, college will go down the drain, your parents will spend a lot on lawyers, etc etc. And you will get 50 hours of community service.</p>
<p>Trinity DID expel the boys. In fact, one of the reasons the boys’ parents wanted that gag order was that Savannah’s mom called Trinity and told the administration about the charges.</p>
<p>Jonri, yes I know the boys were expelled. But I still think the school should communicate to students what general policy is, and that even if gag order in place, they are still subject to expulsion.</p>
<p>“The reason I continue to stress education, though, on top of any law enforcement deterrents, is that the scope of the problem suggests that there are probably plenty of young men whose own parents didn’t teach them adequately.”</p>
<p>Education and parenting are very important, but strict laws and proper enforcement are paramount. These boys attended a private high school where daily theology classes are a requirement. It’s not like they were not taught morality.</p>
<p>Waiting for comment from 07dad to be inserted regarding S here.</p>
<p>I think your idea of having Frey’s and Zehnder’s parents fund a PSA is quite fitting, kayf. </p>
<p>I also agree 100 percent with CTscoutmom’s post. I would only add that I think parents should make it clear to their sons that this kind of behavior is NOT manly.</p>
<p>Things have changed, to some extent, and they need to change more, through law enforcement, through schools deciding on a no tolerance policy for sexual harrassment, assault and rape. </p>
<p>In a lot of ways it is a civil rights issue, always has been, and remains one, today. </p>
<p>When my daughter was applying to colleges, it was suggested that we take into account the number of full time tenured female faculty, as well as the number of high ranking female administrators. In the end, I’m not sure that played any part, but it certainly was an intereting excercise. Anyway, I don’t want to get political, so I won’t. But, the fact remains that Williams made a strong statement, and it would be great if the rest of the nescac schools would do the same. imho. it matters every time an influential institution makes a substantive change in policy and actions.</p>
<p>I think you are looking at this backward, to some degree. The point here is that 2/3 of those surveyed WOULD be constrained by their personal sense of right and wrong EVEN IF THERE WAS NO LEGAL PENALTY. This would indicate that it is in fact the moral component that is the strongest deterrent. </p>
<p>It appears that the remaining 30 percent are the major problem. They apparently are constrained only by a fear of being caught. It is that 30% that are probably committing the vast majority of rapes now, and that 30% who might be constrained from attempting rape if there were a deterrent in the form of more stringent prosecution and punishment, accompanied by a public information campaign like those aimed at DUI. Such an approach seems like an excellent idea, and I would certainly support it But I would suggest that the MOST effective way of preventing violence against women is to change the mindset and moral compass of society.</p>
<p>Don’t say that moral constraint doesn’t work, because if this survey shows anything it is that is DOES work. The vast majority of human beings do not commit crimes against persons or property not because it is illegal, but because they think it is wrong. In subcultures where it is not viewed as “wrong,” those barriers fail and crime rises, despite the illegality of the acts.</p>
<p>Edit: I agree with CTscoutmom.</p>
<p>Regarding the theological training of F&Z, I will simply comment that they were trained in a school run by an organization that does not allow women to be equal leaders, and which is currently engaged in disciplining female religious who take it upon themselves to speak and act independently. Not what I would suggest if the goal is to teach TRUE respect for women. If rape is a crime of power, a structure that places women in a position of lesser power simply by fact of being female is not sending the correct message, even if they think they are.</p>
<p>Consolation – then why do we need laws against anything? Against murder? DWIs? The answer is we need to keep moral outrage, but it alone is not working. No one has said that morality should not be the mission of parents and religous schools, but criminal penalties are also needed.</p>
<p>It is an and/and, not an either/or, statement in complete agreement with you, but also expanding outwards towards prevention and education, which we do know works, as well. </p>
<p>I think we would have a better change of changing mindset if we enforced the law. Enforcing civil rights law helped changed the public mindset in the south.</p>
<p>“Do you really think they are tackling the morality of acquaintance rape in the daily theology class at these boys’ school, OhioMom3000?”</p>
<p>Yes, but I’ll check with two of my nephews who attend/attended Jesuit high schools.</p>
<p>As I’ve already posted our public school district deals with it (alcohol/consent/rape) in health class. I have no reason to think the parochial schools do not as well.</p>
<p>“Of COURSE we have two different sets of justice. Anyone who’s spent a day in a criminal courtroom can see that.”</p>
<p>Exactly, just take a look at what populations represent the majority in prisons today for the answer to that question.</p>
<p>If they are addressing this topic in theology class at your nephews’ Jesuit school, OhioMom3000, more power to them.</p>
<p>And, yes, I know they address this topic in health class in the public schools and, I’m sure, in parochial schools. How thoroughly these classes take on the mindset that makes some men think this is okay is my concern.</p>
<p>ABS, some people seem to be arguing that the moral approach is the best. Thats fine if you want to take that approach with your own kids. I would prefer the legal approach.</p>
<p>Okay, kayf. That’s fine. Some people are motivated by different things. I cannot imagine starting with, “Don’t do this because it’s against the law” with my theoretical son. I would start by emphasizing the ethical way to treat other people and my expectations of him as a moral agent. Naturally, I would point out that the legal consequences of contravening these ethical obligations could be severe. I would hope THAT is not what deterred him from sexually assaulting a woman.</p>