 |
| (AP) Trent Mays (left) and Ma’lik Richmond |
Two Ohio high school football players, Trent Mays (17) and Ma'lik Richmond (16) have been charged with rape and sentenced to one year in juvenile hall respectively. Mays was also sentenced with an additional year for photographing the victim and distributing nude photographs of a minor. Both will also register as sex offenders.
The details of the crime are very graphic and thus will not be discussed in this post. However, the circumstances of their conviction are far more noteworthy in the context of this blog.
Because the victim was inebriated and had no recollection of the crime, much of the evidence against Mays and Richmond was gathered via social media. The teens photographed much of their crime. Other witnesses, identified only as fellow football players after being granted immunity for testifying, used their cellphones to record Mays and Richmond. Additionally, Mays' texts to the victim pleading to not press charges following the crime were presented as evidence.
Judge Lipps, who presided over the case, described the evidence as "profane and ugly." He also urged teens to take caution with "how you record things on social media that are so prevalent today."
 |
| (AP) Supporters of Anonymous await the conviction of Mays and Richmond. |
The crime received limited coverage in the mainstream media directly following its occurrence due to relatively sparse information available. At this point, Anonymous took the case into their own hands by hacking the football team's website, naming athletes as targets for revenge, and releasing videos related to the crime that the suspects thought they had deleted. Anonymous continued to dig up more information that was later reported by reputable news agencies such as the New York Times. Anonymous' methods are often questionable. In this case, they hacked and threatened in the pursuit of many saw as justice. Do you view this as justified?
In short: A rape case is successfully prosecuted due to social media. If Anonymous' hacking actually made this conviction possible (which is also debatable), then do the ends justify the means?
7 comments:
It doesn't really seem like an ends justifying the means question to me. I remember seeing a post about this on Reddit a few months ago, where someone who was a witness was trying to raise attention to the rape and the people who had committed it. As far as the hacking goes, it becomes the question--is it wrong to steal from a thief? (Or, in this instance, is it wrong to commit a crime, hacking, against a known criminal).
I don't think social media awareness really played a significant role in the determination of the case, though. I'm sure it helped the prosecution come up with a stronger argument, but the only effect it probably had was making sure this case made headlines instead of staying relatively local. Without the social media aspect, the name Steubenville would be met with careless shrugs.
Although I am happy about the "justice" that Anonymous seems to have brought to this situation I am wary about continued involvement of groups with questionable morals such as Anonymous. The high school students who have now been convicted completely deserve their punishment however I do not think that fighting fire with fire should be a consistent path towards justice. Anonymous hypocritically breaks laws in order to uphold others and this vigilante justice (although successful in this case) should not become a pattern. In this particular case the work of Anonymous seems to be secondary and the ultimate prosecution of the two students seemed inevitable based on the available evidence.
From what I've learned in this post and other news stories, it doesn't seem like Anonymous was the primary source in the outcome of this case. With multiple videos and pictures, as well as witness testimony, it does seem like the available evidence was enough to convict these two boys.
I also agree with David in that "fighting fire with fire" should not become a habit. Not only is it hypocritical, but I do not believe it solves the issue. By fighting fire with fire, Anonymous and similar groups may get "justice", but only after the crime has been committed. I think activist groups should be more focused on education and prevention for rape and other issues instead of breaking the law to convict criminals.
I’m going to take a definitive stance: I do think the ends justified the means – though the “ends” being referred to (a possible conviction stemming from Anonymous’ hacked information) seems to have played a minor role in the actual outcome. While it may have been unfortunate for the two football player teens from Ohio, I think the evidence obtained was rightfully utilized, for by taking pictures of their crime and subjecting themselves to the dangers / lack of privacy associated with cyberspace, they only have themselves to blame.
Interestingly, however, the first thing that came into my mind upon reading the article was the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio, whereby illegally obtained evidence could not be used in a court of law. Though some may assert that the lewd photographs attained by Anonymous were illegally brought about, and thus meaningless, I would say that there was reasonable suspicion to search (hack in this scenario) the suspects’ phones, legitimizing the evidence. If anything, this seems article seems to point out that text messages, cellular photographs, etc. are indeed public information that can be traced all too easily.
What I'm surprised that wasn't mentioned in the blog post was the time of the rape. It occurred nearly 9 months ago (compared to December 2012 gang rape case in India which was prosecuted almost immediately http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/how-the-police-cracked-the-delhi-gang-rape-case-306698). While hacking is not a good way to bring attention to a cause, I actually am glad that this case got more buzz and pressure for justice. A different article on this story made the point that these two football players (and other players) were practically invincible at their school due to their star status as athletes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21830914) and that there was speculation that town members were trying to cover up this scandal. While I'm not sure whether this is speculation or fact, I think that it's definitely crucial that this case was prosecuted to ensure that society can help support rape victims. Not all rape cases will get this attention, but they should, so that justice can be brought down upon the rapists.
I feel that either side could be argued for this. Whereas I am happy that these two boys are being prosecuted for their actions, it also brings up some questions about our new technological era in general. Everything is becoming more and more connected through technology and a rapid pace. Job employers and college admission officers can easily look up a prospective employee or student by checking their facebook page. You can "check in" where you just ate a meal on facebook and instagram. Have we lost a sense of privacy due to technology? I think that the Anonymous did help bring justice through those pictures, yet like others have mentioned, that probably did not make up the entire case. I agree with Melissa and David that two wrongs do not make a right, yet the pictures should never have been taken in the first place. Yet the question remains, are things becoming less and less private and should we be weary of the power of the internet? Most technological advances are very beneficial, but as the age of social media is steadily rising, I think everyone should be more mindful of posting things that could be interpreted in a wrong way.
I loved James' question - "Is it wrong to steal from a thief?" - and it called to mind the idea that "government has a monopoly on violence." Given that that holds true in our society, we have cases like Mapp v. Ohio, as pointed out by Keaton, which qualify what is NOT within a government's capacity.
The growing acceptance of citizen journalists and (in the case of Anonymous) vigilantes presents a changing relationship between the justice system and the people it serves: sort of the idea that we are holding ourselves more and more accountable, whether we want to or not.
That being said, I am personally still very wary of the argument for justice "by any means necessary." The integrity of process is often more important than the result itself, and given that our process was designed with transparency and equitability in mind, though admittedly often at the expense of efficiency.
Post a Comment