Some Animals are more Equal than others

April 3, 2006 7:33 PM

Son of Senate president offered plea deal in assault case Clifton Bennett, 18, the son of Arizona Senate President Ken Bennett, and his co-defendant, Kyle Wheeler, 19, were charged in January with 18 counts of aggravated assault and 18 counts of kidnapping for the incidents, which happened at a youth camp last June. The younger Bennett confessed to police that he and Wheeler sodomized the 11- to 14-year-old boys with broomsticks and flashlights in at least 40 incidents, court documents show.
posted by headlemur (76 comments total)

I learned it from watching you, dad!
posted by billysumday at 7:39 PM on April 3, 2006

'Teach Your Children Well.'
posted by ericb at 7:39 PM on April 3, 2006

Bennett apologized for his role in court last week, saying he was "trying every way he can to rectify the situation." Not the best word to use when sodomy's involved. Rectum, damn near killed 'em.
posted by Frank Grimes at 7:40 PM on April 3, 2006

Once again Republican family values at work.

Off-topic...Breaking News -- Tom Delay Dropping Out of Congressional Reelection Race.
posted by ericb at 7:40 PM on April 3, 2006

"Prosecutor James Landis told a judge at last week's hearing that the "broomsticking" was a hazing ritual and a punishment, not sexual assault.

The plea agreement describes the assault charge as 'a non-dangerous, non-repetitive offense.'"

*shakes head*
posted by Pontius Pilate at 7:42 PM on April 3, 2006

This is appalling. I can't believe anyone is arguing that this isn't sexual assault. Those poor boys.

And I second the assertion that "rectify the situation" was a horrific choice of words, even aside from the obvious. How the hell can he "rectify" the fact that he sexually assaulted 18 boys? Saying his sorry is really not going to cut it. I'm glad the article called him out by name. He should be stuck with this stigma for the rest of his life.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:44 PM on April 3, 2006

Sodomy by way of broomstick -- brings to mind the Abner Louima case in 1997 involving New York City policemen brutalizing the Haitian immigrant.
posted by ericb at 7:47 PM on April 3, 2006

"My son had something shoved up his butt seven or eight times. If that's not sexual assault, what is?"

That pretty much sums it up. I wonder what the odds are one of these assaulted kids or a relative puts a gun into play and addresses the lack of justice more eloquently.
posted by docpops at 7:51 PM on April 3, 2006

From the Louima article: sodomized him with a broomstick handle, causing severe internal damage to his intestines and bladder that required several operations to repair

From this case: sodomized the 11- to 14-year-old boys with broomsticks and flashlights in at least 40 incidents

This is "a non-dangerous, non-repetitive offense"?

*head explodes*
posted by hangashore at 7:52 PM on April 3, 2006

To hell with jail time for these privileged sons-of-bitches. They should be shot.
posted by Scoo at 7:54 PM on April 3, 2006

How much do you want to bet this story is greater than what was reported?
posted by mischief at 8:02 PM on April 3, 2006

Welcome to the official website for brooming. Don't miss the gallery!
SFW.
posted by dhartung at 8:36 PM on April 3, 2006

Only a gaping asshole would use the word "rectify" in such a situation.
posted by Falconetti at 8:52 PM on April 3, 2006

Man. This is gonna be like the Haidl case in Orange County, CA.

...only worse by virtue of numbers.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:09 PM on April 3, 2006

Restrained, compared to these comments: Mormon @#$%&.
Here's someone sticking up for them:
"Anonymous said...
I have attended the AAJHSC leadership camp for 5 years-two as a camper and three as a Junior Counselor. I loved this camp and everything it did for me as a Student Council kid in Jr. High and High School. I personally know Clif and Kyle and volunteered with them both for two summers. These guys are good hearted and would not do anything to intentionally harm anyone. All of this was roughhousing. It's nothing more than what high school guys would do to each other in a locker room. If the boys in the cabin weren't able to stand the simple hazing, they should have said something during camp, or at the latest, right when they got home. Waiting until six months have gone by is quite uncalled for, and this gave room for the whole case to be blown out of proprtion. I hope those victims involved feel just swell for trying to destroy the lives of two good men."
posted by tellurian at 9:23 PM on April 3, 2006

I am sure those boys are very sorry and have learned a valuable lesson and will never do it again. . .

(The lesson being, of course, to be born into a rich republican family.)
posted by Danf at 9:24 PM on April 3, 2006

It's despicable that the father of this young psychopath pervert is an elected politician, who obviously had a hand in corrupting the officials from meting out appropiate punishment for these outrageous crimes, 18 counts of aggravated assault and 18 counts of kidnapping in 40 incidents!

And the other kid, Kyle Wheeler, is a psycho too: "Wheeler has been offered a similar deal but faces an additional assault charge for choking three boys until they passed out."
posted by nickyskye at 9:51 PM on April 3, 2006

All of this was roughhousing. It's nothing more than what high school guys would do to each other in a locker room. If the boys in the cabin weren't able to stand the simple hazing, they should have said something during camp, or at the latest, right when they got home.

*insert obligatory Abu Gharib photo here*
posted by joe lisboa at 10:36 PM on April 3, 2006

Articles like this one don't get in papers without a lot of thought at high levels. I'm cautiously optimistic that public outrage may be impossible for the DA to ignore.
posted by Dareos at 10:52 PM on April 3, 2006

since when is sexual intent a factor in sexual assault cases.

rape – which I'm not saying this is – isn't about sex.
posted by pruner at 2:16 AM on April 4, 2006

Falconetti: Only a gaping asshole would use the word "rectify" in such a situation.

You are an awful human being. I say that because you made me laugh, and now I feel only shame...

pruner: rape – which I'm not saying this is – isn't about sex.

Thanks for mentioning this, pruner. It's important to remember rape isn't about sex, it's about violence: it's violently forcing someone to do something against their will. And hopefully, before the inevitable "prison rape, ha ha" jokes start, the people reading this thread will realize that rape isn't really funny at all (sadly, it was too late for the Delay thread).
posted by hincandenza at 3:07 AM on April 4, 2006

er, in case it wasn't clear in the way I phrased that- I really did think F.'s comment was amusing albeit terribly off-color, and laughed in spite of my own disgust at the topic of the article. I obviously don't think F. is an awful human being... just one who is as sadly twisted as I am. :)
posted by hincandenza at 3:12 AM on April 4, 2006

For the life of me I just cannot comprehend the transition from "simple roughhousing" to "hey, let's stick a broomstick up his butt."
I mean, whose idea was that, anyway?
posted by Ridx at 4:51 AM on April 4, 2006

Once again Republican family values at work.

Whatever.

Yea, a good 10-15 years + hard labor for these jackoffs, at the very least.
posted by Witty at 5:15 AM on April 4, 2006

Arizona Mormon Republicans could blow up the Capitol with infants wrapped in C-4 and their weirdly overgroomed, child-rape-sympathizing, fanatical constituents wouldn't bat an eye as long as they had gay people to blame it on. The only people more brainwashed and loyal than Mormons are Sceintologists.

The letter said Bennett was an honor student and active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who plans to go on a mission in September.

"A felony conviction for assault will make his desire to complete his mission impossible," they wrote.

Yeah, that's a shame. It'd be horrible if they weren't allowed to go sodomize - I mean convert - some nice fresh third-world boys, mmm. Remember, if you're a girl who gets pregnant, you're out of the church, an apostate, a whore, but if you shove hard objects up children's rectums, it's simple hazing, just fun!
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:55 AM on April 4, 2006

It's only repetitive when you do it 50 times. 40 just doesn't cut it.
posted by SisterHavana at 6:42 AM on April 4, 2006

Once upon a time, long ago, I had an affair with a good Arizona Mormon guy. It was awkward, but he was sweet as candy and as cute as any guy I've even been with (apart from the fact that I love him enormously). However, the fun always ended any time the tactile stimulation approached his rosebud. The guy would totally freak and quake with fear. Now I understand a possible reason why. He was the sort to have been amongst such a crowd. Maybe this really was a sick, twisted hazing ritual.

Here's the problem with something like this: IF these guys weren't out to commit sexual assault, which is to say, they didn't see it as more than a hazing (in which case we are forced to assume they received the same treatment themselves, in their turn), then what is the sense of charging them with a sexual crime, and branding them as pervs for life? Sure, they shouldn't be let off too easily, but the sexual assault thing is either about intent/state-of-mind, or it's bullshit.

However, I note the conflict in the statements that the 'brooming' was a 'punishment' and also a 'hazing'. Which was it? Sounds like all the youths got broomed, regardless. Perhaps young Bennett should go on a mission to a nice friendly Turkish prison :-))
posted by Goofyy at 6:43 AM on April 4, 2006

IF these guys weren't out to commit sexual assault, which is to say, they didn't see it as more than a hazing (in which case we are forced to assume they received the same treatment themselves, in their turn), then what is the sense of charging them with a sexual crime, and branding them as pervs for life?

Because that's the consequence for jamming brooms into the assholes of little boys. They could have shoved something into the boys' ears or nose, mouth perhaps... but they chose the butthole.

If these acts weren't sexual in nature and the intent of these guys wasn't to sexually assault the boys, then please describe for me a situation and how it would be different from this case, if someone were to jam broomsticks into little boy butts in a sexual nature WITH the intent to commit sexual assualt. Is it required for the person commiting the crime to have an orgasm or something? I don't get it.
posted by Witty at 7:37 AM on April 4, 2006

Goofy: It's quite obvious to me. They were assaulted. Whether the intent was sexual or not doesn't excuse the perpetrators actions. The reports do present a different context as to how it might be presented/viewed vis a vis dealing with it, with regard to church membership and the parent's political influence but that's the best I can say. It's a sad case.
posted by tellurian at 7:43 AM on April 4, 2006

It's only a sex crime if you say "Oh yeah, baby, c'mon!"

If you say "Quit yer bawling, this'll make a man out of you!" then you're ok.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:48 AM on April 4, 2006

Witty: I hope some 12 year old busts a cap in your ass for calling him a "little boy". These were not "little boys", and calling them such is nothing more than sensationalism.

tellurian: yes, they were assaulted. I don't deny that for a moment. I am, however, arguing about the 'sexual' nature of the assault.

I will point out for those of you with no experience in the finer points of butt sex: the fact that none of the youths involved were hospitalized is rather indicative of something other than violent assault. Your mind will tend to paint a horrific picture of what transpired. Flashlights? Funny shaped ones, maybe. Broom handles, yea, but they couldn't go in very far without injury. Assholes aren't that tough. Serious assault applied there results in serious injury and surgical repair (friend of mine got gang-raped in a DC jail, learned the hard way. No broom handles, just big cock!).

The whole story is bizarre and stinks of exceptions being made for the elite. But I know nothing of the social norms of the sexually repressed red states. Sexual repression breeds perversion, so maybe everyone out there does it, I wouldn't know.
posted by Goofyy at 8:12 AM on April 4, 2006

If these guys weren't out to commit sexual assault, which is to say, they didn't see it as more than a hazing (in which case we are forced to assume they received the same treatment themselves, in their turn), then what is the sense of charging them with a sexual crime, and branding them as pervs for life? Sure, they shouldn't be let off too easily, but the sexual assault thing is either about intent/state-of-mind, or it's bullshit

Would you say that if someone "hazed" your mother?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:20 AM on April 4, 2006

Goofyy - what would you call a 12-year old then? 12 is pretty damn young, and pretty damn vulnerable, and I don't think that describing them as "little boy" is sensationalism at all.
posted by sluggo at 8:37 AM on April 4, 2006

They're pre-teens and early teens. Probably look like kids, have classmates who are going through or near puberty, and will be starting to joke about sex. I can't say that sexual abuse like this is necessarily worse but it has to be pretty horrible because to an extent these kids know exactly what's going on more than a younger child would but they weren't old enough to feel they could speak up against an older kid.

These are (young) adults who are old enough to make their own decisions and recognize abuse that are doing this to kids in their care. If it is a case where the abused have become abusers, then they need some sort of counseling and treatment. Sexual or not, this is an abhorrent way of treating people and it tends to repeat as one generation of the abused take the role of abuser and it all starts again.

It might be possible to talk it out with the 18 and 19 year olds and break them out of this pattern of behavior where they're treating kids like objects, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Hopefully it's soon enough for the kids.
posted by mikeh at 8:58 AM on April 4, 2006

Mikeh, stay away from my 12 year old.
posted by headspace at 9:10 AM on April 4, 2006

"However, the fun always ended any time the tactile stimulation approached his rosebud. The guy would totally freak and quake with fear."

I think you might be assuming too much here, goof. Some people don't find it sexually appealing to have their anus fondled. Some people I've heard of even lose their erection when their sex partner fiddles about with their butthole. I don't understand this new trend that treats buttplay like it's an amazing sexual experience for everybody.

If you go after someone's naughty bits and they don't want you to, it's sexual assault.
Lock em up.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:16 AM on April 4, 2006

If it were my son that did such a thing I’d have him serve jail time as soon as he got out of traction. And I’d never show my face in public again.
11 to 14 year old kids, and these kids are 18-19?
Yeah, I have sooo much compassion for people who bully those younger and weaker than they are. Utterly despicable.

I understand Nero was a handful as a teenager as well.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:39 AM on April 4, 2006

"A felony conviction for assault will make his desire to complete his mission impossible," they wrote.

So? He assaulted 18 boys. What the fuck do his desires have anything to do with it?

If these guys had done the same thing to 18 girls, you can bet your ass (sorry) that they'd get locked in a room, and the key thrown away. But society doesn't recognize sexual assault against men as being just as damaging as that against women.

headspace >>> "Mikeh, stay away from my 12 year old."

er, wtf? Mikeh was obviously standing up for the 12 year olds.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:15 AM on April 4, 2006

I am, however, arguing about the 'sexual' nature of the assault.

I don't think assault needs to be sexual on the part of the attacker to be sexual assault; I believe it simply needs to involve parts of the body on either person (attacker or attackee) typically considered "intimate" and which, if exposed in public, would get you a ticket or arrested (assuming you're an adult.)

Flashlights? Funny shaped ones, maybe. Broom handles, yea, but they couldn't go in very far without injury.

Here's what I'm going to say about this:

1. Have you ever seen those little keychain flashlights? The little metal kryptonite ones? Small, cylindrical, and no protrusions. I use one to fish wire through walls (makes a great weight to the line, lets me see where the wire is going, and fits through holes as small as 1/2". Chances are they're talking about something like that.

2. I'm gonna say that if you take a 12-year-old boy, pull down his pants and underwear, and put something against his anus even if it does not penetrate, you've got sexual assault. If you argue otherwise, then you reasonably have to say that someone fondling a child's anus with a finger -- but not penetrating -- is also not sexual assault, and I have to assume you wouldn't make that claim. Would you?

I apologize for putting any unpleasant thoughts into anyone's head in the above
posted by davejay at 11:36 AM on April 4, 2006

It's clearly rape. I can't imagine how it can be seen as anything but.
posted by Hildegarde at 11:47 AM on April 4, 2006

They're just gonna let these two little creeps get away with? Are you kidding me? I don't really give a rat's ass about the political connection to the hometown senator; what I care about is that these empty eyed little pervs will be on the streets with no record that they kidnapped and assaulted 40 boys between the ages of 11-14. I thought kidnapping was a federal crime? How is it that the local DA could plea this down to a misdemeanor?

Here's the phone number for the Yavapai County Attorney, Sheila Polk.

Here is a major media contact list. And here's Mondo's list of world wide newspaper and magazine media contacts. Get the story out.

Here's an interesting article, with the following quote from the prosecuting attorney: "(in a paragraph interviewing Yavapai County prosecutor James Landis ...) He said the case likely would have been treated differently if the victims were girls or if there was evidence that the defendants were homosexual."

So...if they were gay, this would have been a crime...but because they're not...it isn't? WTF?

The Pervs have already accepted the plea bargain, and I don't know enough about criminal law to know if that means that they're now untouchable for any crime related to this incident, but I'd love to see the story get enough air time that any time for the rest of their lives, when someone googles their name, this case comes up. Would you want these guys working at your kid's daycare center? Or school?

Or, for that matter, being the public face of your faith? I mean, would the Mormons actually still send these psychos out on missionary duty? How could any faith square this sort of behavior with the moral codes of the faith. I tell you what, if the CLDS is willing to put those two out as missionaries, I'm going to be a lot more leery of being as friendly as I am to the ones who come through here. Because these two don't seem to understand the concept of right and wrong; a trait shared by most psychotics, and I'd just as soon not let psychotics onto the property for lemonade and a sit down in the cool.
posted by dejah420 at 12:30 PM on April 4, 2006

Echoing dejah. The issue seems to not even be the guilt or innocence, but the state-meted punishment. I am not normally a fan of vigilante justice, but if the "fix" is in, and appeals to the media and prosecutors don't work... I'd be really surprised if not one of 40 parents takes extralegal action. These are to be clear psychopaths cut right from the same mold as Dahmer: they probably started on animals, and have since moved on to those weaker than themselves. Give them more freedom, and see what else they can do! If they get off with a slap on the wrist, they'd only be more emboldened to believe they are untouchable- and then the horrors really start.

Goofyy: friend of mine got gang-raped in a DC jail, learned the hard way. No broom handles, just big cock!

The thing that saddens me is that this is absolutely horrible, and yet you still kind of say it in a joking manner. This is NOT funny! Some friend you are... DNAB asks that question, why is it that "society doesn't recognize sexual assault against men as being just as damaging as that against women"?

Getting date raped is still orders of magnitude less tragic than gang raped in a prison- no escape, no help, guards who laugh at you, a sea of monsters who line up to use you as a human toilet... no rape kit, no crisis center, no Lifetime movie specials... just concrete blood and hell, and the darkness in the aftermath of crawling your near-corpse to the toilet to squat and let a nightmarish mixture of blood, semen, feces, and a score of STDs drip out your battered anus.

I can't fathom how any of the people who gang raped your friend are still alive- or, if they're safe in jail, how any of their loved ones are alive. Like I said... some friend you are.
posted by hincandenza at 12:55 PM on April 4, 2006

The linked story and most of the ones I ran across recently seem to leave out some details, and that has led to people being under the impression that we are talking naked boys with objects being forced into their anuses. Reading other stories today it now seems as though the boys were still wearing their clothing. Not that this makes this any less a shame and a crime, but it does tend to make it more of an assault than a rape.

Bennett, son of Senate President Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, pleaded guilty in Maricopa County Superior Court to one count of aggravated assault, admitting that he used a broom handle, a flashlight and cane to poke campers “while clothed, in the area of the butt” at the Arizona Association of Junior High Student Councils Leadership Camp. --source

I still think they should get more than a slap on the wrist, but it's not quite as clearcut that it is a sexual assault or rape, at least to me.
posted by Orb at 1:59 PM on April 4, 2006

hincandenza >>> "I can't fathom how any of the people who gang raped your friend are still alive- or, if they're safe in jail, how any of their loved ones are alive. Like I said... some friend you are."

The fact that Goofyy didn't go and exact retribution on these animals doesn't make him a bad friend, hincandenza. Jesus. Revenge and vigilante 'justice' are not good ideas. We have the system, imperfect though it may be, for a reason.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:11 PM on April 4, 2006

"Revenge and vigilante 'justice' are not good ideas."

Oh...uh...right..
*puts rifle away*
...yeah, sorry, man.

I don’t know, if it were my kid I’d think about it. It doesn’t seem like justice is possible in this case.

Although I wouldn’t just shoot them.
Revenge is best served cold.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:23 PM on April 4, 2006

Reading other stories today it now seems as though the boys were still wearing their clothing. Not that this makes this any less a shame and a crime, but it does tend to make it more of an assault than a rape.

Um, what? I'm sorry, if they leave your clothes on, it's less of a rape? Please tell me I misunderstood you. The presence or absence of clothing does not make this any less what it is: rape.
posted by Hildegarde at 3:36 PM on April 4, 2006

Watch out for your cornhole, man.


Seriously tho - what is it with power hungry/elitist folks and the anus?
posted by Smedleyman at 3:55 PM on April 4, 2006

The presence or absence of clothing does not make this any less what it is: rape.

The presence or absence of clothing might determine whether penetration had occurred. If penetration didn't occur, why would poking someone in their (clothed) ass be any more serious than spanking someone?

I don't know whether the victims were clothed or not; I don't know whether they were raped or not. It seems to me like there may be more to this than is obvious on its face.

what is it with power hungry/elitist folks and the anus?

I'm not power-hungry or elitist, and I like it too! What's not to like about it?
posted by me & my monkey at 4:11 PM on April 4, 2006

Er...pardon me, me & my monkey, and other anal aficionados, colon connoisseurs and sphincter esthete’s. To clarify - what’s with the fixation on abusing the anus in non-consensual ways?

I’m thinking of Ken Kesey (through R.P. McMurphy) talking about how certain people try to weaken others and go right for damaging your balls.

But is a fixation on controling the anus more of a domination thing or what?
There seems to be certain types of people who brand this as “hazing” and/or carry this kind of thing out.

I mean I’ll smear shaving cream on a guy’s hand when he’s sleeping and tickle his nose - or shave off an eyebrow if we’re getting into serious pranks.
This just seems like a sickness common to certain types of people.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:51 PM on April 4, 2006

Uh, they admitted to sodomizing 18 boys with broomsticks. I don't think there's too much that's unclear about that. They didn't get wacked on the bum with a broom, they got sodomized with broomsticks. Good god. I don't know if it's reading comprehension problems or denial we're dealing with here.
posted by Hildegarde at 4:51 PM on April 4, 2006

Uh, they admitted to sodomizing 18 boys with broomsticks. I don't think there's too much that's unclear about that. They didn't get wacked on the bum with a broom, they got sodomized with broomsticks. Good god. I don't know if it's reading comprehension problems or denial we're dealing with here.

For that to have happened, they would have had to been unclothed. It's as simple as that. I was simply responding to this statement of yours:

"I'm sorry, if they leave your clothes on, it's less of a rape?"

In the case of sticking something up one's ass, yes, yes it is less of a rape, or perhaps no rape at all. It certainly isn't sodomy - there are specific legal requirements for what is sodomy, and rubbing someone's anus through his clothing doesn't make the cut.

But thank you for your concern about my reading comprehension.

Er...pardon me, me & my monkey, and other anal aficionados, colon connoisseurs and sphincter esthete’s. To clarify - what’s with the fixation on abusing the anus in non-consensual ways?

People who don't want things put in there, REALLY don't want things put in there. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.
posted by me & my monkey at 5:07 PM on April 4, 2006

In the case of sticking something up one's ass, yes, yes it is less of a rape, or perhaps no rape at all. It certainly isn't sodomy - there are specific legal requirements for what is sodomy...

Well -- in the Abner Louima case (cited above) -- the shoving of a broomstick up one's asshole was indeed considered sodomy -- and resulted in the conviction of the perpetrators (Officers Charles Schwarz and Justin Volpe), as well as an $8.75 million settlement from New York Police Department to the victim.
posted by ericb at 5:32 PM on April 4, 2006

in the Abner Louima case (cited above) -- the shoving of a broomstick up one's asshole was indeed considered sodomy

Now it's my turn to complain about reading comprehension. I'm quite sure they didn't push it through the fabric of his pants.
posted by me & my monkey at 5:39 PM on April 4, 2006

Volpe escaped the maximum sentence of life imprisonment without parole and is serving out a 30-year term in Federal prison.
posted by ericb at 5:39 PM on April 4, 2006

I merely cite your exact words vis-a-vis the definition of sodomy: I repeat: "In the case of sticking something up one's ass, yes, yes it is less of a rape, or perhaps no rape at all. It certainly isn't sodomy - there are specific legal requirements for what is sodomy..."

Help me out. What am I mis-reading?
posted by ericb at 5:40 PM on April 4, 2006

I conceed that regarding the case under discussion there seems to be some confusion over whether or not the young men engaged the broomstick against the boys clothed or unclothed. But, I take exception with your blanket statement that the definition of sodomy with a broom or some other object is less of a crime than rape, etc.
posted by ericb at 5:42 PM on April 4, 2006

And I *concede* that I misspelled above.
posted by ericb at 5:44 PM on April 4, 2006

"The younger Bennett confessed to police that he and Wheeler sodomized the 11- to 14-year-old boys with broomsticks and flashlights in at least 40 incidents, court documents show."
posted by ericb at 5:45 PM on April 4, 2006

"'I think he got a sweetheart deal,' said the father of one of the three Tucson victims, a 12-year-old boy who attends a local Catholic school. "I'd like him to get a year in prison. The victims should have been heard from before the plea was agreed to. If this was 18 girls who were victims, it would have been sexual assault.'

...'If these were two kids from South Tucson without money or connections, they would never have been offered this deal,' said Lynne M. Cadigan, a Tucson attorney who is representing two of the families." [source]
posted by ericb at 5:51 PM on April 4, 2006

Help me out. What am I mis-reading?

The part where I directly responded to the statement in quotes here. I simply stated that anal sodomy requires penetration.
posted by me & my monkey at 5:52 PM on April 4, 2006

What should be the remedy for two boys in Harlem, NY after they "shove" broom handles up or against 40 girls vaginas -- even when clothed -- and choke three of them until they pass out?
posted by ericb at 5:53 PM on April 4, 2006

I simply stated that anal sodomy requires penetration.

well, then how do you not know that penetration did not occur? I suspect a brrom handle pressed against cloth in the area of one's rectum can indeed one's "rosebud."
posted by ericb at 5:55 PM on April 4, 2006

*Well, then how do you not know*

*can indeed penetrate one's "rosebud."*

Regardless, numerous assaults happened and folks are right to ask why such leniency in this particular case.
posted by ericb at 5:57 PM on April 4, 2006

I also wonder whether, in this case, "clothed" simply means that the boys were not naked. Perhaps most of their clothing remained on, but their pants were partially pulled down. I have heard people refer to performing sexual acts "while clothed" in a manner suggesting not that all contact occurred through clothing, but that clothing was unzipped and/or moved aside as needed. Of course we don't have enough information at this point to say for sure one way or the other, but I can certainly imagine a defendant truthfully but misleadingly stating that the victims remained clothed in order to alter others' perception of what happened.
posted by purplemonkie at 6:07 PM on April 4, 2006

What should be the remedy for two boys in Harlem, NY after they "shove" broom handles up or against 40 girls vaginas -- even when clothed -- and choke three of them until they pass out?

I don't know. I don't think it's useful to consider that to be identical to rape or sodomy, though.

well, then how do you not know that penetration did not occur?

Again, I don't know anything about the particulars of this case beyond what was in the FPP. I was simply responding to Hildegarde's statement about clothing.

I suspect a brrom handle pressed against cloth in the area of one's rectum can indeed one's "rosebud."

Anal penetration is not as easy as it might seem. (At least, that has been my somewhat extensive personal experience.) If you pushed a broom handle that hard, mental trauma wouldn't be the most serious problem.

Regardless, numerous assaults happened and folks are right to ask why such leniency in this particular case.

Absolutely. Again, my original comment simply addressed whether it would be rape if no penetration occurred as a result of the victims being clothed. Not all sexual assault is rape. That in no way makes it ok, or trivial, etc.
posted by me & my monkey at 6:07 PM on April 4, 2006

Even if there is material between the "object" and the "rectum" -- whether it be pliant cotton underpants or a condom stretched over a penis -- I think many consider any penetration to be sodomy (even if such penetration was 1 cm.).

One of the young men admitted to that fact: "The younger Bennett confessed to police that he and Wheeler sodomized the 11- to 14-year-old boys with broomsticks and flashlights in at least 40 incidents."
posted by ericb at 6:18 PM on April 4, 2006

So then me & my monkey what do you think of the pleas agreement? Fair or unfair?
posted by ericb at 6:21 PM on April 4, 2006

Even if there is material between the "object" and the "rectum" -- whether it be pliant cotton underpants or a condom stretched over a penis -- I think many consider any penetration to be sodomy (even if such penetration was 1 cm.).

The last time I checked, condoms were not considered articles of clothing. This is getting quite silly, so I'll just stand on my statement that actual anal penetration through clothing is very unlikely.

One of the young men admitted to that fact: "The younger Bennett confessed to police that he and Wheeler sodomized the 11- to 14-year-old boys with broomsticks and flashlights in at least 40 incidents."

Yes, I read the article. Again, though, that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

So then me & my monkey what do you think of the pleas agreement? Fair or unfair?

Based on what I read in the article? Probably unfair. Based on my general beliefs about the justice system's favoritism to the rich? Probably unfair. But I wouldn't want to be the one making decisions here, if all I had to go on was that article.
posted by me & my monkey at 6:26 PM on April 4, 2006

Based on what I read in the article? Probably unfair. Based on my general beliefs about the justice system's favoritism to the rich? Probably unfair. But I wouldn't want to be the one making decisions here, if all I had to go on was that article.

Agreed.
posted by ericb at 6:37 PM on April 4, 2006

BTW -- another infamous incident of hazing involving "sodomy with a broomstick, pine cones and golf balls" by older boys against younger ones rocked Bellmore-Merrick, Long Island a couple of years ago. There are numerous other examples -- and participants in such behavior should be held accountable.

What is disconcerting about the case under discussion in this thread is the multiple incidents of abuse and what I -- and others -- see as the unfair disposition of the legal remedies. IANAL, but hope that many of the families seek civil lawsuits against the perpetrators.
posted by ericb at 6:49 PM on April 4, 2006

IANAL

It just keeps getting worse, doesn't it.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:55 PM on April 4, 2006

Oh my, a Freudian slip indeed!
posted by ericb at 7:09 PM on April 4, 2006

Smedleyman >>> "Seriously tho - what is it with power hungry/elitist folks and the anus?"

These power-hungry/elitist folks tend to be men. Not just men; manly men. Big manly heterosexual men...

Ahem. Sorry. Had to calm down for a moment.

To continue: these types of men, these power-hungry ones, have to achieve dominance whenever possible. (Except when with their dominatrix mistresses, of course). To them, the single most emasculating act possible is to be anally penetrated. (Except by their dominatrix mistresses; then it's different.) So when they want to degrade, humiliate, dominate, and otherwise have control over another male, they go straight for the ass.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:43 PM on April 4, 2006

Next thing you know these rapists will be blowing up frogs and running for public office.

Hell, they might even make the Skull and Bones club!

I know some college political clubs that will warmly embrace them very soon now.

Arizona - all the justice you can afford!
posted by nofundy at 8:09 AM on April 5, 2006

Holy crap, ericb. You know that you can put more than one sentence in a single comment, don't you?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:21 AM on April 5, 2006

Did politics sway ‘hazing gone wrong’ case?
posted by ericb at 7:24 PM on April 24, 2006