2 US soldiers accused of raping teenagers in Korea - Page 20

On October 09 2011 17:09 LaLLsc2 wrote:
Why are you guys theory crafting SK vs NK? Completely off topic from this thread..

On October 09 2011 17:09 LaLLsc2 wrote:
Why are you guys theory crafting SK vs NK? Completely off topic from this thread..

On October 09 2011 16:53 Redlol wrote:

Those 28,500 would quickly become a half million if NK messed with SK, that seems like common sense that it's not the specific number that's a deterrent.

On October 09 2011 17:21 bokchoi wrote:
Too many issues with problem soldiers/GIs in Korea and other regions. There really needs to be a mandatory curfew, and perhaps even a ban on certain areas. I know a lot of places in the "party" areas actually ban GIs from entering their establishments because of issues that arise.

On October 09 2011 12:28 Euronyme wrote:
What I don't understand is why the soldiers have to physically be there. It's not like modern technology doesn't allow you to travel there in a heartbeat anyway if a full out war would break out.

On October 09 2011 17:24 Mioraka wrote:
Come on guys, American soldiers raping teenage girls in foreign countries.

Are you guys seriously surprised at this?

They have done it in Japan, in Iraq, in Korea, if they get their hands on Iran, they will continue the tradition there.

Rape IS about power, and there's not doubt Americans, especially American soldiers will feel more powerful than they actually are when carrying guns in other countries' territory.

Four men in their twenties who were sentenced to six years in prison after being convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year old middle school student have been sentenced to probation by an appeals court. Prosecutors criticized the ruling, saying that “this court’s decision is incredibly tolerant of gang rape.”

On Wednesday the ninth criminal division of the Seoul High Court (Judge Choi Sang-yeol presiding) sentenced 20-year-old Mr. B and three other young men, all convicted of sexually assaulting 12-year-old middle school student A over a period of hours, to three years in prison and four years of probation. This is a lesser punishment than that imposed by the trial court, which sentenced them to six years in prison and ten years of offender registry.

The judge wrote in the opinion that “viewing the situation as a whole there is no evidence that the victim lacked the ability to resist… The trial court misunderstood the facts.” The opinion continued that “as Mr. B and the others acknowledged their crime, regret their error, have reached an agreement with the victim, and do not want to be punished, and as the defendants are young and this was their first crime, having no prior offenses rising to the level of a fine or higher, so we find this to be an appropriate sentence.”

In August of 2010 Mr. B and his friends received a call from one of their girlfriends (a student) saying that she was exhausted from drinking alcohol, then followed her to a motel and met A, who was with her.

They then went to another hotel, where they repeatedly sexually assaulted the intoxicated A over a period of three hours.

They were not subject to the law on sexual violence criminalizing rape of those 13 years of age or younger. The judge wrote that “Mr. B, unable to tell that A was only 12, committed his acts because he did not think she was 12.”

Prosecutors responded that “gang rape must subject to harsher legal penalty than ordinary sexual assault, so it is difficult to understand the appeals court’s sentence of probation.”

The trial court judge who issued the original, severe sentence said that “because they confessed that the victim was so intoxicated that she could not resist and knew that she was too intoxicated to do anything, I recognized that it was a forcible sexual assault.”

However, the appeals court judge said of the reason for overturning the trial court that “from their lustful attitude, it had been six hours since A had become intoxicated and arrived at the motel on the back seat of the motorcycle of her male assailant, so we sentence them to probation.” The court found that A had not been so intoxicated as to be unable to resist, and that she meekly accompanied Mr. B and the others to the hotel.

On October 09 2011 18:48 AutomatonOmega wrote:
Great job making Americans look even more like idiots than they were already, soldiers. I didn't even think it was possible.

On October 09 2011 21:01 Archie_Lewis wrote:
Americans. What can you expect

On October 09 2011 08:08 deadlywaffle wrote:


A diplomat's purpose is to mediate relations between the two countries. If they have to apologize in order to do so, so be it.