I'll bite again.
Explain the difference.
I'll even help you out: In both scenarios, one party believes they have the right to enforce their power over the other party. The more weapons the other party has to defend themselves, the more weapons the enforcing party has to use. With one guy it can be a special squad. With another country it has to be the military.
Where there no men around to beat him up? The women alone could have bitchslapped him around if he was alone.
What do you mean? We can do something about it. Civil courage, for example. How about you don't allow the Afghan guy next to you to assault girls? Apprehend him, call the cops, let him be judged.
We all need to calm the shit down. Media is hyping everything up as if sexual assault on the beach is something fucking new.
We've been slapping asses before it was cool and nobody cared. We've now at least arrived at a point where it become socially unacceptable. But let's not pretend that he raped a teenager, at which point I'd agree that special sentencing should have been the right choice. As in, sentence him to local jail and deport him upon hitting the legal age.
- - - Updated - - -
It's not literally the same.
Dear god do you only know absolutes?
In one case, you destroyed a city, in another case you destroyed an individual. Destruction is destruction.
They should have just deported him. I highly doubt some refugee that's groping women is ever going to be a positive to any society.
I don't think a lot of the people here talking about "they're a minor" realise that they can be sentenced much like an adult, serving out their earlier years in juvenile facilities. The purpose of the criminal justice system is, primarily, justice. Justice for the victims and society. The victims who want to feel safe in their communities and society, who want to send a clear message regarding the prescribed rules. Second comes the rehabilitation and education of the criminal i.e. an appropriate punishment, to offer them the opportunity to repent and reintegrate with society. Then you consider the freedom of the criminal, i.e. how sentencing will impact their life. Many who are here suggesting leniency because they are a minor seem to believe that being a minor changes the priority to begin with the freedom of the criminal followed by education and rehabilitation. This is not justice and this is not how it works.
This is why you need a judge and sometimes a jury. They piece together an established narrative and make a judgement considering the impact of the offence on the victim, an appropriate punishment for the offence and finally the impact of the sentencing on the criminal. Obviously the Judge did this. I wouldn't like to say whether he was wrong or not, the articles read like click-bait. I'm sure there is more to the story.
You even want to deport local people? What?
Again, literally the same as with wars, just on a larger scale. One country is the aggressor, it gets destroyed with "right". One person is the aggressor, he gets shot with "right".If they shoot you because you're a threat then you're causing that on your own. If they shoot you because they're not following the proper conduct, then they're criminals that should be prosecuted.
This is a pointless discussion, I'll refrain from replying to you from now on regarding this matter.
- - - Updated - - -
What's your argument here, that one thing is more acceptable than the other?
Funny, I never said that. We're talking about immigrants/refugees committing crime.
Nope.
It's probably best for yourself that you do, since you can't tell the difference between war and law enforcement.
- - - Updated - - -
They know. They just don't care. I don't know why people insist that they don't know.
Because that's part of what people are taught in just about any culture on earth? Afghanistan is no exception. It's frowned heavily upon there, if you sexually assault the wrong person you could end up beaten to death. It's the kind of society where people could flock around you and watch as people gut you for raping their daughter.