Is this justice?

[Tmy]

Heres my guess. It was a violent rape, not statutory rape. But due to the surounding circumstances they probably low balled the charges in oder to get a plea bargain and put the whole thing behind everyone. Spare evryone a messy trial.

Why else would the guy plea bargain out??

 

[CBL4]

The Washington state law has a 24 month age difference. The sex of the participants are irrellevant. If there is an 23 month and 29 day age difference, there is no crime. If there is a 24 month and 1 day age difference, it is a crime with a serious penalty.

CBL

 

[Tmy]

The Washington state law has a 24 month age difference. The sex of the participants are irrellevant. If there is an 23 month and 29 day age difference, there is no crime. If there is a 24 month and 1 day age difference, it is a crime with a serious penalty.

CBL

Whats the statute of limitations? Why wasnt this handled in juvy court? Why take this plea when it seems kinda lousy.

Methinks theres a whole lot more to the story.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Tmy
Heres my guess. It was a violent rape, not statutory rape. But due to the surounding circumstances they probably low balled the charges in oder to get a plea bargain and put the whole thing behind everyone. Spare evryone a messy trial.

If this were correct, then the parole officer lied to my wife. BTW, the parole officer implied that there several people who had similar circumstances.

Why else would the guy plea bargain out??

Perhaps because the maximum sentence for the "crime" was 10 years in jail and he had already confessed? He took a sure but minimal sentence (most of the time had already been served) instead of hoping for an acquital. The trial was very dicey because when he was asked about the sex, he admitted it. He was unaware he had committed a crime. His lawyer told him that if he had said nothing, there would have been no trial. Unfortunately, he was honest.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Why wasnt this handled in juvy court?

This is one of the bizarre parts of our justice system. If they wait until you are an adult, you can be tried as an adult for a crime you committed as a minor. The girl's mother did not find out until 5 years later when the boy was 19.

The most infamous example of this is Michael Skakel who committed a murder when he was 15. At the time he would have been convicted as a minor. However, when he was tried 27 years later, it was as an adult and he was sentence to 20 years to life.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/national/main510652.shtml

CBL

 

[Suddenly]

I agree that morally there was no rape but legally it is a different story.

The girl was 12.

CBL

Looking at it legally doesn't really help. Terms like "not able to consent as a matter of law" (not you saying that) are completely unhelpful when considering whether something is just if we allow that what is just and what the law is can be two different things.

I agree with Tony. This is not a "rape" in the traditional sense meaning a sexual intercourse via forcible compulsion. In reality it most likely is not a question of sex without consent, unless you mistake a legal presumption (a person under 18 cannot consent to sex with someone more than two years older) with the question of whether that is true in reality. To do that is to be everything that makes lawyer jokes funny....




As far as I am concerned, accepting the facts as presented at face value, only a punishment fetishist would find this remotely just.

An arbitrary distinction is bad enough, an arbitrary distinction turning a child's non-violent and consensual act within the bounds of a relationship no less into a scarlet letter for an otherwise normal adult years after the fact is simply appalling...

(again, assuming the facts at face value...)

 

[CBL4]

assuming the facts at face value

This is how it was related to me. When my wife repeated these statements to the parole officer, the parole officer verified them. My wife specifically asked about violence and the age of the participants. In addition, we checked the state laws. The laws match the facts.

We were satisfied enough of the veracity to allow this registered sex offender, registered domestic abuser, convicted felon to live 100 yards from our house even though we have two young children.

I am convinced that the facts are true but I can understand people being sceptical.

CBL

 

[crimresearch]

If the main thing that matters is the girl giving consent, who would have a problem had the boy been 17 at the time? Or 18? Or 45? Because there are 12 year olds out there that would (and have) given 'consent' to sex with men of all of those ages.

Still not rape as long as there is consent, no matter how obtained?

BS.........It isn't the actor, it is the actions.

Now the sex offender or domestic violence registry forever is part and parcel of political grandstanding and bandaid solutions.

But 'she wanted it' as an excuse for 12 year old's violation isn't my idea of justice.

 

[Freakshow]

If the main thing that matters is the girl giving consent, who would have a problem had the boy been 17 at the time? Or 18? Or 45? Because there are 12 year olds out there that would (and have) given 'consent' to sex with men of all of those ages.

Still not rape as long as there is consent, no matter how obtained?

BS.........It isn't the actor, it is the actions.

Now the sex offender or domestic violence registry forever is part and parcel of political grandstanding and bandaid solutions.

But 'she wanted it' as an excuse for 12 year old's violation isn't my idea of justice.

If the other person involved in the situation was above the legal age of consent, I'd agree with you. But since he was below the legal age of consent, too, I don't agree with his being singled out.

I understand the legal reasons for doing so. I am just saying I disagree with the moral reasons for doing so. He is being singled out unfairly.

 

[Suddenly]

This is how it was related to me. When my wife repeated these statements to the parole officer, the parole officer verified them. My wife specifically asked about violence and the age of the participants. In addition, we checked the state laws. The laws match the facts.

We were satisfied enough of the veracity to allow this registered sex offender, registered domestic abuser, convicted felon to live 100 yards from our house even though we have two young children.

I am convinced that the facts are true but I can understand people being sceptical.

CBL

Not so much skeptical as much as my personal habit. I deal with stories like that for a living, and while 90% turn out to miss certain unfortunate details, every now and then one turns out to be accurate....

These kinds of cases are no so uncommon though. Often concepts of justice and common sense are abandoned in favor of technical legalism... and usually at the hands of those that either have an aze to grind or a "no tolerance policy" to uphold...

 

[crimresearch]

If the other person involved in the situation was above the legal age of consent, I'd agree with you. But since he was below the legal age of consent, too, I don't agree with his being singled out.

I understand the legal reasons for doing so. I am just saying I disagree with the moral reasons for doing so. He is being singled out unfairly.

Well, the OP asked about justice, which is the administration of the law, not of morals...

But even so, I still fail to see what the age of this actor has to do with guilt, unless someone can demonstrate that 14 is too young to know right from wrong, even morally.

 

[Suddenly]

Well, the OP asked about justice, which is the administration of the law, not of morals...

The OP obviously accepted the result as the correct one under the law. That really isn't the issue, rather whether the law is a just one. For the most part that is a moral question.

But even so, I still fail to see what the age of this actor has to do with guilt, unless someone can demonstrate that 14 is too young to know right from wrong, even morally.

Even using your narrow view of justice the age of the actor is completely relevant, seeing the law places a bright line rule that depends on the relative age. If the boy was a month or so younger there would be no crime under the law.

Furthermore, it seems questionable to make the accused prove lack of maturity when the state gets to presume that same lack when making its case. If we have a 16 year girl with this same 14 year old (and the same age difference), we then assume the same person is incapable of making a decision about his conduct.

Meanwhile, in the OP situation he is held criminally liable for that decision.

The difference? The age of the other actor.

Even going by the law as stated this is not a question of the absolute age of the victim, rather the difference in ages. This in itself is reasonable.

What is not reasonable IMO is the bright line rule where the law goes from a conclusion of no ability to consent to the presumption of same based on perhaps a few weeks or days difference...

 

[Whoracle]

I think this outrageous. The fact that the law says this is rape doesn't mean it should be. It goes back to the old Socrates question is it holy because its holy because God says so or is it holy because it should be. How can this kid have raped her when if an 18 year old woman had sex with him he'd suddenly be the victim? In this society we have determined that 18 is when you are old enough to be held fully responsible for your actions and if that's the case we need to be consistent with it.

Also the fact that you can be tried as an adult for crimes you did as a minor is ridiculous.

 

[Beth]

If the main thing that matters is the girl giving consent, who would have a problem had the boy been 17 at the time? Or 18? Or 45? Because there are 12 year olds out there that would (and have) given 'consent' to sex with men of all of those ages.

Still not rape as long as there is consent, no matter how obtained?

BS.........It isn't the actor, it is the actions.

Now the sex offender or domestic violence registry forever is part and parcel of political grandstanding and bandaid solutions.

But 'she wanted it' as an excuse for 12 year old's violation isn't my idea of justice.

I don't think you can separate out the actor and the actions. Like nature versus nurture, both are intertwined and it's ridiculous to try and judge the situation solely by one or the other.

As others have pointed out, the age of the young man does play a role in the reactions of most people to this case. Minors, rightly so, are judged not to be capable of making sound decisions in many ways. They aren't allowed to drink, or vote, or consent to having sex.

At 14, a child is not considered capable of consenting to sex anymore than at 12. The gender of the child ought make no difference, or if does, then females should be considered mature enough for consent at an earlier age than males.

Why do you think that she was violated but not him? If consensual sex at too young an age is a violation, then both were violated. I'm with legal penguin on this: turning a child's non-violent and consensual act within the bounds of a relationship no less into a scarlet letter for an otherwise normal adult years after the fact is simply appalling...

 

[plindboe]

Well, the OP asked about justice, which is the administration of the law, not of morals...

But even so, I still fail to see what the age of this actor has to do with guilt, unless someone can demonstrate that 14 is too young to know right from wrong, even morally.

So you want it demonstrated that a 14 year old is too young to know right from young, but consider it an undisputable fact than someone just 2 years younger doesn't know right from wrong?

 

[Freakshow]

Well, the OP asked about justice, which is the administration of the law, not of morals...

But even so, I still fail to see what the age of this actor has to do with guilt, unless someone can demonstrate that 14 is too young to know right from wrong, even morally.

I disagree. Justice and law aren't necessarily the same thing. Some laws are unjust, and some just actions are illegal.

I interpreted the OP to be discussing this very point: Sure the law is clear, but is justice truly being served here?

In this case, I would say no.

 

[plindboe]

At 14, a child is not considered capable of consenting to sex anymore than at 12. The gender of the child ought make no difference, or if does, then females should be considered mature enough for consent at an earlier age than males.

Valid point. Girls reach puberty 1-2 years before boys, so a 12 year old girl and a 14 year old boy is at about the same sexual maturity(or 'immaturity' if you will).

 

[crimresearch]

So you want it demonstrated that a 14 year old is too young to know right from young, but consider it an undisputable fact than someone just 2 years younger doesn't know right from wrong?

Where did I say that? Do you see no difference between 'able to give valid consent' and 'knowing right from wrong'?

As far as what I did say, I consider it an undisputable fact that the law makes those distinctions....when defining rape, and other crimes.
Does anyone have evidence to the contrary?


And for those who are claiming that 'Justice means morals, not laws' you can use other definitions all you like, I was still talking about the legality of the 60 day sentence for, and the elements of, statutory rape in this case.
And those fit the standard definition of justice quite well.
JUSTICE: noun: the administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments
http://www.onelook.com/?w=justice&ls=a



But on the topic of morals...

As far as as the morality involved in the 'she wanted it' consenting 12 year old argument, OK fine...

Then why would it be any less moral if a 25 year old got consent from the 12 year old... do they have some magic powers that mere 14 year olds don't?

The line is currently drawn at 2 years older ...what would you be comfortable with..4... 5... 10... 25... years older?

 

[Freakshow]

Where did I say that? Do you see no difference between 'able to give valid consent' and 'knowing right from wrong'?

As far as what I did say, I consider it an undisputable fact that the law makes those distinctions....when defining rape, and other crimes.
Does anyone have evidence to the contrary?


And for those who are claiming that 'Justice means morals, not laws' you can use other definitions all you like, I was still talking about the legality of the 60 day sentence for, and the elements of, statutory rape in this case.
And those fit the standard definition of justice quite well.
JUSTICE: noun: the administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments
http://www.onelook.com/?w=justice&ls=a



But on the topic of morals...

As far as as the morality involved in the 'she wanted it' consenting 12 year old argument, OK fine...

Then why would it be any less moral if a 25 year old got consent from the 12 year old... do they have some magic powers that mere 14 year olds don't?

The line is currently drawn at 2 years older ...what would you be comfortable with..4... 5... 10... 25... years older?

I ask only because I am not actually clear on your view on this...(speak from a moral standpoint, not a legal standpoint)...

Does it matter to you (personally, not as a professional opinion) whether it is the girl or boy that is older? If the girl was 14, and the boy 12, would you still feel that the 14 year old was the one at most fault in this situation?

 

[slingblade]

When I was 32, I found out that my 16 year old stepson from my first marriage was in a relationship with a woman who was my age. I was appalled.

I called my ex. I asked him if this wasn't statutory rape. As shocked as I, he sighed and said, "No. 16 is the legal age of consent for sex in this state. We've already consulted a lawyer, and there's nothing we can do."

Long story short, the two of them married when he turned 18, and have been together ever since. I saw them recently, at myown son's wedding, and they are so happy, and still so much in love 14 years later, it makes me feel pretty silly for having protested it. But then, given his age, it's understandable.

I just wonder if, in other states, she would have been considered a rapist? Y'know, being a woman and all.