# Legal analysis of the Owen Laurie rape case **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 29, 2015, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343 "2015-08-29T23:41:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2015, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/21 "2015-08-30T21:30:51Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I’m not quite sure what you’re asking, but if it’s what I think it is: > > The reason I think they based their decision on the part of the statute that reads: > > rather than the part that says: > is that I don’t thing he (or any student) a has a legal duty to care for, protect, or support another student, just because they go to the same school. > > The duty to care for, protect or support someone usually comes from a parent-child relationship, or a duty you’ve voluntarily taken on - like caring for an elderly person in a nursing home. That’s not what I asked. I wondered on what you base your claim that the statue is unclear. That the victim in this case wasn’t someone he had a legal duty to care for, protect or support is blindingly obvious, but you appeared to be confused about the statue in general. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2015, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/22 "2015-08-30T21:39:07Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > In summary, the jury found that the couple had consensual sex, and convicted Owen for that. Not exactly. :dubious: The not guilty verdict doesn’t mean “the jury found that the couple had consensual sex,” it means the jury found that the prosecution didn’t prove the sex wasn’t consensual. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/23 "2015-08-30T21:54:47Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > But it’s really not double jeopardy either. > > Seems to me its like saying “you had sex with a minor and that’s a bad thing” and “you purposely allowed something bad to happen to a minor because you had sex with them”. > > Its the same thing. But, would it be possible for someone to have sex with a minor but not purposely allow that bad thing to happen? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2015, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/24 "2015-08-30T22:20:31Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > You - it seems - believe her testimony, but not his. That’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. Your perception is mistaken. I have no strong opinion of whether he was guilty of assault or not and I’m fully prepared to accept the court’s judgement ( including the convictions they did hand down ). I do think the guy comes off as a tremendous douche - but being a douchebag is not a crime and is besides the point. I was just correcting the notion that this may have been some Romeo and Juliet prosecution of a couple of harmless star-crossed lovers. Rather it was an explicit _accusation_ of assault. > [@](#): > > But the jury, who saw all the evidence, heard all the testimony, and was there to see it, didn’t believe her. As noted you shouldn’t jump to this conclusion either. A “innocent” verdict doesn’t necessarily indicate a disbelief in guilt. I once served on a seven and half week federal white-collar crime case. There were two charges and we convicted on one. I did and do believe that the accused was guilty of both charges, but argued strongly ( initially with only two other supporters on the jury ) that the evidence just wasn’t there to clearly convict on the second charge. IMHO he was very likely guilty as sin, but you have to separate what can be proven from what is believed. As far as we know _this_ jury could have thought _this defendant_ was also guilty as sin, they just didn’t think the prosecution proved the case. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2015, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/25 "2015-08-30T23:31:45Z")
Based on the same evidence, if she was 17 he would be not guilty of everything? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/26 "2015-08-31T12:43:41Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Based on the same evidence, if she was 17 he would be not guilty of everything? Legally? Apparently yes. In terms of what actually happened? I don’t know, but it’s entirely possible. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/27 "2015-08-31T14:04:09Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Yes & yes. I quoted the relevant statutes, and looked them up, using a simple google search. You can do that too. Your standard for statutory interpretation seems to be “if I can misconstrue it, it’s an evil law.” Someone else isn’t the solution to your problem here. Among other problems, the statute says “sexual penetration or sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of a child;” you said two 15 year olds making out. Making out and sex aren’t the same thing, obviously. And if it weren’t obvious, the statute defines what sexual contact is, and “making out” doesn’t come close, unless by making out you meant penetration of a genital or anal orifice, in which case the solution is to stop saying one thing and meaning another, and this law will seem much less preposterous. You’re also mistaken about the difference between misdemeanor and felony sexual assault, which is also made clear in the statutes you cite. Even if what you were saying about that point were true (that there’s some consent-based difference), it’s clearly not _the_ difference, given all the different permutations of offenses that are possible. But the real kicker is it isn’t even _A_ difference. First of all, it’s a preposterous thing to say – how does one consent to sexual assault? What would that even mean, given what assault is? And again, if that weren’t obvious, it’s right in both statutes, in identical language: > [@](#): > > (b) Consent of the victim under any of the circumstances set forth in this paragraph shall not be considered a defense. > [@](#): > > (b) Consent of the victim under any of the circumstances set forth in this paragraph shall not be considered a defense. Your legal analysis appears to consist in large part of just saying extremely reductive things that aren’t at all true about the stuff that, as you point out, you googled for yourself and then reproduced for the purposes of the analysis. In several cases, they’re things that you acknowledge aren’t true in other places in the same post. I don’t know why anyone would do that. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/28 "2015-08-31T16:43:19Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > We should be entirely clear that in this case it _wasn’t_ his girlfriend but rather a casual acquaintance, she claimed pretty vociferously ( she was very emotional in court ) he raped her and was rough ( she had bruises on her chest ), but she froze up rather than fight him off. Now apparently there was enough doubt swirling around that he wasn’t convicted of the felony rape charges. But this was not two lovebirds caught canoodling, but rather an accusation of assault by one of the parties. > [@Emiliana](#): > > Yeah, this was not the scenario at all. The general idea was that senior boys try to have sex with five girls–virgins?–before graduating. And the girls–so he claimed–think this is a real honor. The girl in question did not. I stand corrected. However, apparently, this law could similarly be used if the sex was consensual. Which seems extremely problematic to me. And in fact, it’s what happened. He got sentenced despite the jury deciding the sex wasn’t non consensual. Possibly because they weren’t very sure of his guilt, and a half-assed sentence was the most comfortable choice, possibly because what happened, even if consensual, would fit the legal definition and they felt they had no choice, possiby even because they thought 15 yo shouldn’t have sex and the “seducer” should pay for it if they do. And I find all these options wrong. So, it seems to me this law is indeed a bad law. Is there a reading of this law that would preclude a prison sentence and a registration as sex offender if the sex was clearly consensual? In the case of a 18 yo having sex with a 15 yo? I the case of two 15 yo having sex? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/29 "2015-08-31T16:55:17Z")
We don’t know if the jury thinks that the sex was consensual or not. All we know is that they did not feel that there was not enough evidence to convict, which is not uncommon in sexual assault. Nobody has to have sex with a 15 year old. Even if said 15 is their girlfriend. It’s actually totally fine to have a non-sexual relationship, or choose a more age-appropriate partner. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/30 "2015-08-31T17:46:39Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > However, apparently, this law could similarly be used if the sex was consensual. Which seems extremely problematic to me. > > And in fact, it’s what happened. He got sentenced despite the jury deciding the sex wasn’t non consensual. Possibly because they weren’t very sure of his guilt, and a half-assed sentence was the most comfortable choice, possibly because what happened, even if consensual, would fit the legal definition and they felt they had no choice, possiby even because they thought 15 yo shouldn’t have sex and the “seducer” should pay for it if they do. And I find all these options wrong. > > So, it seems to me this law is indeed a bad law. Is there a reading of this law that would preclude a prison sentence and a registration as sex offender if the sex was clearly consensual? In the case of a 18 yo having sex with a 15 yo? I the case of two 15 yo having sex? Consent doesn’t matter. The jury wouldn’t have even decided on it. The crime happens if > [@](#): > > the actor engages in sexual penetration with a person, other than the actor’s legal spouse, who is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age where the age difference between the actor and the other person is 4 years or less. So to answer your questions - no, no, and no, on the face of it, although in the case of the two 15 year olds, it would be a case where prosecutorial discretion would almost certainly come into play. The intent of the statute (which as you point out, isn’t exactly the most high-minded of intents) is to punish a predatory older party for taking advantage of an imbalance in power due to age. If the older person is older by a trivial amount, they just aren’t going to take that anywhere, most likely. I don’t bring that up as a defense of it on policy terms, just as the answer in practical terms to the question. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/31 "2015-08-31T18:22:54Z")
**LinusK** , you googled the statutes. Did you google the standard jury instructions for these offenses? There’s a bit more to jury instruction than, “you heard the evidence, here’s the statute, go and deliberate.” ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/32 "2015-08-31T18:37:20Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > However, apparently, this law could similarly be used if the sex was consensual. Which seems extremely problematic to me. Jimmy is right when he says consent doesn’t matter - but this law is really just a different way of saying that certain people cannot legally consent. Some states have a section of the law that specifically says that certain persons are deemed incapable of consent \* and other states define it in the crime itself - NYS Penal Law 130.05 1. A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is: (a) less than seventeen years old; or (b) mentally disabled; or (c) mentally incapacitated; or (d) physically helpless; … ( more sections having to do with imates , patients etc) ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/33 "2015-08-31T20:35:38Z")
> [@naita](#): > > That’s not what I asked. I wondered on what you base your claim that the statue is unclear. > > That the victim in this case wasn’t someone he had a legal duty to care for, protect or support is blindingly obvious, but you appeared to be confused about the statue in general. I said the statute was poorly written, because it was open to more than one interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/34 "2015-08-31T20:46:05Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > Not exactly. :dubious: The not guilty verdict doesn’t mean “the jury found that the couple had consensual sex,” it means the jury found that the prosecution didn’t prove the sex wasn’t consensual. You’re right of course. They could have thought there was no way he used force, that he might have used force, or even that it was likely that he used force. But - assuming they followed the law - acquitals show they didn’t believe it beyond a reasonable doubt. Without access to the jurors, it’s impossible to know exactly what they thought - other than that the state had failed to meet its burden. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/35 "2015-08-31T20:46:12Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Prison is for felonies, not misdemeanors. A misdemeanor carries a maximum sentence of 1 year. I don’t know if you are drawing a distinction between “prison” and “jail”, but misdemeanors absolutely can, and do, involve jail time. [QUOTE=clairobscur] Is there a reading of this law that would preclude a prison sentence and a registration as sex offender if the sex was clearly consensual? In the case of a 18 yo having sex with a 15 yo? I the case of two 15 yo having sex? [/QUOTE] The law never just exists in a vacuum. There is always prosecutorial discretion, to say nothing of specific facts that may lead the prosecutor to make a decision one way or the other. So, suppose it is two teenagers having consensual sex. How will that result in charges if neither claims to have been assaulted, and so neither complains? Let’s suppose that, despite it being consensual, one of the parents finds out (i.e. they catch them) and insists the prosecutor press charges. If neither teenager cooperates (i.e. “he never tried to have sex with me! We were just kissing! And I luuuurve him!”), how far do you think the case will go? (Admittedly, there are examples of this type of over-reach; I’m recalling a case where a Black football player had his future ruined because he got a BJ from a pretty white girl. But that’s thankfully not the norm.) … Meanwhile, did anyone else notice the dichotomy between his mug shot (where he looked like a “[cool kid](https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=owen+rape&view=detailv2&&id=260223F1DAF598BB3CD775643E315A356450D3F0&selectedIndex=0&ccid=cja3FR%2f7&simid=608024725355890140&thid=JN.QDRGrf1pjikSXncjPu%2fVnQ&ajaxhist=0)”) and his appearance in court (where he wore glasses and his hair was combed to give him a [dorky](https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=owen+rape&view=detailv2&&id=80CA15E6EC06F109DB75D16B4D22CA2982B5A567&selectedIndex=7&ccid=06FGujTN&simid=75044968543&thid=HS.75044968543&ajaxhist=0) appearance)? It’s fascinating to me how the attorneys “stage” the defendant’s appearance in court. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/36 "2015-08-31T20:55:24Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Your perception is mistaken. I have no strong opinion of whether he was guilty of assault or not and I’m fully prepared to accept the court’s judgement ( including the convictions they did hand down ). I do think the guy comes off as a tremendous douche - but being a douchebag is not a crime and is besides the point. I was just correcting the notion that this may have been some Romeo and Juliet prosecution of a couple of harmless star-crossed lovers. Rather it was an explicit _accusation_ of assault. > > As noted you shouldn’t jump to this conclusion either. A “innocent” verdict doesn’t necessarily indicate a disbelief in guilt. I once served on a seven and half week federal white-collar crime case. There were two charges and we convicted on one. I did and do believe that the accused was guilty of both charges, but argued strongly ( initially with only two other supporters on the jury ) that the evidence just wasn’t there to clearly convict on the second charge. IMHO he was very likely guilty as sin, but you have to separate what can be proven from what is believed. > > As far as we know _this_ jury could have thought _this defendant_ was also guilty as sin, they just didn’t think the prosecution proved the case. That is possible. It’s also possible they believed the defense argument - that she was lying to protect her reputation. I’ve never served on a jury, but I’ve often wondered whether jurors actually follow the “beyond a reasonable doubt” instruction - so I’m happy, at least in your case, you did. Many defense attorneys believe the more serious the allegation, the less likely it is that the jury will actually follow it. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/37 "2015-08-31T20:59:00Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Meanwhile, did anyone else notice the dichotomy between his mug shot (where he looked like a “[cool kid](https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=owen+rape&view=detailv2&&id=260223F1DAF598BB3CD775643E315A356450D3F0&selectedIndex=0&ccid=cja3FR%2f7&simid=608024725355890140&thid=JN.QDRGrf1pjikSXncjPu%2fVnQ&ajaxhist=0)”) and his appearance in court (where he wore glasses and his hair was combed to give him a [dorky](https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=owen+rape&view=detailv2&&id=80CA15E6EC06F109DB75D16B4D22CA2982B5A567&selectedIndex=7&ccid=06FGujTN&simid=75044968543&thid=HS.75044968543&ajaxhist=0) appearance)? It’s fascinating to me how the attorneys “stage” the defendant’s appearance in court. Huh, that **is** interesting. IMO the “dorky” look seems to fit the elite-prep stereotype which I would have thought was bad. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/38 "2015-08-31T21:02:29Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Huh, that **is** interesting. IMO the “dorky” look seems to fit the elite-prep stereotype which I would have thought was bad. I saw it more as, “no way this kid would have been confident enough with girls to force himself on this young lady.” The kid in the mug shot looks like a self-entitled brat. The kid in court looks like a bookworm who would have a hard time looking a pretty girl in the eye. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/39 "2015-08-31T22:58:28Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > We don’t know if the jury thinks that the sex was consensual or not. All we know is that they did not feel that there was not enough evidence to convict, which is not uncommon in sexual assault. > > Nobody has to have sex with a 15 year old. Even if said 15 is their girlfriend. It’s actually totally fine to have a non-sexual relationship, or choose a more age-appropriate partner. And it’s also perfectly fine for teens to have sex without being branded as sex offenders, don’t you think? Given the number of times we’ve argued on this I begin to suspect that in fact you think that teens shouldn’t have sex and that pretty much anything that might frighten them into staying chaste is a net positive. Is it the case? And if so, why? I don’t think it’s for religious reasons. (and if not, how do you reconcile accepting teen sexuality and defending a law that can send them to jail and the sex offender registry for actually having sex?) ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/40 "2015-08-31T23:12:06Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > If the older person is older by a trivial amount, they just aren’t going to take that anywhere, **most likely.** > [@Moriarty](#): > > There is always prosecutorial discretion, That’s what I thought : the only thing preventing two kids having sex from going to jail and being registered for life as sex offenders is “prosecutorial discretion”. Which means it can happen at any time. And that it’s a bad law. And I’m not convinced at all that it’s a bad law by mistake. It would have been extremely easy to make sure it couldn’t happen. > [@](#): > > So, suppose it is two teenagers having consensual sex. How will that result in charges if neither claims to have been assaulted, and so neither complains? Let’s suppose that, despite it being consensual, one of the parents finds out (i.e. they catch them) and insists the prosecutor press charges. If neither teenager cooperates (i.e. “he never tried to have sex with me! We were just kissing! And I luuuurve him!”), how far do you think the case will go? Yes, sure…no police officer/prosecutor/parent will ever be able to convince one of two 15 yo to admit that he had sex with the other. Teens are much much brighter than they used to be, apparently. > [@](#): > > (Admittedly, there are examples of this type of over-reach; I’m recalling a case where a Black football player had his future ruined because he got a BJ from a pretty white girl. But that’s thankfully not the norm.) If the law allows the prosecution of teens for having sex, some will inevitably end up prosecuted and sentenced. If you don’t want a teen going to jail for not staying chaste enough, you don’t rely on prosecutorial discretion and pray, you make sure the law doesn’t allow such a prosecution to happen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343.md?page=3)