# 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:** 3
**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:** [September 1, 2015, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/41 "2015-09-01T02:02:19Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > 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?) I’m not particularly against teens having sex. I am against older people having sex with younger teens, and I am against people who argue that it’s impossible to expect a grown adult to put some thought into what they are doing before they bang out a sophmore. If you can show me a case where two 15 year olds are convicted of sexual assault for having sex with each other, I’m happy to put some more thought into that scenario. But right now, that’s not what I am seeing happening. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/42 "2015-09-01T02:52:43Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > 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: > > 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. Go back and look at what I wrote again. Here’s the first part: > [@](#): > > In New Hampshire, it is illegal to have sex with a person between the ages of 13 and 15. If the age difference is less than 4 years, it’s a misdemeanor. If it’s more than 4 years, it’s a felony. (Legally, it is a crime for two 15 year olds to have sex, and they could both be convicted. Though it’s possible, I doubt NH prosecutors prosecute those cases very often.) Consent is irrelevant. Here’s the law I was referring to: > [@](#): > > 632-A:4 Sexual Assault. – > I. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor under any of the following circumstances: > … > (c) In the absence of any of the circumstances set forth in RSA 632-A:2, when 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. The statute says it’s a misdemeanor if: 1.) if RSA 632-A:2 doesn’t apply. RSA 632-A:2 is [Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault](http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/632-A/632-A-2.htm). I’m not going to quote it, because it’s too long. But you can follow the link and read it yourself. 2.) when “the actor” has intercourse with someone between the ages of 13 and 15, and 3.) the difference in ages is 4 years or less. Owen was found guilty of 3 counts of misdemeanor sexual assault, because (1.) he wasn’t guilty of felony sexual assault (using force or otherwise committing sex acts without consent) (2.) the girl was 15, and (3.) he was less than 4 years older than (he was 18). If he’d used force, she’d been younger than 13, or he’d been a older, it would have been a felony. When you say I’m “mistaken about the difference between misdemeanor and felony sexual assault” what do you mean? What mistake am I making? You also say: > [@](#): > > Among other problems, the statute says “sexual penetration or sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of a child;” The statute you’re referring to I think is this one: > [@](#): > > 645:1 Indecent Exposure and Lewdness. – > I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person fornicates, exposes his or her genitals, or performs any other act of gross lewdness under circumstances which he or she should know will likely cause affront or alarm. > II. A person is guilty of a class B felony if: > (a) Such person purposely performs any act of sexual penetration or sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of a child who is less than 16 years of age. You go to say: “Making out and sex aren’t the same thing, obviously.” Yes, that is obvious. You also say, “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." The problem is that 1.) the statute doesn’t define what sexual contact is, and 2.) it does not define sexual contact as penetration. Penetration and sexual contact are _two different things._ Look at the statute again: > [@](#): > > sexual penetration **or** sexual contact I can’t make sense of your comments, unless you think “or” defines sexual contact as sexual penetration. It doesn’t. What it’s actually saying is _either_ contact _or_ penetration violates the statute. You conclude by saying: > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t know why anyone would do that either. Fortunately, I didn’t do them. Except for using google, of course. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/43 "2015-09-01T03:10:13Z")
> [@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. It’s totally fine for 15 year olds not to have sex. It’s not fine to have a law that - if enforced - would make them criminals. What you might be forgetting is that the law is gender-neutral: 15 year old girls - again, if the law was enforced - could be prosecuted & sentenced too. Not just boys. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2015, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/44 "2015-09-01T03:36:37Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I don’t know why anyone would do that either. Fortunately, I didn’t do them. > > Except for using google, of course. I’m not going to argue with you about this; I know where that goes. You’re mistaken and I pointed out where. If you can’t or don’t or won’t correct your understanding, it’s because you don’t want to. One more freebie, though: 632 A1 is subtitled “Definitions.” Maybe you could google it. ---
**Author:** ![Andiethewestie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Andiethewestie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andiethewestie)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/45 "2015-09-01T04:13:07Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > It’s totally fine for 15 year olds not to have sex. It’s not fine to have a law that - if enforced - would make them criminals. > > What you might be forgetting is that the law is gender-neutral: 15 year old girls - again, if the law was enforced - could be prosecuted & sentenced too. Not just boys. Why is there an argument for two 15 year olds? Easier to confound the premise? That isn’t what this case was about. The accused was 18 and the victim 15. It could have been an 18 year old young woman and a 15 year old boy. Gender doesn’t change that. I too agree that no one has to have sex with a 15 year old. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2015, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/46 "2015-09-01T04:23:29Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > 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. I kinda’ looked at it the opposite way. I would think a jury more likely to believe that the sex was consensual if the defendant looked hot (or how they imagine the defendant would look hot to a 15-year-old girl). ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/47 "2015-09-01T11:33:58Z")
Me, I think that we should just go ahead and enforce the law as written. Let’s do an inquest into every teenager experimenting with their sexuality and prosecute every teen who masturbates while under the age of consent in their state. Any teens who look up porn under the age of consent? Get 'em for child grooming. That’s how this works, isn’t it? Teenagers having sex under a particular age is necessarily evidence of assault, right? They can’t consent to sex, so there are uncountable thousands of cases of molestation in which the victim and the perpetrator are the same person, right? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/48 "2015-09-01T12:04:10Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > 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? In NH, it’s illegal for anyone to have sex - or engage in sexual penetration - with a 15 year old - including another 15 year old. > [@](#): > > 632-A:4 Sexual Assault. – > I. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor under any of the following circumstances: > … > (c) In the absence of any of the circumstances set forth in RSA 632-A:2, when 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. I don’t know, since I don’t live in NH: but I suspect that the law is not enforced uniformly. In other words, I suspect that in most cases it’s not enforced. (If it was, the jails would be full of 15 yo kids.) It may be that prosecutors charged Owen with misdemeanor sexual assault, because they wanted to make sure he was convicted of something. Even if - as was the case - he was acquitted of the most serious charges. The requirement that Owen register as a sex offender comes not from his convictions for misdemeanor sexual assault, but from his conviction for using a computer: > [@](#): > > 649-B:4 Certain Uses of Computer Services Prohibited. – > I. No person shall knowingly utilize a computer on-line service, internet service, or local bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child or another person believed by the person to be a child, to commit any of the following: > (a) Any offense under RSA 632-A, relative to sexual assault and related offenses. > (b) Indecent exposure and lewdness under RSA 645:1. > (c) Endangering a child as defined in RSA 639:3, III. > II. (a) A person who violates the provisions of paragraph I shall be guilty of a class A felony if such person believed the child was under the age of 13, otherwise such person shall be guilty of a class B felony. A person who violates 649-B:4 is required to register as a sex offender, under 651-B, REGISTRATION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS: > [@](#): > > VI. "Offender against children’’ means a person who is required to register for an offense against a child. > VII. "Offense against a child’’ means the following offenses, including an accomplice to, or an attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit, any of the following offenses: > (a) Any of the following offenses, where the victim was under the age of 18 at the time of the offense: capital murder, RSA 630:1, I(e); first degree murder, RSA 630:1-a, 1(b)(1); aggravated felonious sexual assault, RSA 632-A:2; felonious sexual assault, RSA 632-A:3; sexual assault, RSA 632-A:4, I(a) or RSA 632-A:4, III; kidnapping, RSA 633:1; criminal restraint, RSA 633:2; false imprisonment, RSA 633:3; incest, RSA 639:2; violation of privacy, RSA 644:9, I(a) or RSA 644:9, III-a; a second or subsequent offense within a 5-year period for indecent exposure and lewdness, RSA 645:1, I; indecent exposure and lewdness, RSA 645:1, II and RSA 645:1, III; or prostitution, RSA 645:2. > (b) Intentional contribution to the delinquency of a minor, RSA 169-B:41, II; sexual assault, RSA 632-A:4, I(b) if the actor was 18 years of age or older at the time of the offense; endangering the welfare of a child, RSA 639:3, III; possession of child sexual abuse images, RSA 649-A:3; distribution of child sexual abuse images, RSA 649-A:3-a; manufacture of child sexual abuse images, RSA 649-A:3-b; computer pornography, RSA 649-B:3; _ **certain uses of computer services prohibited, RSA 649-B:4** _; or obscene matters, RSA 650:2, II. Using a “computer on-line service [or] internet service” would presumably include sending text messages or email. Also, I want to fix a mistake I made earlier: RSA 632-A includes RSA 632-A:4 (duh), so the jury could have found Owen guilty of violating 649-B:4 (Certain Uses of Computer Services Prohibited) because they found him guilty of misdemeanor sexual assault [632-A:4, I(c)], and they also believe he’d sent a text or email that “lured” her or “solicited” her to have sex with him. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/49 "2015-09-01T12:28:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > **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.” Nope. A quick google search for the jury instructions in this case doesn’t seem to show they’re online. You’re free to look for them, though. And of course, you’re right: the jury instructions in a case like this - a high-profile case where the defendant is charged with 9 crimes - would consume many pages. [I did find this](http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20150830/NEWS21/150839961&source=RSS), though: > [@](#): > > In his instructions to the jury, Judge Larry Smukler noted the age of consent in New Hampshire is 16. > > Grady Sexton said that was to remind jurors that if they believed sexual penetration did occur, because the victim was a minor, “that alone would be an offense.” ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/50 "2015-09-01T12:37:21Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > 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) All states have laws that say certain people can’t consent. The difference here is that most states have an exception or defense when two teenagers have sex. For example: if they’re within three or four years of age. In NH, age is not a defense. If two 15 year olds have sex, they’re committing a crime. In fact, they’re committing the same crime. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/51 "2015-09-01T13:11:13Z")
Sorry, but all the defenses of the outcome just come off as shitting on LinusK. The jury did ultimately convict him for having sex. Sure, she claimed that it was non-consensual, and maybe it was, but the jury didn’t convict him of that. Prosecutory discretion is never an excuse for bad law. We wouldn’t need to pass Romeo and Juliet laws if this were the case. The law is how we tell prosecutors what types of cases we want them to go after. Now, maybe the Romeo and Juliet laws would make this still illegal. I know of some that have it at two years, while this three. Now, yes, LinusK is wrong to say it would be a felony. It is, as he said earlier, a misdemeanor. But it’s still a misdemeanor that makes it illegal for anyone to have sex with someone 13-16, no matter the age. Heck, if both are age appropriate, they both could be convicted by the law as written. If sex occurs with someone 13-16, an illegal act has occurred. This is stupid, and should be fixed. No matter what you think of the outcome of this case. New Hampshire needs to get with the times and introduce a Romeo and Juliet law. Or do you want a prosecutor who hates you to be able throw your 16 year old in jail for a year for having sex? You talk all about how you can’t stop them, so it means an easy way to get back at you. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/52 "2015-09-01T13:16:41Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > 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. Yes, I’m drawing a distinction between jail and prison. Prison is for felonies. Jail is for misdemeanors. > [@](#): > > 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.) That’s precisely the point: YOU may trust prosecutors to “do the right thing”. I don’t. Given the long and continuing history of prosecutorial misconduct, writing bad laws and hoping prosecutors won’t use them is like leaving handguns lying around on the streets. Yeah, maybe nobody will use them. But it’s not a good idea. Also, I don’t understand your “Admittedly, there are examples…” paragraph. What does the race of the teenagers have to do with anything? Does the fact the football player was black make it especially unjust? Would it have been better if he’d been white? For that matter, what if they’d prosecuted the cheerleader? Is ruining her life OK? And when you say, “that’s thankfully not the norm” what does that even mean? How many lives have to be ruined before a bad law is a bad law? Why isn’t “1” too many? ---
**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:** [September 1, 2015, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/53 "2015-09-01T13:24:51Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Nope. A quick google search for the jury instructions in this case doesn’t seem to show they’re online. You’re free to look for them, though. [Here you go](https://www.nhbar.org/legal-links/criminaljuryinstructions.asp). 99% of all jury instructions are standardized. When the instructions given differ, it is generally in relation to the weight of a particular piece of evidence or a statute that is new and has no standardized instructions. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/54 "2015-09-01T15:08:28Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > I’m not particularly against teens having sex. I am against older people having sex with younger teens, and I am against people who argue that it’s impossible to expect a grown adult to put some thought into what they are doing before they bang out a sophmore. > > If you can show me a case where two 15 year olds are convicted of sexual assault for having sex with each other, I’m happy to put some more thought into that scenario. But right now, that’s not what I am seeing happening. Why do you need someone to show you a case of two 15 year olds getting prosecuted? If the law makes it a crime, isn’t that enough to make it a bad law? And if the law does make it a crime, what makes you think 15 year olds haven’t already been prosecuted? ---
**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:** [September 1, 2015, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/55 "2015-09-01T15:23:44Z")
I’ve never seen anyone get pulled over for going 26 mph in a school zone. If they were, I would think that was terribly unfair. But the way the law is written, they could be. Which isn’t to say that laws that require discretion in enforcement are necessarily the best way to address the problems they’re trying to address. But it’s a little more complicated than saying it’s a tyrannical law because the only thing preventing abject tyranny is the absence of prosecutions. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2015, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/56 "2015-09-01T15:26:26Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > 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. You make a fair point, and after a night of sleeping on it, I agree with you. It is my general understanding that many jurisdictions include a provision that says that there is no statutory rape when both people are teenagers, within a few years of each other. This is an important caveat. For example, in Florida, the standard is [QUOTE=Florida Statute 794.05] A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084 [/QUOTE] Please note that I do not practice criminal law, so there might be more nuance than just this statute (which I found with a quick google search), but my understanding is that it acknowledges that there can be legal sexual activity between consenting young people, provided that they are between 16 and 23. (Granted, this doesn’t apply to your discussion of two 15 year olds, but the law has decided to set some minimal age of consent, and while 16 _may_ be too high, I figure the legislature has decided that there has to be some minimum age before we decide that kids are old enough for sex. Do you disagree?). So, to your point, the law should include some “out” for consenting teenagers. [QUOTE=New Hampshire law] 632-A:4 Sexual Assault. – I. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor under any of the following circumstances: … (c) In the absence of any of the circumstances set forth in RSA 632-A:2, when 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**. [/QUOTE] (My emphasis). Doesn’t the acknowledgement that the sex is legal if the differences in age is 4 years or less account for consensual teenage sex? Am I misreading this? [QUOTE=LinusK] That’s precisely the point: YOU may trust prosecutors to “do the right thing”. I don’t. Given the long and continuing history of prosecutorial misconduct, writing bad laws and hoping prosecutors won’t use them is like leaving handguns lying around on the streets. Yeah, maybe nobody will use them. But it’s not a good idea. [/QUOTE] It’s not necessarily that I trust prosecutors to always do the right thing. Instead, it’s that the specific facts, and the cooperation of the witnesses, will impact whether the case goes forward. Even in a scenario where the law penalizes the behavior, if nobody is complaining or if witnesses refuse to cooperate the prosecutor is not likely to indict. It’s an inherent filter in the legal system. > [@](#): > > Also, I don’t understand your “Admittedly, there are examples…” paragraph. What does the race of the teenagers have to do with anything? Does the fact the football player was black make it especially unjust? Would it have been better if he’d been white? > > For that matter, what if they’d prosecuted the cheerleader? Is ruining her life OK? > > And when you say, “that’s thankfully not the norm” what does that even mean? How many lives have to be ruined before a bad law is a bad law? Why isn’t “1” too many? I was thinking of a specific case, that of [Marcus Dixon](http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/marcus-dixon-overcomes-molestation-conviction-high-school-racism-long-journey-nfl-ny-jets-article-1.982917). He was a star football player and an honor student who was on his way to Vanderbilt with a scholarship when he was prosecuted and imprisoned for rape after having sexual relations with a 15 year old student. There was a lot of suggestion that the prosecution was motivated by the racial animus of the girl’s father, coupled with a general intolerance of miscegenation in rural Georgia. The case was eventually [overturned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State) by the Georgia Supreme Court, which found the punishment (a 10 year sentence) to be disproportionate to the crime. That’s the only reason I mentioned the race of the perpetrator: it was specific to my example. So, no, it wouldn’t have been better if he was white. Nor would it have been good to prosecute her or otherwise ruin her life. “Thankfully that’s not the norm” means what it says. I’m glad that most cases of sexual congress between teens don’t result in a decade of prison time. But I’m still not sure if this is a bad law, or if we’ve missed the nuance that says that two teenagers of similar ages are absolved from punishment. The law seems to mandate that seniors shouldn’t be screwing freshmen, and while you may think that is outlandish to legislate, it isn’t altogether unreasonable if the senior is legally an adult. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2015, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/57 "2015-09-01T15:31:54Z")
> [@](#): > > 632-A:4 Sexual Assault. – > I. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor under any of the following circumstances: > … > (c) In the absence of any of the circumstances set forth in RSA 632-A:2, when 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. Ok, I think I did misread this. It’s a **misdemeanor** when their ages are different by 4 years or less. I agree that there should be an exception for two teenagers of similar ages. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/58 "2015-09-01T16:35:22Z")
> [@Andiethewestie](#): > > Why is there an argument for two 15 year olds? The reason is the law in NH contains no “Romio & Juliet” exception. (I actually hate that phrase, but don’t have another on hand.) In other words, **anyone** who has sex with a 15 year old is guilty of sexual assault in NH, even if the accused is 15 herself, or himself. > [@](#): > > Easier to confound the premise? That isn’t what this case was about. The accused was 18 and the victim 15. It could have been an 18 year old young woman and a 15 year old boy. Gender doesn’t change that. I too agree that no one has to have sex with a 15 year old. In this particular case the defendant was 18. But under the law, it would not have mattered if he’d been 16, 15, or 14. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/59 "2015-09-01T16:59:51Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > I was thinking of a specific case, that of [Marcus Dixon](http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/marcus-dixon-overcomes-molestation-conviction-high-school-racism-long-journey-nfl-ny-jets-article-1.982917). He was a star football player and an honor student who was on his way to Vanderbilt with a scholarship when he was prosecuted and imprisoned for rape after having sexual relations with a 15 year old student. There was a lot of suggestion that the prosecution was motivated by the racial animus of the girl’s father, coupled with a general intolerance of miscegenation in rural Georgia. The case was eventually [overturned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State) by the Georgia Supreme Court, which found the punishment (a 10 year sentence) to be disproportionate to the crime. > > That’s the only reason I mentioned the race of the perpetrator: it was specific to my example. So, no, it wouldn’t have been better if he was white. Nor would it have been good to prosecute her or otherwise ruin her life. > > “Thankfully that’s not the norm” means what it says. I’m glad that most cases of sexual congress between teens don’t result in a decade of prison time. > > But I’m still not sure if this is a bad law, or if we’ve missed the nuance that says that two teenagers of similar ages are absolved from punishment. The law seems to mandate that seniors shouldn’t be screwing freshmen, and while you may think that is outlandish to legislate, it isn’t altogether unreasonable if the senior is legally an adult. So, I’m only aware of a few high-profile examples, and haven’t done a full survey on who’s prosecuted for what reason…but do you think cases like Dixon’s are rare? Like, if you did a quick search on historical prosecutions of gay teens for statutory rape, what would you expect to see? We want to protect teens from exploitative sexual relationships, and that is good. But the legal mechanism we have chosen to do denies the reality that many teenagers happily consent to sex, including sex with people that society does not want them to be having sex with. Sometimes, society is in the right to try to stop these relationships, and other times, society is very, very wrong. It is, as said, a complicated and nuanced issue. Therefore, the fact that we have blunt-instrument laws enforcing it should be a cause for concern by everyone. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2015, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343/60 "2015-09-01T17:48:25Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > So, I’m only aware of a few high-profile examples, and haven’t done a full survey on who’s prosecuted for what reason…but do you think cases like Dixon’s are rare? Like, if you did a quick search on historical prosecutions of gay teens for statutory rape, what would you expect to see? I have also not done the research. I suspect it is rare for the reasons I mentioned upthread: when nobody is complaining, there is little basis to pursue charges. Yet, as I type this, I am certain that there are examples where people outside the relationship (especially parents) are raising hell, regardless of the level of consent between the participants. > [@](#): > > We want to protect teens from exploitative sexual relationships, and that is good. But the legal mechanism we have chosen to do denies the reality that many teenagers happily consent to sex, including sex with people that society does not want them to be having sex with. Sometimes, society is in the right to try to stop these relationships, and other times, society is very, very wrong. > > It is, as said, a complicated and nuanced issue. Therefore, the fact that we have blunt-instrument laws enforcing it should be a cause for concern by everyone. This brings us back to the idea of “prosecutorial discretion”. On one hand, we want laws on the books that will protect a teenager from being sexually exploited. On the other hand, lots of teens engage in sexual activity. To protect the egregious examples, we need to outlaw the practice of sex with teenagers. To acknowledge reality, we need our law enforcers to not bring punishment down on those people who, the evidence suggests, aren’t actually being victimized. Is this a perfect solution? Of course not! But it’s how the law strikes a balance. If nobody will cooperate with the prosecutor, her or she won’t have enough evidence to bring charges. If kids are being exploited and the prosecutor doesn’t care, the election cycle can eject him or her from office and find someone who will enforce the laws. (I’ve also come to the conclusion that the idea of a “Romeo & Juliet” exception is another good nuance to add to the books to try to draw this distinction more clearly. But even with such an exception, we will always need the prosecutor to exercise good judgment). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-analysis-of-the-owen-laurie-rape-case/729343.md?page=4)