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.
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.
But, would it be possible for someone to have sex with a minor but not purposely allow that bad thing to happen?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Consent doesn’t matter. The jury wouldn’t have even decided on it. The crime happens if
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.
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.”
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
I said the statute was poorly written, because it was open to more than one interpretation.
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.
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”) and his appearance in court (where he wore glasses and his hair was combed to give him a dorky appearance)? It’s fascinating to me how the attorneys “stage” the defendant’s appearance in court.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.