So far as I know, I’ve only ever said he was convicted of one felony, and 4 misdemeanors. The felony was for prohibited use of a computer.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
I would add, though, that 649-B:4 is a bad law as well. It effectively leverages a misdemeanor - which shouldn’t be a crime at all - into a felony, just for sending a text message instead of… I don’t know - snail mail?
It’s offensive when legislators can’t be bothered to think through the consequences of the laws they write, especially when the consequences include destroying someone’s life.
…LinusK, this thread is called “Legal analysis of the Owen Laurie rape case”. May I ask what your legal qualifications are? Or would it be more appropriate to call this thread A layman’s analysis of the Owen Laurie rape case?"
…well I can’t offer a legal analysis because I don’t have a legal background. I can offer my layman’s opinion on the legal issues if you like, is that what you want?
The OP states claims that parts of the NH’s Endangerment law is “poorly written.” Is it poorly written from a legal point of view, or “poorly written” because LinusK doesn’t understand what it says? It is difficult to offer a legal analysis of something if you don’t actually understand how the law works, thats all I’m trying to clarify.
Yes. The law says: A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if… difference between the actor and the other person is 4 years or less.
Otherwise - if the difference is in age is more than 4 years - the person is guilty of a felony. Owen was 18 and the girl was 15. Since the age difference was less than 4 years, he was found guilty of misdemeanor sexual assault.
Additionally, he was found guilty of a felony, under 649-B:4Certain Uses of Computer Services Prohibited, which makes it a crime to utilize a computer on-line service, internet service, or local bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice someone under 16.
It’s worth noting that this law, like New Hampshire’s statutory rape law, contains no defense relating to the age of the perpetrator - in other words, two 15 year olds “enticing” each other using the internet, would both be guilty.
I understand the argument for relying on prosecutorial discretion, I just disagree with it. Let me take an extreme example, just to get my point across. We could replace the entire penal code with one sentence: “It’s illegal to do bad things.” If we trusted police and prosecutors - and if we agreed about what “bad things” were - that would be much simpler.
The reason we have penal codes is that we don’t trust police and prosecutors that much, and we don’t all agree about what is “bad”. The penal code is where we can go to find out what is “bad” and what can get you arrested.
If we have a law that says it’s a crime for teenagers to have sex, or to “solicit” or “seduce” each other using the internet, but mostly ignore it, it’s an invitation for selective prosecution. What that means is that prosecutors aren’t enforcing the law because it is the law, but for some other reason. Maybe racial animus. Maybe it’s personal. Maybe they think a particular teenager is a trouble-maker, or a “bad seed,” or comes from a bad family. Or maybe it’s just a high-profile case, and prosecutors want to ensure they walk away with some sort of victory, for something.
But selective prosecution is inherently unfair, because most people aren’t subject to the law, but some are. And the people who turn out to be subject to the law, generally won’t know it until it’s too late.
Well, that’s a good example of the combination of prosecutorial discretion and bad laws: “On Feb. 10, 2003, Dixon, then an 18-year-old senior with a 3.96 grade point average and full scholarship to Vanderbilt, was arrested at Pepperell High for allegedly raping Kristie Brown, a white 15-year-old virgin, in a classroom trailer.”
Similar to Owen’s case, except that Owen is rich and white, and Dixon was black and not-rich.
Me too. But the solution is to fix bad laws, not to rely on police and prosecutors not to enforce them.
I don’t think I’m missing anything.
It’s not unreasonable to have a law that prohibits 18 year olds from having sex with 15 year olds. But the punishment should fit the crime. Consensual sex between teenagers shouldn’t result in a felony conviction and lifetime sex offender registration.
It’s long been whispered that New Hampshire state prison inmates celebrate their own version of the so-called Senior Salute, but unlike at St. Paul’s Prep, the traditional “morning after” gift of chocolates & a single red rose instead consists of a contraband Camel Filter 100 and a 3 pack of Cup O’ Noodles.
I think it is absurd that the punishment for soliciting a minor to have sex by a computer is harsher than actually having sex with a minor. Is there any rational basis for that at all? I cannot see any.
I have read (but have no cite supporting this) that the reasoning is that making the penalty for having sex with a minor too severe risks giving the incentive to murder the victim if the penalty for murder isn’t a lot more extreme than the penalty just for sex.
For online soliciting that’s not a factor, as the offender doesn’t have direct access to the victim.
That seems like pretty specious reasoning. Under that logic, we should have light penalties for robbery, kidnapping, malicious wounding, domestic battery, etc. so as not to encourage the killing of the victim.
And this type of crime is not a forcible one. He was convicted of being 19 and having (otherwise) consensual sex with a 15 year old girl. I know that she cannot consent because of her age, but otherwise consensual (at least what the jury found). That is not the type of crime where you will kill your girlfriend afterwards.