Who's The Criminal Here?
Okay, it's one thing if your 15-year-old daughter is doing it with some 26-year-old drifter from the gas station. But, a 15-year-old girl has sex with her teenage boyfriend...and he faces jail time and/or sex offender status? Just nuts. But, it's happening. From an ABC piece by John Stossel, Gena Binkley, and Andrew G. Sullivan:
In one respect, Hadley was fortunate because he wasn't put on New Hampshire's sex offender registry.Jeff Davis -- who also ran into an angry dad -- wasn't so lucky. He was an 18-year-old with a 15-year-old girlfriend, and they were having sex.
"It was the norm," Davis said. "It really was. There are a lot of teenagers these days that are having sex. We thought we were very much in love, we were in high school."
His girlfriend's father, Mark Putorti, didn't think the relationship was good for his daughter Alexis. Her grades at school had slipped and he thought Davis was a bad influence. "All I wanted was him away from my daughter," he said.
Putorti had the law on his side because Alexis was 15 and the age of consent in Connecticut is 16. He warned Davis to stay away from his daughter, or else. But Davis didn't believe him. "Thinking there was no legal recourse, I figured it was a dad who was angry and couldn't really do much about it," Davis said. But he was wrong.
Putorti went to the police, and they arrested Davis. "I was processed, fingerprints, photos," Davis recalled.
At the time Alexis was furious with her father, but today she says that her dad was right and that Davis took advantage of her.
"I don't want to say he directly pressured me, but I think that you can definitely, as an older person, put indirect pressure on somebody to do something they may not be ready to do," she said.
Branded for Life
Davis was convicted of sexual contact and risk of injury to a minor. He's on the Connecticut sex offender registry right there along with Douglas Simmons who kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered a 6-year-old (the details of the murder conviction don't appear on the registry because of a plea deal in his home state) and James Sullivan who sexually assaulted a handicapped woman. Looking at the registry, it's tough to know how Davis is different from those dangerous men. And, Davis says, some people look at him like he's a pervert.
"They come across as if I were sitting in the bushes in the park waiting for someone to walk by," he said. "They don't understand I was in a relationship with a girl in high school."
The police warn his neighbors that he's a sex offender and vigilantes make sure his neighbors know. "They'll print out copies of my page from the registry. They'll drive around the neighborhood, throw it out the windows," he said.
Today Davis is a volunteer firefighter. He used to dream of working full time as a firefighter, but because he's a registered sex offender, he says he'll never get that job, even though he's certified.
"I can't become a paid firefighter," he said. "I can't even apply at some places because they ask you before they even give you an application. They see it on the applications and it doesn't go any farther than the hiring process. I get put into a basket and put [by] the wayside."
Putorti has little sympathy for Davis, who he says should have stayed away from Alexis when he told him to. And, he says, having Davis arrested was just what his daughter needed.
"Wasn't something I wanted to do, and it wasn't something I'm proud that I did, in a way. But looking back on it, I don't regret having done it, either," he said. "The proof's in the pudding, really. She went back and really knuckled down in high school and graduated."
Putorti says the statutory rape law saved his daughter. "Oh yeah. No question," he said.
And Alexis agrees. "I think this is a good law for these situations. If Jeff had gone to jail, I would have thought that was way harsh," she said.
Uh, nothing a little parenting and personal responsibility on the part of these girls wouldn't fix. A guy has to get arrested, and potentially go to jail or be branded a sex offender so you can get your grades up? Just sick.
And just guessing here, but how often do you think teenage boys' parents sic the cops on their somewhat older teenage girlfriends?
And as a commenter on the ABC site pointed out, doesn't the sex offender registry violate the Fifth Amendment?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Believe me, I'm no friend to actual sex offenders, but we need to reform the laws to differentiate between the real sex criminals and horny teenage boys making out with their horny teenage girlfriends.
The teen girl was quoted as saying: "I don't want to say he directly pressured me [to have sex], but I think that you can definitely, as an older person, put indirect pressure on somebody to do something they may not be ready to do".
I think it would be more accurate if she said, "at the time I thought he shouldn't be punished, but since then I have done well in school, and my dad is really happy, so I'm happy too, and let the guy suffer."
Norman at March 17, 2008 12:52 AM
Did you see the post on Glen Sacks site about the 16yr old boy whos now a sex offender because a thirteen yr old lied about her age?
I'd link to it but his site is down at the moment
http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/is_ricky_really_a_sex_offender/6726/
here is the original article though
lujlp at March 17, 2008 1:20 AM
Thanks, lujlp. He's been having server problems lately, the poor guy. Will read the piece.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2008 1:22 AM
"I don't want to say he directly pressured me [to have sex], but I think that you can definitely, as an older person, put indirect pressure on somebody to do something they may not be ready to do"
Good heavens, teenage boys pressure teenage girls to have sex all the time. Why was she dating an older guy? Probably because dating an upperclassman is kind of a trophy. Typical high school kids...
Statuatory rape laws - if I'm not mistaken, some states are clever enough to write these as "no sex with a teenager under 16, if the age difference is more than X years".
Of course, the perfect law has yet to be written. The cops, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury all have the authority to decide not to enforce the law in a case where it makes no sense.
bradley13 at March 17, 2008 1:27 AM
Another link to the kid's story.
http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/mary.htm
This girl lied, perhaps because he wouldn't have proceeded had he known she was actually 13, and the guy is punished?
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2008 1:27 AM
Glenn's piece is here
and it's accompanied by this piece too.
which points to this website that deserves a read: Ethical Treatment for All Youth. Browse the stories of kids that are now sex offenders. Kafkaesque doesn't begin to describe it.
Cruel and unusual punishment, violation of equal protection and due process, .... It's all okay because we it's only kids we're depriving of rights and liberty.
jerry at March 17, 2008 1:35 AM
Well I see you got there first!
jerry at March 17, 2008 1:40 AM
"It's all okay because we it's only kids we're depriving of rights and liberty" - no, it's because it's extramarital sex, and that gets god all huffy.
Norman at March 17, 2008 2:24 AM
I'm definitely with you on the objectionable scope of sex offender registries. Too often they're about making us feel morally better as opposed to being physically safer.
I can offer a perspective on this. A few years ago, an acquaintance dated a 15-year-old girl when he was 18. I have no idea if their relationship was physical, although I assume it was. Luckily for him her parents adored him. But I still warned him over and over that he put himself at huge risk. If for any reason her parents turned on him, he was screwed. No amount of reason would work on him, which I attribute to him being 18.
I sympathize with Mr. Davis, since his situation sounds exactly like the worst-case scenario I tried to convey. Risk deepened by a sense of invincibility clearly bordering on stupidity.
How do we convince people that a dangerous percentage of society is malicious in its law creation and enforcement? How do we convince people that too many won't see the difference in punishment between a teen relationship and the abuse and murder of a child? To those malicious people, sex is the crime.
Tony at March 17, 2008 5:40 AM
""I think this is a good law for these situations. If Jeff had gone to jail, I would have thought that was way harsh," she said." She's still dumb as a bag of rocks. In the overall scheme of things getting 5 years in jail is far kinder (depending on the jail) than ending up on the registry.
He's not that bright either. Even at 18 (in fact 16) I knew better than to go any where near younger girls. At 18 getting physical with someone around 3 years my junior was both gross and scary. Then add the fact that dad (who was still responsible for her) was completely against it his behavior was monumentally stupid. His life getting wrecked permanently as punishment was too harsh.
I agree that the registry has to be seriously reworked. You can end up on it if you get caught drunk taking a leak in the park in the middle of the night.
vlad at March 17, 2008 6:00 AM
'"Thinking there was no legal recourse, I figured it was a dad who was angry and couldn't really do much about it," Davis said.'
...
'Uh, nothing a little parenting and personal responsibility on the part of these girls wouldn't fix.'
What was the father allowed to do short of charging statutory rape? With "no legal recourse" he's just "a dad who was angry and couldn't really do much about it". So he had recourse to the law.
Sounds to me like Davis unwittingly chose this outcome by refusing to respect anything less than legal force. And the root problem is that he never was taught to respect anything that couldn't physically compel his respect.
Bob Hawkins at March 17, 2008 6:06 AM
"Okay, it's one thing if your 15-year-old daughter is doing it with some 26-year-old drifter from the gas station.But, a 15-year-old girl has sex with her teenage boyfriend" Legally there is no difference between the drifter and the 18 year old boy friend. He's an adult yeah I know mentally not so much but he should have know that "16 will get you 20". Should ignorance of the law be an excuse in this case and not other? Also where does one draw the line? What is the difference that is acceptable and where should one cross the line to being a consenting adult? We have established that 26 year old drifter with a 15 year old girl is sex offender worth. What about 15 with 13 or 13 with 10, both are three year differences?
vlad at March 17, 2008 6:17 AM
If I was a male, I would stay as far away from anyone obviously younger than me as humanly possible. However, since I am in fact a female, I can't of course completely empathize with the evolutionary psychology at work - which does not minimize its driving importance. At 18 I think many guys are lacking in the self-awareness and self-control necessary for giving better direction to the natural desires for youth, physical beauty, and semi-submissiveness (or whatever is the correct term for it). So we punish them for adolescense with a lifetime record echoing that of a pedophile?
I wonder if that idiot dad was always attracted to obviously older, more mature women. I bet not. I'd like to see what his preferred porn looks like, actually. It wouldn't surprise me if "Girls Gone Wild" was at the top of his soft porn list.
Jessica at March 17, 2008 6:42 AM
A travesty of justice. I'm not sure which party is the worst of the lot, the girl for lying about her age, the parents for punishing the boy for their daughter's lie, the district attorney for prosecuting the case, or the representatives of the people who pass panic laws rather than just laws because acting in the interests of justice would be political suicide...or even perhaps the neighbors who in their ignorance persecute a boy because of the lie of a girl.
Either way, its ironic and disgusting that the most innocent party, is the one that was convicted.
The fix is so simple too. First enact an age difference requirement in the law, that should be obvious. Second, add an accountability requirement, stipulating that a lie on the part of the underage which enabled the under age to pursue the "of age" of their own accord, vacates prosecution.
But you know I have a question here that the article did not answer. Did any of these parents NEVER meet the boys? Were they just letting their 13 year old daughters go out whenever they pleased without accounting for their whereabouts?
Alright, we know that underage girls can sometimes look significantly older than they are...but 16 year old boys almost invariably look like 16 year old boys. If the parents saw him even once their first question should have been "how old are you?".
A little time actually TENDING their little broods and they might know what is going on and these tragedies might not occur.
Robert H. Butler at March 17, 2008 6:44 AM
Poor Jeff Davis made a wrong decision somewhere along the way, which was to ignore the girl's father and not back down. Was his punishment too harsh? Maybe, but if he had listened to the girl's father, he wouldn't have gotten into further trouble, now, would he? Seems to me he was being a little too arrogant for his own good. Also, if the girl was getting crappy grades and he was part of the cause, he could've helped her, no? I wonder if he was still in high school, because it sounds to me like he wasn't, which also could've gotten daddy's panties in a twist.
What about 15 with 13 or 13 with 10, both are three year differences?
These kids are too young to even be having sex! Not that it doesn't happen, I know.
Flynne at March 17, 2008 6:55 AM
vlad, not to be nit-picky, but 15 with 13 is only a 2 year difference ;)
The sex offense registry should link their case file / record, because vlad is right, you can get on there just from peeing in public.
I do, however, support the registry, as I discovered my next door neighbor was a pedo and you would never have guessed it. A cute little old couple - always offering to watch my then two year old daughter. He had been charged with molesting his own children or grandchildren. I saw him on the registry and it took me about 2 solid days of internet searching to find out what exactly he had done.
dena at March 17, 2008 7:03 AM
I think teens should be illegal.
Bugs at March 17, 2008 7:16 AM
Was the kid about cheeky about the dad? Sure. But if you're going to punish kids for having consensual sex, punish both kids.
Teenagers are not known for their great wisdom. A teenager who has sex with his somewhat younger girlfriend shouldn't be treated the same as some rapist or some pervert who preys on children.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2008 7:29 AM
"Putorti has little sympathy for Davis, who he says should have stayed away from Alexis when he told him to."
From experience, I know how this father felt. Placed in his position the kid left him little recourse short of having the father use - or threaten to use - physical force. But then the problem would have shifted to the father. The laws harshness should not be a deterrent for the father, but for the kid.
Harvey Levy at March 17, 2008 7:31 AM
"These kids are too young to even be having sex! Not that it doesn't happen, I know." Oh, I very much agree. Yeah the question is, is there anything that can be done about it and what is it.
"Maybe, but if he had listened to the girl's father, he wouldn't have gotten into further trouble, now, would he?" Oh, come on the punishment was definatly too harsh, but ignoring her dad was an act of supreme arrogant stupidity.
Also another good point. Would dad have had a problem with him at 18 if he was college bound and/or from a wealthy respectable family.
vlad at March 17, 2008 7:37 AM
"vlad, not to be nit-picky, but 15 with 13 is only a 2 year difference ;)" Crap to early to do math without a calculator.
vlad at March 17, 2008 7:38 AM
"A teenager who has sex with his somewhat younger girlfriend shouldn't be treated the same as some rapist or some pervert who preys on children." I agree he's not a rapist but a perv who preys on kids I'm not so sure. Some one who's 19 when the partner is 13 would be or be real close to being a perv who preys on kids.
vlad at March 17, 2008 7:46 AM
From experience, I know how this father felt. Placed in his position the kid left him little recourse short of having the father use - or threaten to use - physical force. But then the problem would have shifted to the father. The laws harshness should not be a deterrent for the father, but for the kid.
See, the problem actually starts with the father. He apparently didn't parent his child very well, so then he uses the state for backup. If my parents thought some kid was a bad influence, they wouldn't have to do anything other than tell me I wasn't allowed to see that kid again. Case closed.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2008 8:00 AM
AN 18 year old is allegedly an adult - but they're still in high school. They're still picking from the same litter of people to date and be friends with. What the hell are they supposed to do? Repress their very natural sexuality during their senior year until they go off to college?
We need to protect kids from predators. I don't know anyone who'd dispute that. But we also need some common sense in our law.
It was recently decided (I'll look for a link) that a woman doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public: a man used something to peek up a skirt of a woman in Target. She pressed charges of some sort. He was let go - b/c it was in public and she was wearing a skirt. Doesn't that make anyone feel a little queasy? Doesn't it just feel a little...not okay? If a woman wanted a guy to see her crotch-al region I am confident she'd find a way to accomplish this. I am also confident that by wearing a skirt she was not inviting anyone to sneak a peek. It's like telling the woman in the low cut dress who was raped that she was asking for it.
We need some common sense. 18 year old bodies are ready to make babies just like mother nature wanted. It's not our fault society and evolution aren't on the same time line. 150 years ago the 15 and 18 year old couple might very well have been married and already have a family...We can't expect an 18 year old to not socialize and possibly get close to people he sees on a daily basis. She was a peer - not a little child. There is a line that exists and I think we know it when we see it. This is not the line.
Gretchen at March 17, 2008 8:03 AM
Y'all are missing the point. The sex offender list needs to be two tiered: the really bad guys and the ones who just made a mistake. The mistaken fellas need a way to eventually get off of it. Do what you want with the real perverts.
biggntuff at March 17, 2008 8:07 AM
This is an excellent article which is along the same lines as what I discussed above..."The Mind-Body Problem/Rethinking the Age of Sexual Consent."
http://www.slate.com/id/2174841/
Gretchen at March 17, 2008 8:07 AM
Well, not all of us, biggntuff.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2008 8:07 AM
See, the problem actually starts with the father. He apparently didn't parent his child very well, so then he uses the state for backup. If my parents thought some kid was a bad influence, they wouldn't have to do anything other than tell me I wasn't allowed to see that kid again. Case closed.
Well, perhaps because I'm a father of two daughters who is trying to parent my kids correctly.... I'm going to give Dad a bit more benefit of the doubt. There are an awful lot of forces telling the kids to ignore Dad these days....
I do wonder what would have happened if at some point the father had dropped the charges, if the DA and the system would have gone along. One problem of draconian reactions like this is that even though the kids' behavior is illegal, it would keep me from going to the cops....
jerry at March 17, 2008 8:21 AM
"It's like telling the woman in the low cut dress who was raped that she was asking for it." No it's like telling a women offended by men staring at her breasts while wearing a low cut top. The lower the top and the more endowed she is the more men will stare. In this case as long as the guy does not make physical contact or trespass there is little the law can or should be able to do. Using binoculars to spy on your neighbor who changes in front of an open window shouldn't be criminal, putting a camera in his/her house is.
vlad at March 17, 2008 8:34 AM
There are an awful lot of forces telling the kids to ignore Dad these days....
Yeah, and if you can't be enough of a parent to realize that and counteract that, you should wear a condom.
Too few parents seem to realize what an enormous thing it is to raise a child. It's not like buying a bunny.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2008 8:38 AM
"We can't expect an 18 year old to not socialize and possibly get close to people he sees on a daily basis." We can expect that 18 year old to respect her parents wishes as legally they are responsible for her. Every time some parent or sibling wanted me to stear clear of daughter or sister I quietly walked away. Starting from 16 on I just failed to see the point of pushing it. Every time some one much younger than me developed an interest I put a fast end to it as soon as I saw it coming. Senior year with high school freshman, hell no.
Only one time did I even contemplate perusing something with an under class person she was 1 year my junior and her mother was all for it. I was 17 and she was 16, 16 was the age of consent.
vlad at March 17, 2008 8:45 AM
Yeah, and if you can't be enough of a parent to realize that and counteract that, you should wear a condom.
I do wear a condom, but it doesn't seem to help. :(
jerry at March 17, 2008 8:49 AM
"Yeah, and if you can't be enough of a parent to realize that and counteract that, you should wear a condom." With little kids (before age 10) I agree with you. After 12 or 13 for either gender you have to carefully balance increased freedom with control/parenting. The line start to blur, child minds mixed with unstable semi-adult bodies it gets hard even "good" kids get stupid, some get really really stupid. She wouldn't listen cause she was young dumb and in love. He was showing a serious anti-authoritarian streak. His behavior was worse.
vlad at March 17, 2008 8:54 AM
Flynne
"if he had listened to the girl's father, he wouldn't have gotten into further trouble, now, would he? Seems to me he was being a little too arrogant for his own good."
Do you really think an 18 year old boy, or any man, for that matter would listen to a father who told him to stop dating his daughter? I've always been the kind of guy who's most parents wet dream of a boyfriend, but if some girl's father told me to stop seeing her daughter even I would laugh that off and ignore him. Nobody takes well to being told they aren't good enough.
She was also his girlfriend and probably had a least some feelings for her. If the father couldn't convince his own daughter to stop seeing the boyfriend, it's not really a job for the police and criminal justice system.
The father ruined that boy's life. That's the real crime.
flighty at March 17, 2008 8:59 AM
"Do you really think an 18 year old boy, or any man, for that matter would listen to a father who told him to stop dating his daughter?" Been there and done precisely that on more than one occasion. Would I do that now? I'd run far the hell away from her and her family now, they are probably both stone shit crazy, or bigots. The only objections I can see now is that 1) I'm Russian and therefore not suitable 2)A 6 figure salary and a home (under 30 yo) is not signs of success. So either bigots or a little tweaked with regards to reality. The only logical objection I could see is that her parents went through AA and the fact that I drink at all worries them.
vlad at March 17, 2008 9:11 AM
"The father ruined that boy's life. That's the real crime."
That could have been prevented if he showed some respect for the father, and his daughter, by at least backing off a little. Even she admitted she started pulling her grades back up once he was out of the picture.
Do you really think an 18 year old boy, or any man, for that matter would listen to a father who told him to stop dating his daughter?
Perhaps if he was less arrogant and thought he knew it all, and got his hormonal repsonses under control. Who the hell knows? But would you really laugh it off and ignore him, at the risk of getting arrested? Methinks maybe you would rethink that if you knew the threat was real. A little personal repsonsibility and respect for your elders just might be called for in such a situation. As would a little more self-respect for the girl involved, because who knows if he was pressuring her or not. Only they know for sure. Her father wanted her to get her grades up and be responsible, and the guy should have respected that, if he really was having a meaningful relationship with her, and not just letting his hormones run amok.
Flynne at March 17, 2008 9:17 AM
And just so's I'm not misunderstood, here, let me also place some blame on the girl. Was she defying her father and seeing the guy on the sly, or was she being up front and honest and taking personal responsibility for her situation and her grades? I'm not certain we've gotten the whole story from both sides, now that I think about it...
Flynne at March 17, 2008 9:23 AM
if he really was having a meaningful relationship with her, and not just letting his hormones run amok.
Teenagers are largely hormones run amok. The girl wasn't some blowup doll he acted on. There was consent on her part, and she was a few years younger than he, and not eight years old.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2008 9:31 AM
Flynne
What if some guy's mother told you to back off from her son because you were a terrible influence on him? That his grades were slipping because of your trampy influence on him?
How do you think you would react to that at age 16? Do you think you would be respectful of the mother's wishes?
I don't really disagree with you that much (he really should have looked into the law and with the internet it's not that hard to figure out anymore), but as a fairly young guy myself, my heart goes out to the guy who was in my view unreasonably punished.
My GUESS is that the father didn't exactly sit the guy down and have heart felt one on one. My GUESS is also that, knowing from my own h.s. days, this guy was not the only 18 year old going out with 15 year old and he didn't really think it was a big deal. (I remember plenty of these types of relationships in my high school and assume more than one resulted in sex).
I just think the punishment should fit the crime and in all reality I don't see much of a "crime" in this situation.
flynne at March 17, 2008 9:56 AM
Are we discussing a parent's right to know what his/her child is doing or are we discussing whether or not what happened was actually wrong and worth marking this person for a lifetime by lumping him into the pile next to child rapists? (oh, and in case you were wondering, he really shouldn't be considered a child rapist.)
Was she REALLY taken advantage of? Was a crime REALLY committed?
Flynne/Vlad - the boyfriend pissed off the dad SO HE GETS A SCARLETT LETTER? No one is thinking about what is at play here - the boy and girl are in the same social group. They are in high together. Their bodies are ready for sex. Just because it might be ideal to wait b/c sex is complicated, etc. doesn't mean that hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution is going to disappear to allow our new fangled concepts of sexual "readiness" and "morality" guide us. Your hormones don't understand that getting pregnant at 15 will fuck up your life or that an STD could kill you.
I agree that the 18 year old was sleazy b/c it's the polite thing to do to respect people who are older and want you away from their daughter. But I don't see a real crime here - just a pissed off guy who lost the ability to completely control his daughter and he didn't like it. She was embarrassed that everyone was talking about her having sex so she decided to pull the victim card to abscond herself from liability (aka she didn't like it when her daddy told her she was a slut).
Gretchen at March 17, 2008 10:08 AM
One thing that struck me as I watched the Stossel piece, and as I read the comments, is how do you remember your teen years? I had a number of girlfriends, where once the parents started liking me, that was the kiss of death. Nobody at the time [early 80's] mentioned that I could be locked up, because one of us was on one side of an age line...
so there's the rub... some two who are just certain they are in love rebels against her parents. [Because as has been pointed out, in the reverse situation nobody seems to bat an eye.] So who gets jailed in the process? It may or may not make sense that the boy does, but it's a fact.
So? What you tell your boys when you explain the birds and the bees is that there are some serious, real world downsides to being intimate with someone. Some of them begin right there in their adolsecence, and the age of consent is one. Doesn't matter how much you are in love, and how unfair you feel the law to be, the consequence is ugly, just like "catching something" from not being protected. It CAN actually change your whole life.
Another thing I saw in the Stossel report was about a family with a 15yr old boy, and a 17yr old girl. They watched the girl like a hawk, because she was more "vulnerable", while not paying muc attention to the boy. The stupid thing about that attitude is that somewhere that boy will be "hooking up" with someone else's daughter. The VERY reason they are so concerned about their own daughter, is an issue they are completely ignoring in their own son. Also, importantly when dealing with a teenage angst monster [y'know the one? like Katie Kaboom] is to try as much as you can NOT to take all their power away to actually make decisions. To fup duck. In so many cases, when you lock them in the tower, they not only never forgive you, but they pick the lock faster than you imagine. the balancing act is difficult, but don't you wish to raise an adult that can appreciate the consequence of decision? They always talked about teaching a girl about keeping that dime between her knees... but how do you teach her to think in terms of "this is my body, and I will protect it" while not encouraging her to ignore you as a parent about what you think should be done about it? That teenage emo rollercoaster, is so much fun...
The thing is, no matter how much fear or information you put into a young adult [and YES they are not children, as they don't look at themselves that way.] They may well completely ignore you.
Do you remember being that age? You KNEW everything. Parents were just there to harsh your reality. The indirect good thing coming from such reports is something that you can show your manchild and say: "see? sucks to be him, eh?"
SwissArmyD at March 17, 2008 10:13 AM
So what, exactly, was the father supposed to do?
Assault the kid when he wouldn't stop seeing the daughter? Not smart, I think we agree.
Lock the daughter up? Honor killing? Raise the baby for her? Move to a different state? His options are, after all, limited.
Get serious. His house, his rules. He did the right thing. There is a reason 15 year olds are minors.
Is the punishment excessive? Yes. Beyond a doubt. The kid should have listened. Actions have consequences, some of which are harsh or fatal.
Let's posit another situation. Teenagers joyriding in cars. We've buried quite a few around here. High School Seniors, with an extremely short lunch period, leaving school for fast food. Cheerleaders coming back from some event, texting while driving. One of the more dangerous things you can do is let your teens ride around with other teens. As a parent, what do you do? What do you do if you say no, and your teen doesn't listen?
That's hypothetical, my youngest is entering her master's program. My question relates to where and how you draw a line between allowing your child to develop into an adult, and your responsibility to protect him or her from dangerous situations that could have life changing consequences.
MarkD at March 17, 2008 10:17 AM
I'm not disagreeing that his punishment was too harsh. I'm also not discounting her culpability in what happened.
Her comment on coercion after the fact was crap. He asked her to do stuff she didn't want then why did she do it.
"Your hormones don't understand that getting pregnant at 15 will fuck up your life or that an STD could kill you." Yeah but at 18 you should know better and have better control of your hormones. This is the justification for the age of consent.
vlad at March 17, 2008 10:20 AM
"Yeah but at 18 you should know better and have better control of your hormones" - vlad.
and were you, when you were that age? IMHO this is by no means an easy thing. Necessary yes, but easy? No.
SwissArmyD at March 17, 2008 10:23 AM
Right on, Swiss.
At 15 I was messing around with guys. I knew I probably shouldn't. I knew it wasn't going to make them like me. I knew my parents would be disappointed. I knew I could get pregnant, an STD or a "bad reputation."
But I did it all anyway. With private school boys who didn't know my friends and who wouldn't talk about it. It was fun. I liked it. I wasn't trying to get attention (I wasn't deprived as a child) I just enjoyed it...........(I'm on a one way super highway to hell. Ahhhhhhh! I need savin'!)
.......again......that's what those parts are for and that's why we have hormones....to make us like fucking around and want to fuck around so we'll have babies.
See, people have brains and are able to think (I can't be 100% sure about ants and birds but it seems they don't process conscious thought). And since we can think we need other incentives to get us doing it. Mother nature is evil like that. Luckily, our thinking brains also helped develop BCPs and rubbers.
My parents trusted me and I got good grades and I always helped around the house. Never got arrested. Was never late for curfew. Never tried pot until college and even then didn't like it a lot. I did things right. Was I less of a good kid b/c I was also horny? Judge my crazy glands not me!!
Gretchen at March 17, 2008 10:25 AM
"and were you, when you were that age?" By that age yes, by the age of 16 I had a reasonable control over that side of my personality. Like I said earlier once parents or siblings said stay away I did. No it wasn't easy and I wasn't thrilled about it but I did it.
vlad at March 17, 2008 10:45 AM
"Was I less of a good kid b/c I was also horny? Judge my crazy glands not me!!" I don't see the issue of judging some one. It's the issue of keeping them safe so they survive the teen years.
vlad at March 17, 2008 10:48 AM
I feel for the lad; but when I was 18 and had a couple of cute 15-year-old girls coming on to me, something inside said "this isn't right." Granted, I'd just graduated from high school, and was no longer a contemporary of theirs in that sense. Still, I knew that was a big age gap in context. While the punishment may have been harsh, he did have every opportunity to avoid it. Tough way to learn what being an adult means.
mr. teflon at March 17, 2008 10:52 AM
Who does it serve to mark horny teenagers with bad judgment with the same mark we apply to grown men who prey on children?
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2008 10:56 AM
"Who does it serve to mark horny teenagers with bad judgment with the same mark we apply to grown men who prey on children?" The question here (in this case) is, at 18 are you an adult? The girl is a minor, I'm curious as to the justification of anyone who disagrees. If he were 26 years old I doubt anyone would have an objection with the outcome.
This does not change the fact that there are huge miscarriages of justice with regards to the registry.
vlad at March 17, 2008 11:13 AM
I don't understand the idea that there was nothing else the father could do. Why not forbid his daughter from seeing this guy? Ground her until her grades pick up? Where in this story does he say he demanded that his daughter stay away from the guy and she disobeyed him?
The father warned the guy to stay away; but did he ever confront the two of them and specifically say: "Stay away or I WILL call the police and you WILL be arrested for statutory rape and land up on a sex offender list. Both of you think carefully because this is your last warning. Your life will be ruined and daughter, is this what you want to happen to the young man who you claim to care about?"
From my recollection of those days, the 16 & 18 year old were acting quite in character for rebellious teens. The dad is supposedly the mature, rational, responsible one and should have tried a little harder before landing this young man on a sex offender's list.
moreta at March 17, 2008 11:26 AM
If I disobeyed my parents in some major way, I would've been grounded from age 15 to 40, pretty much. A guy who has such lax control over his daughter is, perhaps, a genetically connected father, but not much of a parent.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2008 11:45 AM
I don't understand the idea that there was nothing else the father could do. Why not forbid his daughter from seeing this guy? Ground her until her grades pick up?
She would have found all kinds of ways around it. One of my girlfriends was grounded from seeing her boyfriend, and he used to sneak over to her house after her dad left for his job (he worked nights, the mom worked days), when her mom was asleep, and put a ladder up to her window and off they'd go! Another friend used to not come home from school until after 9 at night. I even snuck out a couple of times when I was grounded, but eventually figured out for myself it wasn't worth it. Both our grades suffered but I graduated and she didn't. She didn't end up with that particular boy either. Look, we're none of us angels, but neither are we totally evil. I agree that the punishment was harsh. But the question remains, would he still be with her now? Would she have graduated high school in spite of him? Who knows, but it's obvious the father was worried enough about it take serious action. Too much, too soon, maybe. But done is done.
Flynne at March 17, 2008 12:26 PM
Flynne wrote:
"That could have been prevented if he showed some respect for the father, and his daughter, by at least backing off a little. Even she admitted she started pulling her grades back up once he was out of the picture."
I agree with you that disrespecting your elders (especially the father of the young lady you are dating) is RUDE. I agree with you that distracting your girlfriend from her studies when her grades were in the gutter is SELFISH and IRRESPONSIBLE.
However, is it just to punish DISRESPECT, SELFISHNESS, and IRRESPONSIBILITY with a spot on the sex-offenders registry and a lifelong scarlet letter? If that's the case, then my highschool BF (who was 6 months younger than I) should be on the SO registry.
If you think that the sex between a 15 year old and an 18 year old is worthy of such punishment, then that's another argument. But I'm confused as to why you'd think this girl's poor grades and this guy's lack of manners is justification.
sofar at March 17, 2008 12:46 PM
The boy was warned and thumbed his nose at it. He got what he deserves. As a mother of 3 girls, there is NOTHING on earth quite so impressionable and persuadable as a young teenage girl. They hear "I love you" from someone older, and that's it. Smart or no, good parents or not. And any 18 yr old boy interested in someone 3 or 4 years younger, who probably isn't even finished with puberty yet, does have issues.
farrar at March 17, 2008 12:47 PM
MarkD wrote:
"Let's posit another situation. Teenagers joyriding in cars. We've buried quite a few around here. High School Seniors, with an extremely short lunch period, leaving school for fast food. Cheerleaders coming back from some event, texting while driving. One of the more dangerous things you can do is let your teens ride around with other teens. As a parent, what do you do? What do you do if you say no, and your teen doesn't listen?"
I agree with you that texting while driving should be illegal and punishable. I agree with you that we should be keeping highschoolers on school grounds during short lunch breaks (my school did). I agree that young drivers should be prevented from driving with several teens in the car.
These are all dangerous behaviors that endanger the occupants of the car as well as other motorists.
However: Do you think that teens texting while driving, teens rushing back from lunch at McDonald's, and teens packing their backseat with 8 other teens should have a life-long ding on their record that prevents them from living in certain areas and from being hired from most decent jobs (eg, not EVER being able to become a fire-fighter because they got into an accident while texting)? Sure, paying more for insurance and not being hired for driving-related jobs (pizza delivery, UPS driver) would be justified. But being punished in every conceivable area of their life/career?
If you think so, then I'd call you harsh, but logical. If not, your example just doesn't make much sense to me.
sofar at March 17, 2008 12:56 PM
“A teenager who has sex with his somewhat younger girlfriend shouldn't be treated the same as some rapist or some pervert who preys on children.”
*He’s not. The Rapist and Pervert go to prison. Davis didn’t.
“See, the problem actually starts with the father. He apparently didn't parent his child very well, so then he uses the state for backup.”
*Presumptuous. The “backup” you mention consists of a citizen reporting a crime and a cop arresting a suspected perp. Everybody’s doing their job here. Regardless of what kind of parent Dad was to begin with, he’s certainly teaching respect and discipline here with the appropriate tools at his disposal. Let's not forget - he WARNED Davis that he would go to the cops.
“What the hell are they supposed to do? Repress their very natural sexuality during their senior year until they go off to college?”
*Sorry. He’s 18. So, yes, he’s supposed to act in a law-abiding fashion. It may be an arbitrary number, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you’ve got a better argument to make the age of majority 20, 21, 22, or 35, or if you think the age of consent should be 16, 12, or 8, call your state representative.
“If the father couldn't convince his own daughter to stop seeing the boyfriend, it's not really a job for the police and criminal justice system. The father ruined that boy's life. That's the real crime.”
*Actually, that ADULT ruined his own life. If we’re parsing parental blame, I’m doling my share out to Davis’ father, who apparently didn’t teach him about the consequences of disobeying the statutory rape law.
*Most frustrating thing about that article is listening to these law-breakers lament how they’ll never get to join the army, become a firefighter, etc. As if these are positions to which they are entitled. Sorry. With lives on the line, I’m glad first responders are particular about finding recruits who make good judgment calls.
snakeman99 at March 17, 2008 1:04 PM
Oh give me a fucking break. There was three years between them. It's absolutely insane that this guy had any legal troubles at all, much less getting his life fucked over it. This guy wasn't any more of a sexual predator than your average Joe who picks up chix in a bar. Teens fuck, they've been fucking since before we started walking upright.
Flynne -
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. It's the dad's responsibility to deal with his daughter, a willing participant in the situation. It is most certainly not the place of the state to make sure his little girl's behaving herself, by arresting her BF.
I did all sorts of things when I was a kid, that my parents either didn't like, or wouldn't have had they known. This includes fucking women who were late teens, early twenties, when I was fifteen on up. Was anything they did with me a crime? Hell know. I wanted to have sex with them, they wanted to have the sex with me. I wasn't being exploited, I was being fulfilled. Had my parents found out about it, they might have gotten on my ass about it (at least my mom would have) but it wouldn't have occurred to them in a million years, to pin anything on my partners.
Vlad -
The question here (in this case) is, at 18 are you an adult?
Honestly, no. You do not yet have the full legal rights of an adult. You can still be declared a dependent on your parent's tax returns. You can still be covered by their insurance. Their income, affects your ability to get financial aid, even if you have nothing to do with them. None of this changes until you turn twenty-one. Eighteen is like a learners permit for adulthood.
Tell me this, do you think the outcome would have been acceptable, had the boy been seventeen? Should a ongoing relationship between teens of similar ages, be ended when one turns eighteen?
There is a huge difference between an eighteen year old and a fifteen year old having the sex, and a twenty-six year old and fifteen year old having sex. In the first case, there is three years between them and it is easy for the relationship to be the continuation of one that was occurring when the eighteen year old was also a minor. In the latter, when the older person in question was eighteen, the young person in question was a mere seven years old.
DuWayne at March 17, 2008 1:05 PM
I don't have a problem with the boy getting into legal trouble in this case. He was warned and choose to ignore the warning.
But a lifetime on a sex offender registry is ridiculous. In a case such as this he should have the opportunity to clear his name from the registry after a couple of years.
Not only is it unfair to him. It works against the effectiveness of the registry itself.
winston at March 17, 2008 1:21 PM
"But I'm confused as to why you'd think this girl's poor grades and this guy's lack of manners is justification." Part of the issue here is that the father thought he had no other options to separate the two of them. His reason for separating the two of them was grades plus the girl having sex under age and/or out of wed lock. Her grades and chastity were important to him. He had limited options as to what he can do. It doesn't mention if he tried to forbid her from seeing him or not, he may still be an over reactive nut job lets assume he did and she refused to comply. Dad tried to talk to the guy and he laughed it off. Now dad is faced with a really shit situation. 1) Hope his daughter will get her head out of her ass 2) She becomes a teenage mom without even a high school diploma and the guy leaves 3) He locks her up literally in the house and escorts her every where 4) He makes the guy go away. The 18 year old through his action told her dad "Go ahead and make me", he did.
Could there have been other avenues? Yes. Should they have been explored? Yes. Was the outcome too harsh? Yup and even the dad sees it as such but he still can't see any alternatives.
In high school though I avoided it like the black plague guys dating girls younger than them was the norm. Girls in my senior class were dating guys in college.
vlad at March 17, 2008 1:32 PM
"There was three years between them. It's absolutely insane that this guy had any legal troubles at all, much less getting his life fucked over it." So if he were 15 and she were 12 it's all good nothing wrong with it? The question is what should the age of consent be and should it be a hard and fast age or a relative age until both are legally adults, what are the cut-off points.
"In the latter, when the older person in question was eighteen, the young person in question was a mere seven years old." By this argument any 50 year old during his midlife crisis picking up coeds in his Corvette should be flogged or burned at the stake or other horrible things done to him.
"None of this changes until you turn twenty-one." I believe for some things like insurance it 26.
vlad at March 17, 2008 1:42 PM
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. It's the dad's responsibility to deal with his daughter, a willing participant in the situation. It is most certainly not the place of the state to make sure his little girl's behaving herself, by arresting her BF.
DuWayne, I nowhere said that the state should make sure his little girl is behaving herself, by arresting her boyfriend. I said all parties involved had some personal responsibility in this. The boyfriend was repsonsible for respecting the father's wishes, and for behaving himself. The father was repsonsible for his daughter's welfare. The daughter was repsonsible for her behavior. Yes, the punishment was too harsh, but as snakeman99 pointed out, he was WARNED. HE was 18, she was 15. He should have put on the brakes.
Flynne at March 17, 2008 1:46 PM
"You do not yet have the full legal rights of an adult." Besides booze what rites are you denied after the age of 18?
vlad at March 17, 2008 1:48 PM
That's my point Flynne. If the dad actually forbid his daughter from seeing the guy and she made a choice to disobey her father and found a way around his controls....I don't understand why that's solely the guy's life long problem.
An 18 year old boy who is in the same social circle as a girl a couple grades his junior is not broken...he's just "age-challenged". This isn't an 18 year old trolling junior high...they were in the same high school.
She was misbehaving in an all too common manner in high school, having sex, hanging out with a "bad influence" and letting her grades slip as a result. It could just as easily have been a 15 year old boy and then what was dad going to do?
It would be interesting to know exactly what the warning was...its not clear from this article that he was specific about what he was going to do and the possible consequences. Sure, kids should respect their elders, but if they've been brought up with lots of slack to begin with, how do they know that THIS time he's REALLY serious.
Great he got what he wanted...he scared his daughter onto the straight and narrow, but maybe counselling, tutoring or even a couple months in boot camp, could have done the trick without taking out someone else along the way. If she ever really thinks about what's been done, what a horrible burden of guilt for his daughter to bear.
moreta at March 17, 2008 1:49 PM
"I don't understand why that's solely the guy's life long problem." I don't think it should be but he took a huge hole out of his own credibility by openly defying her father and the law. We agree that the punishment was too harsh but he had more than enough control over the situation to prevent it.
vlad at March 17, 2008 2:05 PM
Vlad -
The question is what should the age of consent be and should it be a hard and fast age or a relative age until both are legally adults, what are the cut-off points.
I think that it is incredibly stupid to have a hard, fast cut off point. In Michigan (at least when I was growing up) the age of consent was fifteen. Someone who had reached their majority, could still have the sex with a minor, as long as the minor was no more than three or four (I want to say four, but I don't recall exactly) years younger. This makes sense and keeps this sort of bullshit from happening.
So if he were 15 and she were 12 it's all good nothing wrong with it?
This gets a little more complicated, but in short, yes there is, with hesitation on my part. This is where I am rather keen on vague laws and judicial discretion, because it really depends on the circumstances and maturity of both parties. It also depends on who was doing the chasing, so to speak.
In some crowds, it is not uncommon for pre-teens to go pursuing sexual encounters with older kids. Quite often they will lie about their age and experience. Should a fifteen year old get in trouble for having sex with a girl who claimed to also be fifteen, or fourteen and who was pushing him to fuck her?
It is also not uncommon (though becoming increasingly so) for a fifteen year old, to be at a similar maturity level as a twelve year old might be, especially if the fifteen year old is a boy and the twelve year old is a girl.
But by and large, such trysts are likely the result of an older and seemingly wiser person, exploiting someone far less mature than they and easy to manipulate. And I have no problem with the parents of such a one having legal recourse under the circumstances.
By this argument any 50 year old during his midlife crisis picking up coeds in his Corvette should be flogged or burned at the stake or other horrible things done to him.
Not at all. There is also a huge difference between someone who is twenty six having sex iwth a fifteen year old, and someone who is seventy having the sex with someone who is in their late forties (as a married couple I am working for are respectively).
I think the biggest problem here, is that you want this to be black and white. Everything should be well defined and there should be no deviation. Unfortunately, this is just not how the world works.
I believe for some things like insurance it 26.
I wasn't trying to imply that all of it changes at twenty one. Though after twenty one, I don't know of any state laws or insurance carrier rules, that allow such coverage, unless the "child" is in school. I do know that some will allow them to be covered indefinitely, as long as they are students (or at least this was the case for a professional student I read about years ago).
But again, I would like to ask you; Do you think that he should have been punished, if he was seventeen? If not, should the relationship have required a cut off when he turned eighteen?
DuWayne at March 17, 2008 2:07 PM
It would be interesting to know exactly what the warning was...its not clear from this article that he was specific about what he was going to do and the possible consequences.
Moreta,
What exactly should the irate father have said, then?
What words could have made any difference - given neither teenager was thinking straight?
(I agree - with several here - that the outcome was much too harsh. But I can't come up with how a father should have acted in these particular circumstances - and given the father knew he had to act fast.)
Jody Tresidder at March 17, 2008 2:10 PM
"Do you think that he should have been punished, if he was seventeen?" Define punished. Should he get in deep shit for dating someone who is a minor without the parents consent, regardless of his or her age? Yes, absolutely. The key thing for me is the parents are responsible for you at that age and thus should have a huge say in what happens. So long as a minor is involved then the adults in the situation should get together and work it out, this works the same if both are minors.
vlad at March 17, 2008 2:23 PM
Vlad -
Parents are responsible for their children. If they don't want their child to see someone, it is their responsibility to make sure their child stays away from that person, not the other way around. It would be different if the child in question wasn't a willing participant, then it's a whole different situation. But that is not what we are talking about.
By punishment, BTW, I am talking about legal sanctions. I have no problem with the parent of one child, calling in the parents of the other child, or even talking to school staff about the problem. But calling the cops is just a load of shit. If you can't build a level of trust with your child that makes any and all control impossible, it is not the states place to cover for your shortcomings as a parent.
DuWayne at March 17, 2008 2:32 PM
so, curiosity got the better of me, because of the way we are thinking about AGE. at 18 are you an adult and so forth. The Age of Consent varies widely by state in the US... which very much puzzles me. Seems like it might be a little more clear cut as to when somebody is appropriately ready to show some responsibility and when not. I'ma guessing these laws may be very old, but they nevertheless paint an interesting picture because they ARE law.
Oregon and Idaho, for example consent is 18. Period. In Oregon, the punishments get worse the younger the person is.
Pennsylvania on the other hand has a sliding scale of 4 years, starting at 13. So a 13 is fine with a 17. 14/18, 15/19... and at 16 unless other factors are present, you are at the age. So in Penn. our scenario, isn't an issue. Tennesee, uses a somewhat similar 4 year scale starting at 13.
In Colorado, a slightly different tack is tacken that has to do wit being close in age. Consent is 17... except 15-17 is allowed consent with up to 10 years older. So the 26yr old loser will have no problem with the 16 year old. under 15, the older has to be within 4 years, and it may be that there is a base age, but it isn't listed.
Naturally all of these laws are about consent. If there is no consent, or in many cases if the person is in a position of authority, the statutes change.
In contrast [sorta] Japan and South Korea both have an age of 13... though Japan has some local prefecture differences that can up that a few years. France is 15, Italy and Germany are 14, and Switzerland and the UK, 16...
So what is the REAL question here? Are we talking maturity? Knowledge of law? age difference? You would think there was some general approach, but there isn't. The only thing similar is that it starts with puberty and the question seems to be over when you are physically mature or so. One thing not mentioned in the piece, is how many places this sort of law is black and white of a date. If she's 15, and you are 16? In a lot of places, you are in trouble. Some places, not. How fine do we make THAT point? Interestingly, in Idaho, this can only be perpetrated against a girl, not a boy.
So the basics are something like this... if our pair had lived in a state with close in age exemptions, this would never have been an issue, because they were 3 years apart. The fact that they didn't brings us right to the threshold of parental right, and the age people generally think of as adult. For alcohol, 21, for dying in a war, 18, for driving around 2 tons of kinetic energy weapon? 16.
So... what are we calling the moral hazard here, when the ages vary by so much. This apparently is less than straightforward...
AND... what does the father tell the manchild? The age of consent is X, my daughter is Y, and you really don't want to learn how pretty your eyes are in jail. Now we should really talk about what you are looking for in theis relationship vs. what my daughter is looking for...
What to tell the daughter? Is less straight. An easy one, is get your grades up, or get grounded. Another one is the flip side... of what you are looking for vs. what that punk is looking for. Another one is about protection and regret. And the story about how you have raised them to know what is right, and sometimes that ISN'T the thing that feels good. And then?
And then you have to decide if it is worth alienating your child to the point where they don't listen to ANYTHING you say. At some point in time, you have to let them go and that point varies by family. Some kids you say, "don't do that because..." and they take that. Other kids go ballistic if you look at them sideways. For them your control is much more tenuous, because evetually they will simply break it. You want to be able to choose that point if you can...
SwissArmyD at March 17, 2008 2:34 PM
Jody -
But I can't come up with how a father should have acted in these particular circumstances - and given the father knew he had to act fast.
The problem is that he is working from a damage control standpoint, instead of having preempted this all years ago.
How the father should have acted is this. First, take the dear daughter to meet with people from Planned Parenthood or another organization that deals with the potential consequences of sex. Make sure she understands clearly the potential results of fucking around, especially without a condom.
He should also have flat out forbid her to see the guy, if he was that concerned about it. If enforcing it means that he marches her ass to school and is there to pick her up (or has someone else do it), so be it. If that means she doesn't leave the house except with strict parental supervision, so be it. If it means that she goes to boot camp or counseling, so be it.
There are a lot of ways that he could have dealt with it that didn't involve the police. Really, the problem started when she was a wee child who didn't get discussions about reality. Start the drug and sex talks young and do your damndest to maintain your credibility. Indeed, my most recent postings at my own blog address exactly this, focused more on the drug angle to be sure, but relevant to the sex as well.
DuWayne at March 17, 2008 2:41 PM
"I think that it is incredibly stupid to have a hard, fast cut off point. . . . Someone who had reached their majority, could still have the sex with a minor . . . no more than three or four . . . years younger. This makes sense and keeps this sort of bullshit from happening."
Does anyone else see the inconsistency here? We don't like "hard, fast cut off points," but we do like "hard, fast" rules with three or four year grace periods? Any rule dealing with age limits will entail a necessarily objective standard.
As was summarized by another poster above, each state has its own laws on these matters. I don't think its unfair to expect a sexually active adult learn them.
snakeman99 at March 17, 2008 3:03 PM
Snakeman -
I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer about that. I think that this is an area that should allow a lot of judicial discretion, so that these are not hard and fast limits.
DuWayne at March 17, 2008 3:06 PM
As a mother of 3 girls, there is NOTHING on earth quite so impressionable and persuadable as a young teenage girl. They hear "I love you" from someone older, and that's it. - farrar
With all do respect women of all ages have a unique ability to hear a guy say 'I love you' no matter what the guy acctually said.
And for those of you who advocate for any type of age of consent or sliding scale age bracket, you are all still ignoring the women who lie about their age and they guys punished for beliving their lies
http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/mary.htm
lujlp at March 17, 2008 3:38 PM
Look, this is a textbook case for why the sexual-offender registry ought not exist. It is a life sentence without context.
This kid's life is completely and irrevocably fucked unless he leaves the country and renounces his U.S. citizenship. There is an upper limit on what he will ever be able to accomplish with his life because one father decided that he wasn't going to punish his precious little princess by locking her in the house after school every day to study until her grades improved.
I understand why the system was created. And that's why I'm against it. If serial sexual predators have a 96% recividism rate, then why are we letting them out of prison at all?
Lock up the baby-rapers forever, and ditch the registry. At least then high-school kids who are being taught from age 13 how to use a condom won't have their lives destroyed by an over-active government for actually following through on the day's lesson.
brian at March 17, 2008 4:32 PM
My daughter is 15, and an unwed mother. the father is a 19 year old dropout, a brother of her best friend that I was told lived with his divorced father far away. I had my daughter(then 14) visit her family docter with an expectation of privacy to learn how and when to obtain birth control- she told me she had no interest, although her manner and speech indicated otherwise. She spent her 14th year pregnant- I spent it in abject sorrow and guilt. Her child, my grandchild is likely to spend his life in poverty, raised by people so young and ignorant(she has yet to start her freshman year because of a complicated and risky pregnancy) I wonder what chance he'll have of completing high school. Now she at 15and 2 mos. wants to marry her BF although she originally agreed to stay home and finish high school if I let him visit her and their child. He demands 24 hour acess to his baby(unsupported baby). Its not just about the age span...he can decide to go to school or not..to stay out all night..he can work 40 hours and enter contracts. She cannot..but he and his family are pushing her to break from her family and if she does school falls by the wayside. I never wanted to prosecute this kid... the horny teen argument, but the cop who interviewed him said this kid didn't care about her age or the rest of her life. In other words he took advantage of a 14 year old who was flirty but in her own words scared to have sex and take birth control because she wasn't ready yet. And I feel like shit because I have no good altenative that won't be a disaster for all three people (my dauhter, her boy friend and baby's father, and my month old grandson who deserves two parents).
Susan Poling at March 17, 2008 4:36 PM
DuWayne,
It's fascinating reading your comments closely - your assumption is that the girl's dad didn't do his damndest before he reached for the legal sledgehammer. You've got an image of a lazy dad at the back of your mind.
My assumption - and it is just as stubborn and implicit - is that he'd already tried his hardest - and failed. I've got a desperate dad at the back of my mind!
If I saw him essentially as you do, I'd probably agree more with you!
(I just asked my sons - 17 and 19 - how their friends regarded sex with girls under 16. They both said everyone knew what the law said but no one thought the law actually meant what it said "if the couple were going out together". Pretty typical, I guess. And it's clearly time to have yet another happy little talk!)
Jody Tresidder at March 17, 2008 5:06 PM
Why does the law provide a way for a father to control who his daughter sees? If the boy was 17 wouldn't we like to believe the father would be equally pissed (if his daughter's grades and future were really the issue being preoccupied and doing risky things must be stopped regardless of the age of the partner, right? RIGHT?)
Again:
1) They are peers. He isn't a 20 year old college kid. 15 and 18 year olds are in school together.
2) Sex at that age is normal - our bodies are ready and made for it. Sex which can lead to a sad situation like Susan described. 150 years ago it would have been normal and okay. Today not so much. Does anyone have a magic potion to speed up evolution so it can keep pace with society??
What is really bothering the "Go Girl's Dad!" folks? The dirty sex? Or is it that a 15 year old girl can't possibly want sex from an 18 year old and must be protected? Or is it more appalling to think she DOES want it? Or are you afraid of losing the ability to legally attack someone who wants to have consensual sex with your daughter?...but it can't be consensual, right, b/c girls don't really like sex?
This law doesn't provide room for common sense. It has to be black and white so judges don't have to waste time thinking things through - when judges have the ability to do so and ought to. This is hugely insulting to a very intelligent group of people. The lack of discretion creates a situation where someone is criminalized who should not.
Gretchen at March 17, 2008 5:39 PM
I'm a little closer to 18 than most of you, so I'm going to put my two cents in this and perhaps it's a little different.
The guy - should have avoided the girl after Dad told him to. That he didn't is not a testament to hormones, but to an overriding arrogance, that while not uncommon these days, isn't the "normal" condition. Yes, guys that age are hormonal and full of bravado, but this is usually (maybe not anymore) tempered by the knowledge that there are consequences for your actions. In the past, that may have included a beat-down by the brothers/dad of the girl, but that's not an option anymore.
The thing that really kept people from screwing up in the past was social shame, which is now pretty much non-existent. People just did not act that way to parents, and the ones that did were outcast. I know, I'm generalizing, and I don't have more time to elaborate on this theory, but I feel like shame kept behaviors in check more in the past than now.
Should he be lumped in w/pedophiles & abusers? No, but, he took that risk. We all know that over 18 you are walking a line dating younger people. I knew it when I was 15 and screwing much older guys. They knew it too. Really, he'd have to be living under a rock not to. He just didn't really think it would happen. Didn't think it would go that far. And I really don't think it should have.
The girl smells like a rat to me. She's saying whatever she needs to say to get good with Daddy cause he put the fear into her, and she now knows he's not 'effin around.
What should have happened? If I were Dad (and yes, huge if, I can't possibly know until I have kids, etc. Let's just skip that portion) I would have realized that the guy was a punk, but the real problem was my daughter, and her obvious disrespect for my authority. I would probably have sent her to an aunties for a while. By the time she came back, her paramour would probably have been on to the next filly. If this came before law enforcement, a lock-up and an outline of the consequences would probably have done the trick. This sounds like something that could have been pled down in exchange for a permanent restraining order or the like, or a promise to keep his hands off underage poon, and a DA willing to hold the charges in the event he screwed up. Never should have gone this far.
Ultimately, he unwisely provoked, Dad prematurely escalated, and he got screwed. Harsh lesson, but really, take some frigging personal responsibility. Is a 15 year old a victim cause she gets knocked up? No, she's a dumbass. Is an 18 year old a victim because he was speeding and he crashed and died? No, he's a dumbass. See the pattern here? These are sad consequences, but ultimately, they are preventable if you just don't ACT LIKE A DUMBASS.
I see where the registry thing needs to be changed. Still, I'm actually quite surprised about your stand on this, Amy.
christina at March 17, 2008 10:12 PM
Ok, I suppose I'm going to have to be the one to say it.
I've seen the same question repeatedly through this entry, "What should the father of the girl done?"
None of you proposed the most obvious next step after talking with the boy did not work.
WHY...OH WHY...not just talk to the boy's PARENTS?!
Once he explained himself to the boy's mother and father, and cautioned them that if things did not stop the boy would be arrested...I PROMISE you, they'd have intervened as best they could.
I cannot say that their intervention would have worked...but it would have been a helluva lot better a next step than going straight to the police.
The police should have been a last resort in this situation, especially considering he was not worried about her safety...but her grades of all things.
Robert H. Butler at March 17, 2008 10:37 PM
Good point. And, as I mentioned above, it seems there's been a bit of passing along genetic material here, but not a whole lot of parenting.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2008 11:46 PM
WHY...OH WHY...not just talk to the boy's PARENTS?!
Once he explained himself to the boy's mother and father, and cautioned them that if things did not stop the boy would be arrested...I PROMISE you, they'd have intervened as best they could.
Robert H. Butler,
I'm not sure you can "promise" anything of the sort, can you?
I'm not remotely shrugging off your idea - it's excellent. But there seems to be a suggestion, at least, in the teenage boy's stubborn attitude of "there's nothing my gf's dad can do - I'm not listening to stupid adults"", that his mother and/or father might not have responded responsibly to the girl's dad - or made any difference.
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2008 4:59 AM
Jody - you can get an 18 year old's attention very fast by taking his car away from him. And if he lives under his parents' roof, they have every right to do just that.
What this shithead did to the kid is unacceptable. That he did so knowing that he was essentially forcing the kid into a suicide situation is disgusting.
Seriously - what chance does this kid now have for a real job, or a real relationship, now that he's on the perv list?
None. That's what.
brian at March 18, 2008 6:04 AM
Look, this is a textbook case for why the sexual-offender registry ought not exist. It is a life sentence without context.
The registry was created to protect children, Brian.
This kid's life is completely and irrevocably fucked unless he leaves the country and renounces his U.S. citizenship. There is an upper limit on what he will ever be able to accomplish with his life because one father decided that he wasn't going to punish his precious little princess by locking her in the house after school every day to study until her grades improved.
Not so. In CT, the register offenders are reviewed every 2 or 3 years. The longest a "minimal" offender can be kept on the registry is 10 years, as in the case of the Rec department basketball coach who had an affair with a student; he was 48, she was 15 when the affair started. He got 18 months behind bars, and has to be on the registry when he gets out for 10 years, at which time his case gets reviewed and then the board makes a determination as to whether or not he has to remain on the list. Each case is handled differently. If he's a repeat offender, he'll never get off the list. If not, he can be removed from the list. So hopefully, the kid we're talking about won't be stupid again, and he'll be off the list in 10 years. Sucks to be him, but he was warned.
I understand why the system was created. And that's why I'm against it. If serial sexual predators have a 96% recividism rate, then why are we letting them out of prison at all?
See above.
Lock up the baby-rapers forever, and ditch the registry. At least then high-school kids who are being taught from age 13 how to use a condom won't have their lives destroyed by an over-active government for actually following through on the day's lesson.
Ideally, the baby-rapers would get killed in prison, so no need to worry about them anymore, but that doesn't normally happen. Kids are kids, and most don't listen until it's too late. Read Christina's post. Girl is wise beyond her years. I told my 15-year-old about this particular blog item, and she agreed that the punishment was too harsh, but that the dad was right; she also felt the girl should have gotten punished as well, actually, she said the girl should have gotten her cell phone taken away, for at least a year, and not be allowed to get her driver's license until she was 18! I asked her if that would apply to her as well, if I caught her doing something that stupid, and she said, "Mom, you'd be even more harsh!" o_O
Flynne at March 18, 2008 6:11 AM
Jody - you can get an 18 year old's attention very fast by taking his car away from him. And if he lives under his parents' roof, they have every right to do just that.
Brian,
I totally agree with that bit.
The problem, of course, is when the teenage boy's parents think it's the fault of the girl's parents. (Keep your jailbait girl away from our boy - jesus; she's the kid here - treat her like one!)
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2008 6:50 AM
..and Christina?
I agree with Flynne - that was a great, authentic comment.
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2008 6:54 AM
"In CT, the register offenders are reviewed every 2 or 3 years." Yeah but since he'd be on the OK registry which is permanent he'd be permanent every where. His life is truly screwed unless he goes to court and fights the original conviction/judegment. If the original judgment is over turned then he will be removed from the registry. It will take a bit of legal warfare and will not be a cheap experience. Part of the mistake was made by his parents for moving to a state given his past without checking the laws.
"I asked her if that would apply to her as well, if I caught her doing something that stupid" Quick question for the parents. If your daughter was messing around but being safe about it and her grades stayed high and she had no other problems would you punish them just for having sex, at what age would it be ok?
vlad at March 18, 2008 7:10 AM
"The problem, of course, is when the teenage boy's parents think it's the fault of the girl's parents." My dad always assumed I was at fault after a certain point (13) so that was never an issue. I grew up knowing that if I screwed up I'd get caught and punished, always. To this day if given a choice between sitting in county for a night and a 15-minute car ride home with dad (he never hit me at those times, never had to), county every time.
Given the kids attitude I'd say he had a very different experience growing up. If he learned that action do not have consequences from his parents then he was destined to get screwed at some point fairly soon. He would have made a similar mistake at an older age or done something else his superiors told him not to do.
vlad at March 18, 2008 7:25 AM
If your daughter was messing around but being safe about it and her grades stayed high and she had no other problems would you punish them just for having sex, at what age would it be ok?
If she was being smart (and safe) about it, and I know the boy, and she's not sneaking around, I'd say the age it would be o.k. would be however old she is when she feels comfortable with it and feels she's ready. As long as she's not failing in school and is being responsible, it's really up to her. If she asks me to take her to the GYN to get an exam and talk about using some form of birth control, I'd say she was ready. If she feels she's got to hide it from me, there's going to be problems.
Flynne at March 18, 2008 7:32 AM
Jody -- better a late response than never? As I said earlier, it isn't clear that the dad was specific in his warning. Actually confronting the two of them and saying he would call the police and have the boy arrested and prosecuted. I recall a number of angry parental threats that weren't all that specific and rational. "Or else" doesn't really assist a hormonal, rebellious teen in making a reasonable decision.
I agree that calling in the boy's parents and giving them that message as well would have been a good next move. If they call his daughter a jail-bait skank, at least that option's been explored.
Flynne -- I know from reading you're not at all like my mom was, but for a lot of kids, they do feel it has to be hidden. Fortunately, I was smart enough to visit the local family planning clinic on my own (and drag a few of my friends there as well). By the time my mom hinted about my possible sexuality, I'd been on the pill for two years! But that was back in the olden days...
Most who agree with the dad's actions also believe the punishment is too harsh. I don't think the two can be separated in practice because the reaction goes with the action. It’s fine to believe that there should be some legal recourse that doesn’t involve such harsh punishment and to opine about that need. However, to accept the dad’s actions as right requires acceptance that the known consequences are also right. Just nit-picking…
moreta at March 18, 2008 9:41 AM
My step-daughter is 14. She is also ADHD/ODD on top of the stereotypical defiant teenage behavior. Thus, I skip the BS and lay my cards on the table.
"When you're dating someone, it is in your best interest for us to meet and get to know them. You WANT our trust regarding this. If we don't feel that you're behaving responsibly or trying to sneak around on us, we can very easily restrict the opportunities you'd have to date - and we DO pay attention to things more than you think. If you lie to us, we can make it nearly impossible for you to see your date outside of school, and if you're under 16 and the S.O. is older, we can put them in serious trouble. I'm just letting you know where we stand. We take this seriously, so should you."
She tried twice to ignore us regarding this. The first time she thought she was smarter than us, the second time was just stubborn defiance. After that, she told us when she was dating someone, and we did meet them. And so far, it's been much easier for everyone all around.
Jamie at March 18, 2008 9:59 AM
"However, to accept the dad’s actions as right requires acceptance that the known consequences are also right. Just nit-picking…" Given the guys attitude her dad had little other recourse for separating them. Even if he had talked to the parents given the attitude very little would have come of it. Having someone follow her every where would have been pointless on many levels. The system should have slapped the kid on the wrist made him pay a large fine and a few weeks of community service. The system branded him a predatory while in fact he was just and idiot.
vlad at March 18, 2008 10:06 AM
However, to accept the dad’s actions as right requires acceptance that the known consequences are also right. Just nit-picking…
I grudgingly agree it's valid nit-pick, moreta:)
Even though my argumentative streak demands I point out this: Wishing the dad had - in awesomely measured tones - successfully spelled out to the sullen, horny bf the potential legal consequences of continuing to have sex with his daughter requires accepting the reality of the law.
For the threat to be effective - some sullen, horny 18-year-old somewhere has had to be punished for under-age but consensual sex.
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2008 10:29 AM
Jody -
You've got an image of a lazy dad at the back of your mind.
No, I have an image of an incompetent father, who wants to punish an unrelated child, for his own shortcomings as a parent. Probably a coward who is uncomfortable talking about sex as anything but something that is a horror unless you wait.
To be sure, I daresay there might be some laziness too, but I think primarily it's total cowardice to the notion of actually having a reasonable, adult discussion about sex with his daughter.
Even if that isn't the case, it is not the boys fault that he couldn't manage his own child.
Vlad -
Not that I am capable of making girls, but I wouldn't really treat them any different than my boys in regards to the sex. Like Flynne, it would very much depend on their timing, their comfort level. By the time the boys get to that point, they will have a very thorough understanding of taking precautions when they have the sex and why it's important, because the discussion will be habitual. My six year old doesn't even understand the mechanics of the sex, but he knows that people having it should use a condom (when he gets older we'll discuss the point that it becomes unnecessary).
I want them to wait until they are comfortable with the sex and themselves. But the point when they are ok with it and as long as they are safe about it, It's totally up to them. I would prefer they waited longer than I did, but as I am ensuring they will already know how to be safer about it, if it's thirteen, it's thirteen. I can say that they most certainly will not have my excuse for doing it that early. Namely, the other virgin and I wondered what the big deal everyone made about it was, so we decided to find out.
To this day if given a choice between sitting in county for a night and a 15-minute car ride home with dad (he never hit me at those times, never had to), county every time.
Yup, that's my old man too. Except it wouldn't be a drive home until they decide to let me out. His attitude; "If you're mature enough to get your ass thrown in jail, you're mature enough to figure out how to get it out." Indeed, when one of my brothers got a DUI, my dad got his car out of impound and had it sold before before said brother was released from jail. Another brother who got arrested for shoplifting, wasn't in jail long enough for his taste (being a minor, they just waited until a parent got him). So before he went to get him, he made arrangements with the local gospel mission. He came to get said brother from jail and left him at the gospel mission for a couple of days.
Of course it rather backfired when years later he sent me to the gospel mission for a weekend. The guy the mission put in charge of keeping me busy, was a huge stoner, who pretty much kept me lit the whole time I was there.
DuWayne at March 18, 2008 10:41 AM
"Except it wouldn't be a drive home until they decide to let me out." Oh, every time I asked to not be let out. They couldn't hold me any longer otherwise I would have stayed and delayed the inevitable.
vlad at March 18, 2008 10:49 AM
Flynne: The registry was created to protect children, Brian.
I don't care about children. It's not the job of government to protect children. It's the job of PARENTS to protect children.
It is the job of government to punish criminals and remove them from society. If you have someone who is molesting 8 year olds, the overwhelming evidence suggests that no amount of incarceration or therapy will prevent them from re-offending when they are released back into society. We aren't talking about people who fuck babies because they have no other opportunities in life, we're talking about people who fuck babies because they are fucked in the head. They ought not be allowed back into society, ever. All this stupid list does is give them an incentive to escalate to more hideous crimes - like killing the kids to cover up the rape.
The old "15'll get ya 20" dig about statutory rape? Yeah, I think that's excessive when we're talking about two high-school kids, especially when they are immersed in a culture that implores them to "do it if it feels good". I'd bet that the original intent of statutory rape laws was to prevent 40 year old guys from going after naive teenagers. They have, however, been abused to put a black kid in prison for 20 years for getting a blowjob from a girl who was less than 48 hours from legal.
brian at March 18, 2008 12:01 PM
I don't care about children. It's not the job of government to protect children. It's the job of PARENTS to protect children.
*sigh*
I know you don't care about children, Brian, but the majority of their parents do. And we can't be with our kids 24/7 to protect them. They have to go to school, as required by law, some of us (parents) work, and those of us who do have to have some kind of after-school care in place. BUT, this is a fucked up world we're living in, and children get abducted frequently, on their way home from school, out playing with friends, going to the corner store, when- and wherever. And I agree with you that the majority of child molester should be locked up and the key thrown away. That's how it becomes the government's job; it's their job to catch these freakin' bastards! Obviously you don't have any kids, so you can't possibly sympathize with a parent who's lost a child to a murderer, or worse, with a parent of a child who's been raped that once was a vibrant beautiful child who now hides in a corner and stares at nothing. And you know what? That 18-year-old boy was once a little kid, too, and how do you think his parents would feel if some asshole did the same thing to him? Would it be his parents' fault? A little empathy goes a long way.
Flynne at March 18, 2008 1:02 PM
And Alexis agrees. "I think this is a good law for these situations. If Jeff had gone to jail, I would have thought that was way harsh," she said.
So, he didn't even go to jail. He could have gotten Accelerated Rehabilitation, if he hadn't used it already, there's no mention of that in the article. He probably got probation and yes, he's on the registry. However. He won't be on the registry forever. His case will be reviewed and he may be dropped from it. Now the ball is in his court. Let's see how he plays it.
Flynne at March 18, 2008 1:08 PM
Flynne -
There was a post earlier that said he's in a state where there's no review, so he's a baby-raper until he rots.
And my point about the registry is that it doesn't fucking work, and therefore ought not even exist.
The problem here is compassion is wasted on the weak and unworthy. We are told that a criminal, upon serving his time, has 'paid his debt to society'. Then we find a particular class of criminal with an almost perfect recividity rate, and rather than change the sentencing laws (because that would be unfair) we come up with this elaborate scheme that requires the paroled criminal to check in with a special list forever.
Not only does this do nothing to prevent re-offense, it causes people to be paranoid that one of "them" has moved into the neighborhood, post flyers, and hound them until they leave. So we've freed them from prison only to deny them any chance at a life.
And finally, although the perception is that the list is only for child molesters, anyone convicted of any sex-related crime ends up on the list. And since there's no detailed information posted (and even if there was, most people would ignore it) the guy that got that false rape accusation (in some states, you go on the list for being accused, and you don't come of just because you aren't convicted) is just as likely to get the pitchfork-and-torch treatment as the guy that raped an entire first-grade class.
Whatever happened to "eye for an eye"? Let the punishment fit the crime?
No, it seems if there's a sex angle, it's death of a thousand paper cuts.
brian at March 18, 2008 1:43 PM
"It is the job of government to punish criminals and remove them from society." Right but a crime is defined by what? Simply the fact that the law says no makes it a crime regardless of reason?
Your are correct that it is not the governments job to protect children. It isn't really to punish criminals either. The job of our government classically has been to preserve civil order. Civil order is best preserved when people are reasonably happy, well fed, and feel safe. When a parent feels a child is not safe they WILL lash out. An enraged individual be it parent or serial killer is a threat to civil order. It's more politically practical to kill or imprison the serial killer than an enraged parent.
"All this stupid list does is give them an incentive to escalate to more hideous crimes - like killing the kids to cover up the rape." They will escalate regardless. I do agree that they should be executed or locked away forever. I'm actually not sure why they don't have mandatory life sentences for repeat offenders. Politically you can't get any tougher than that as it's not a capital offense.
vlad at March 18, 2008 1:45 PM
"The problem here is compassion is wasted on the weak and unworthy." If you have your shit together and are strong and successful why the hell would you need compassion. Sounds like your against compassion as a principle. There are plenty of people that are proof that it's wasted on the unworthy, but if not the weak who would one be compassionate towards.
vlad at March 18, 2008 1:49 PM
And finally, although the perception is that the list is only for child molesters, anyone convicted of any sex-related crime ends up on the list. And since there's no detailed information posted (and even if there was, most people would ignore it) the guy that got that false rape accusation (in some states, you go on the list for being accused, and you don't come of just because you aren't convicted) is just as likely to get the pitchfork-and-torch treatment as the guy that raped an entire first-grade class.
Brian,
In NY, the posted sex offender information gives the age and gender of the victim, the details of the charge leading to the person's conviction and the sentence given.
No need to pitchfork a sullen, horny teen!
Jody Tresidder at March 18, 2008 2:44 PM
vlad: There are plenty of people that are proof that it's wasted on the unworthy, but if not the weak who would one be compassionate towards.
How about those who have come upon hardship through no fault of their own.
I see two problems here that are colliding, and that collision is bad for liberty. Problem one is "how do we make sure that the predators do not disrupt civil society". Problem two is "how do we prevent judges from abusing their position and turning a predator loose on society".
Minimum sentencing laws didn't come about because Congress thinks it knows how to better punish the guilty than the judge and jury. They came about because too many soft-headed judges were letting violent criminals go on the basis that they were "victims of society".
It's just like mandatory-arrest laws on domestic violence calls. In a case where a cop's knowledge of the situation is imperfect, he might make an improper decision (i.e. the woman that called the cops tells the responding officer that everything's cool, he leaves, she dies). He arrests someone, nothing comes of it, the town gets sued. Either way, the cop is screwed. (not to mention the cops who just stand by and watch a guy stab his wife nearly to death, but that's another story for another day)
So, in order to remedy the political fallout, and cover the officer's asses from sanction for erring on the side of caution, the legislature says "thou shalt arrest at least one party to any domestic dispute".
brian at March 18, 2008 2:57 PM
So, he didn't even go to jail. He could have gotten Accelerated Rehabilitation, if he hadn't used it already, there's no mention of that in the article. He probably got probation and yes, he's on the registry. However. He won't be on the registry forever. His case will be reviewed and he may be dropped from it. Now the ball is in his court. Let's see how he plays it.
-Flynne
Unless ofcourse the legislature decides to change the law and retroactively apply it to people on the list, which has happened time and time again.
lujlp at March 18, 2008 3:59 PM
Seventeen-year-old accused of assault, fathering child
SHEBOYGAN, Wis. - A 17-year-old Sheboygan boy is facing criminal charges after allegedly fathering a child with his 16-year-old girlfriend.
Kou Yang is charged in Sheboygan County with repeated sexual assault of a child. The charge carries a maximum 25 years in prison.
A criminal complaint says the girl told police she and Yang started having sex shortly after they met in August 2005, when both were 14.
The girl gave birth to a girl in December.
Authorities say Yang has acknowledged having sex with the girl.
jerry at March 18, 2008 4:32 PM
ISTM that a big part of the problem here is that we insist and insist and insist on conflating people who are, in all respects save chronological age, adults with real children. In the goodoledays, you were an adult at thirteen: "today I am a man," remember? In the age of sail, it was perfectly normal to expect a thirteen-year-old midshipman to take command of a captured ship and get her safely home---and they did.
I wonder just how eager jealous daddies would be to bring in the law against their daughters' boyfriends if the law required that, in cases where the girl was found to be complicit or to have lied, that she'd be punished very severely herself? Having their precious princesses' names permanently on a sex-offender register might throw some cold water on the egregrious cases.
Technomad at March 18, 2008 5:37 PM
Yeah but since he'd be on the OK registry which is permanent he'd be permanent every where.
Ah, no:
Davis was convicted of sexual contact and risk of injury to a minor. He's on the Connecticut sex offender registry right there along with Douglas Simmons...
I just finished reading about another case in our local paper, in which a 15 year-old girl had unprotected sex with a 23 year-old guy, at a slumber party where they had both been drinking beer. The girl told her guidance counsler at school what happened, the school notified the girl's mother and the police. Despite the girl not wanting to press charges, because, she says, "we were both stupid, it's as much my fault as his" Connecticut state law says "Sexual contact with anyone ages 13 - 15, when the other person is more than 2 years older is a class C felony. So poor Jeff Davis, by not listening to the father of his girlfriend, even though they were only 3 years apart, still committed a class C felony. He's damn lucky he didn't spend any time in jail because of it.
Flynne at March 21, 2008 6:11 AM
Leave a comment