What Flavor Is Your Justice?
It comes in "male" or "female," according to a piece by Constantino Diaz-Duranon on The Daily Beast:
Alan Jepsen was playing videogames at his home in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, when the cops came knocking on his door. He was handcuffed in front of his sister and thrown in jail. In the words of his attorney, Jeffrey Purnell, "This child, this 17-year-old high-school kid, had to spend a week in jail--they locked him up and they put him in jail with grown-ups."His crime: Having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend. And, perhaps, being a boy.
"These are kids," said Purnell. "It's ridiculous. Lawmakers criminalize common behavior among children, and it's frustrating, really."
The day after Alan's arrest, Sheboygan authorities arrested Norma Guthrie, also 17, for having sex with her 14-year-old boyfriend. Norma, however, did not have to spend a single day in jail. She was released immediately, on signature bond, while Alan was held on a $1,000 cash bond, which his family could not afford. Sheboygan County Assistant District Attorney Jim Haasch is handling both cases.
The disparity in the punishment of these 17-year-olds, both accused of having sex with the 14-year-olds they were dating, goes much deeper. Haasch charged Alan with a Class C felony, which, according to court records obtained by The Daily Beast, carries a maximum prison sentence of 40 years. Norma, on the other hand, was charged only with a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of nine months in jail.
The cases caught the attention of the local press, generating a heated debate over whether Alan is being given harsher treatment simply because he is a boy. "After all," said Purnell, "this isn't one district attorney in Tennessee and one in New York deciding how to charge these cases. This wasn't even one district attorney in one county in Wisconsin and another county in Wisconsin. No, this was the same guy who charged these two cases."
The district attorney's office refused to comment, but experts say it would not be far-fetched to assume that Alan has been the victim of bias.
Ya think?
Furthermore, teenagers having consensual sex with other teenagers should not be prosecuted. In a lot of states, even Romeo would be a "sex offender" today (since he was thought to be 16 and Juliet 13 when they started seeing each other).
Won't the guy also be on the "sex predator" list (database)? Actually there's a lot more guys like him on it, than there are John Coueys.
Norman L. at March 23, 2009 3:43 AM
Solution -
Tar and feather the DA.
Maybe if some of these motherfuckers start having to feel some consequences, they'll stop coming up with "creative" interpretations of the law.
Secondary solution - tar and feather the entire legislature for coming up with a legal regime in which children are taught how to have sex starting at the age of 12 or 13, and then criminally prosecuted for using what they have learned.
Were I not worried about causing Amy legal trouble, I might suggest a slightly harsher response.
brian at March 23, 2009 5:19 AM
While I am certain that there is bias in general against the boys, I would caution you about using two anecdotal cases as proof. We don't know very much about the case, and it is not at all unusual for two people commiting the same crime to get different sentences, based on a number of factors.
NicoleK at March 23, 2009 5:59 AM
The differential treatment of men and women in our legal system arises from the assumption that women experience diminished rational and moral agency. This was acknowledged openly in the 'bad old days', but now it's verboten to do so - hence the confusion.
Mack at March 23, 2009 6:18 AM
It's sexism, plain and simple.
T's Grammy at March 23, 2009 6:34 AM
It's worse than sexism. It's revenge.
brian at March 23, 2009 7:06 AM
You'd think feministas would be all up in arms over this. After all, painting females [even young ones] as too stupid to make their own decisions is one of the things that gender bias is all about, yeah?
*crickets chirp*
oh, wait... bias isn't bad when it goes your way, right?
SwissArmyD at March 23, 2009 7:08 AM
@SwissArmyD:
You'd think so, except that professional feminists are really more about advocating for females, rather than equality.
Tyler at March 23, 2009 8:20 AM
A sex offender registry is a good idea in principle.
The execution however...that is poorly done.
Its violent sexual behavior or non peer child targeting which is the threat to others.
Two high school students screwing each other silly shouldn't be a sex crime even if 1 is 18 and the other 15. There is no reason for the "perp" to be registered.
The 40 year old man who cruises for 13 year old "dates" should be on there.
The law typically makes no sense in its application.
Robert at March 23, 2009 8:45 AM
Robert - you make a mistake in thinking that the law is acting in an unintended way.
The feminazis who pushed for it wanted it because it fits their agenda of "all men are rapists".
The sensible thing to do in the case of child sex offenders is prison. If the recidivism rate is 95% or more like I've read, then why are we letting them out of prison in the first place?
I mean, really. The 40 year old who likes to have sex with 10 year olds isn't likely to change his tune.
But I highly doubt that a normally-adjusted 18 year old that is having sex with a 15 year old will continue to pursue 15 year olds when he is 40.
Statutory rape laws were meant to protect underage girls from older predators. A classmate hardly classifies as "predator" except in the case of forcible rape. But to a feminazi, any sex a girl has where she didn't initiate it was coerced in some way.
This shit needs to stop before we end up with every man in the nation being put in jail for "conspiracy to commit rape".
brian at March 23, 2009 8:56 AM
Fascinating post, Amy.
Was it ineptitude - or just total indifference whether or not it would be noticed - that it was the same DA in both cases? That's so unusual.
>>In a lot of states, even Romeo would be a "sex offender" today (since he was thought to be 16 and Juliet 13 when they started seeing each other).
Short derail: I remember being amazed when I first read the action in "Romeo & Juliet" - from hook-up to grave - actually lasts less than a week. They meet on Sunday, marry on Monday, part on Tuesday, die on Thursday and get buried on Friday!
Jody Tresidder at March 23, 2009 10:01 AM
Dr. Helen just posted this on her blog as well. She makes a point that has bothered me for a long time, don't girls mature faster than boys? If so, why are they not treated the same as boys are in these cases?
Sio at March 23, 2009 10:41 AM
...don't girls mature faster than boys? If so, why are they not treated the same as boys are in these cases?
Or more harshly?
Shouldn't they know better at an earlier age?
Conan the Grammarian at March 23, 2009 10:47 AM
I agree 2 teens having sex consentually doesn't belong in the rape category. I was a senior at age 17, and am pretty sure most 14 year olds are still in Jr high, so I do find it a bit odd that they either can't or aren't interested in getting people their own age. But they don't belong with the forcible or date rapists or true child molesters.
Where are the 14 yr olds parents, would my first question.
momof3 at March 23, 2009 10:55 AM
Conan -
The point here is that under the law, boys are predators and girls are victims.
This is codified in many laws, most famously the Violence Against Women Act.
And it needs to stop. If women want to be treated like infants, then they need to be relieved of a great many of the freedoms they have. Since they aren't going to go for that, then I say we start holding them just as responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Of course, I would say that. I'm an evil man.
brian at March 23, 2009 10:55 AM
"While I am certain that there is bias in general against the boys, I would caution you about using two anecdotal cases as proof. "
Nicole, you are almost certainly saying this in good faith, so I will point out very gently that this is hardly a case where there are just two anecdotes to go on. Yiou just have to look at the data availbale, which you may not have had time yet to do. There is a mass of information, thousands of such anecdotes, to back up the contention that there is a female sentencing discount, a female prosecution exemption and a nearly absolute female DV immunity in most jusrisdictions in this country.
What is especially galling is that in recent years feminists have pushed for much of this legislation which is so based in old-fashioned and biased perceptions of gender, just repacakged as progressive.
To give oyu an idea of how much feminism has changed in that last couple of decades, look at how different the version of the ERA that NOW is pushing now is from the original version, the one that pushed for actual equlity. Actual equality doesn't favor women enough for NOW.
Jim at March 23, 2009 11:33 AM
momof3, it depends a lot on the district. The huge districts around me all have Middle School/High School 4yr instead of Jr. High/High School 3yr. So 14 is usually a freshman...
That is the frightening thing about teens, and prolly always has been. I have a 14er myself, but I don't have a radio-collar on him, and if he was to choose a grifriend, what am I going to say? Should I say no to make it exciting? Lock him away? As if that would work. It didn't work when I was a kid, so I can't imagine it working now. Telling them consequence is helpful, but they will do things impulsively anyway.
Sometimes when you look on all this it's scary how little real control you can exert. If the kid is ammenable, you can really help them. But if they hate every single thing you do? You have to hope for the best...
Still I'll be pointing this out to #1son, just so he knows where he stands.
SwissArmyD at March 23, 2009 11:38 AM
I remember being a fairly clueless 15 year old guy playing football, lifting weights and having fun with friends. I was about as predatory as a houseplant.
Then one day, some of my women/girls friends my age and a bit older suddenly got verrrry plainspoken and forward about how they wanted to interact with me in an entirely new way. They literally showed up uninvited on my parents' front doorstep with their requests.
To this day, I shake my head whenever people assume it was a guy "pressuring" some girl into teen sex. In my experience, I found girls were much more aggressive about getting me naked than I was about getting them naked.
Yet the fiction is that boys are the predatory, initiating parties. There must be some cultural need we have to think gals are not sexual beings in those teen years.
Spartee at March 23, 2009 12:34 PM
I would caution you about using two anecdotal cases as proof.
this is hardly a case where there are just two anecdotes to go on.
Posted by: Jim at March 23, 2009 11:33 AM
To reinforce this, do some research on the sexting cases. The majority, nationwide, that are being brought up on charges is the guy. How many guys are snapping the picutres vs. how many are getting convicted for having them.
Note: Seems like Utah has gotten a little smarter on this.
Jim P. at March 23, 2009 2:22 PM
"Yet the fiction is that boys are the predatory, initiating parties. There must be some cultural need we have to think gals are not sexual beings in those teen years."
Yes there is, Spartee. It's called macho bullshit, and it's disgusting when men do it and even worse women who should know better pick it up and parrot it. And as for the second part of your question, protecting Daddy's little girl falls right into the same category.
Jim at March 23, 2009 3:37 PM
Jim, the fact is, one of them might have been more obnoxious in court, one of them might have had parents who were more supportive, one of them might have had a reputation around town, one of them might have been richer, one might have been more "presentable", one might have had a better lawyer, etc. etc. etc.
Sentencing is based on a LOT of different factors.
NicoleK at March 23, 2009 7:13 PM
Notice that his family couldn't afford the $1000 bond. This could just as easily have been a class issue as anything else. We don't know.
NicoleK at March 23, 2009 7:16 PM
NicoleK - "We don't know very much about the case, and it is not at all unusual for two people commiting the same crime to get different sentences, based on a number of factors."
Actually, this case has been widely discussed since early January. It seems that the DA has tried both the (dishonest) excuses that the girl didn't have a record (although he should have been aware of charges pending against her) and that the boy she "raped" was almost 15.
Look's like a pretty clear-cut case of those "factors" you refer to coming down to nothing more than one being male and on being female.
Here's the first place I read about it, for a somewhat humorous take:
Two Sheboygan Teens May Prove That Justice Truly Isn't Blind
slwerner at March 23, 2009 7:21 PM
Sentencing is based on a LOT of different factors.
- someone grasping at feminist straws
Tell me Nicole, how would the DA never having seen either in court, never knowing how the parents supported the kids, not haveing heard any argumnet from defense council(as there wasnt a trial) CHARGED them eith different crimes?
Same ages of "perp", same ages of "victim", same physical act, and yet different CHARGES?
Explain the massive difference in factors that led to different charges please
lujlp at March 23, 2009 9:48 PM
>While I am certain that there is bias in >general against the boys, I would caution >you about using two anecdotal cases as proof
If you need proof check out glennsacks.com
For examples of the Female Sentencing Discount every week.
Norman at March 24, 2009 1:21 AM
Duh. How do you guys make those angle brackets come out on separate lines?
Norman L. at March 24, 2009 1:22 AM
All part of the rich tapestry of American misandry.
Porky at March 24, 2009 3:14 AM
Duh. How do you guys make those angle brackets come out on separate lines?
When you copy a paragraph it shows up as one long string.
> You need to go
> through and put in
> carriage-returns -- <Enter> key --
> after each line.
Jim P. at March 24, 2009 5:15 AM
It looks like it all shook out in the sentencing. The boy did get kind of the shaft but nothing on the scale of the original charges.
http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20090324/SHE0101/903240420/1062/SHE01
Despite the vastly different beginnings, the cases reached nearly identical conclusions last week when Alan J. Jepsen, of 1416 New York Ave., was convicted of misdemeanor fourth-degree sexual assault and sentenced to one year probation, court records show. That matched the charge and sentence handed down March 10 to Norma Guthrie, now 18, of 1034-A Michigan Ave.
Judge James Bolgert handed down both sentences, which differed only in the addition of a 30-day stayed jail term for Jepsen. That means he can be sent to jail for that time if he violates the probation.
Midwest Chick at March 24, 2009 6:36 AM
I will answer your question, lujlp.
There could be any number of factors that lead to two different sets of charges for two different people. Here are some examples of why the charges might be different:
* Prior records
* Attitude upon coming in (is there sass, are they polite, etc.)
* What family they come from, is the family well known for good or for ill
* What family the victim comes from, is the victim's family well known
* Does the perp have a reputation that the DA knows about
* Does the victim have a reputation that the DA knows about
* Is the DA having a bad day
* Does the perp seem repentant
* Does the perp seem to have generally good prospects in life
* How aggressive and furious were the victim's parents, or whoever filed the charges
* Did the DA meet/see the victim, did the victim seem traumatized (if the victim is sobbing hysterically the charges might be different than if they have a satisfied smirk on their face)
These are just some things off the top of my head. There are, of course, lots of other factors to be considered. You can't take two cases and say, "See this proves it!" It proves nothing.
Norman, I'm sure that glennsacks is a very interesting website, but you are preaching to the converted. I do believe in general that it is probably true that boys get harsher sentences. I am not arguing against that. My argument is that the fact that two cases were handled differently is completely irrelevant. People get charged differently all the time. There are an infinite amount of factors that can lead up to what the charges being.
NicoleK at March 24, 2009 6:40 AM
Nicole -
All that you said is irrelevant here as the only difference that was not controlled for was GENDER.
Which, if I recall correctly IS NOT A LEGAL BASIS FOR DIFFERENTIATION.
And I'll bet you a box of donuts that he ends up on the sex offender registry for life, and she does not.
In any event, why aren't the schools that taught them to have sex being punished? I mean sex ed starts at 13 or 14 these days, right? And if you teach a kid HOW to do something, doesn't that typically come with the implication that it's OK to do it?
We have a serious legal problem in this country. We hand 13 year old kids condoms, we teach them how to use them, and then we put them in jail when they do.
What the fucking fuck?
brian at March 24, 2009 6:45 AM
There is NO WAY you can control for all the factors in a decision. No way. It is impossible.
And there is nothing in the article above that says they did a thorough interview of the DA and looked at all possible factors... we don't even know that the same people were on duty. There is nothing in the article above that says that ANY factors were controlled for.
NicoleK at March 24, 2009 10:17 AM
The DA came up with bullshit reasons. Transparently bullshit.
In other words, he's ashamed of the fact that he decided to charge the boy with a greater crime, but can't admit it and can't (for political reasons) do things properly in the first place.
Of course, the proper thing for him to have done in both cases was to decline to prosecute, but that's another story for another day.
brian at March 24, 2009 10:33 AM
Jim,
thanks.
--------------------
I assume most of you here can see by now, that Nicole is just laying a smoke screen.
Norman L. at March 26, 2009 12:49 AM
For what? Is it something I said?
Jim at March 27, 2009 1:18 PM
sounds like the goings in in sheboygan wisconsin, where Lord bolgerts playpen, the bench, destroys the lives of innocent victims
jackie cox at October 9, 2010 7:54 AM
sounds like the goings on of bolgert, getting involved in sex issues with young people.
Teen agers, in adult court ? Criminality in law authority, not a new thang in she boy gan
Impeachment proceedings should commence.
If he dared torch anyone rich, which he would not, he is a coward, they would bring him into federal court, very expensive, and he refuses supeonas from federal judges.it would take a bundle for the FBI to remove him and bring him into federal court, where he would be crushed.
Its like he has a little family kingdom, about to come toppling down, real soon.
There are juvenile courts, and juvenile law, whuch requires litigation with the parent or legal guardian.
Bolgert acts outside his authority with impunity
jackie cox at November 5, 2010 12:39 PM
Not permitted to go to sheboygan, because I waent onto the streets telling how he coleded with foreign authorities in destroying my family, and business, then demanding money from me, because a woman went before his court in 94 stating I had abandoned her with child in belly, Found guilty in absentia, he has hounded me for the last 33 years.
I left the country in 72, my oldest daughter was born in 73, in ottawa ontario. The judge knew this, spent 8 months in sheboygan jail and went before a kangeroo court, the day before he suppressed all my evidence attesting to the date of mariage, birth certificate, references, all out of country, one day before trial, and threatened me with prosecution if I brought any of the evidence up. Then on appeal he states i could have explaned the case,
Bolgert is a crook, committing treason acting with federal authority, colluding with a foreign power to destroy the rights of an american citizen.
5 years later, he repeated the same thing, except then there was no jury, and he gave me a 4 year sentence, illegal, it took 8 months for appeals court to release me.
The people of sheboygan are subjected to an absurdity of laws by the hand of a few lawyers,Virtual Nobility hiding behind title deed, and predatory laws, they interpret as they go along.
In sheboygan the lawyers are as princes, and their judges are unto little kings.
One day he will get whats coming to him
jackie cox at November 5, 2010 12:53 PM
Prisons across the USA have increased more than 100 fold in the last 50 years. It's absolutely bizarre.
These people make opinions without access to variables surrounding the so-called violations of law. Several hundred thousand new laws are enacted into law across the legal spectrum in our nation each year.
The academic caste system graduate a lot of lawyers and judges children, who have large families. The result is lawyers/judges elevating themselves into virtual Nobility, unfortunately for us with Nibility comes along servitude---in the form a of a virtual prison economy, the root cause, lawyers, judges, banksters, gangsters makeup predatory laws designed to incarcerate lots of people, generating huge JuStIcE BuDgEtS, based on case loads " HEAD COUNTS " near a 1/3 are really innocent victiims of predatory lawyers/judges
Jackie Cox at March 30, 2015 7:51 PM
Leave a comment