Yeah yeah...

> unwittingly entrapped by a
> vengeful ex into sex

I am having what were known, during the late 80's & early 90's, as "problems with the concept".

You know, I've done some tragically unfortunate things with my unit. And many, many silly things. But none of these activities could ever, ever be described as "unwitting". Stupid, sure... But never truly unintentional.

Why is there this habit in the public mind of trying to pretend that (A) men and women are kind of the same and (B) that people didn't actually mean for these behaviors –the most rewarding, product that human will can deliver– to happen?

'Supidat?

Never have sex without seeing a drivers licence, then ave the girl sign something saying she is over 18

Then if that turns out to be false accuse hey girl of rape.

Becuase thanks to feminist sex apperntenly you can be raped by fraud, I'll have to dig uo the story but I remeber seeing an articel where a DA charge and convicted a man of rape for lying to the woman about his job - she claimed she never would have slept with him had she know what he really did

Judges (and juries) have special expectations for those who sign minors to contracts. This is not a policy problem.

Seriously, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, why don't you use a spellchecker?

A couple of thoughts about the article:

- Yah, the judge showed massive bias here. All three had sex together, so the woman should also have been prosecuted for statutory rape (moreover, she knew it), as well as for dealing in prescription drugs.

- This guy is an idiot. He is apparently married, and neither of the women involved here is his wife. What did he think? His ex-girlfriend means well by setting him up with some young hottie?

There are some circles of people who have forgotten what that grey mush in their heads is for - including all three people involved here.

cant find the new article, but I did dig up this

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v101/n1/75/LR101n1Christopher.pdf

Sorry, not buying that this guy was a victim. What his ex did to him was a classic (& disgusting) example of feminine manipulation that frequently makes me embarrassed on behalf of my gender, but I don't read that she held a gun to his head and forced him to do it. A 37 year old man is old enough to know better; unfortunately he wasn't thinking with the correct head. Of course he rationalized to himself that she was (probably, hopefully) 18.

The only victim here is the young girl, who was used by both of these "adults" (and I use the word loosely) as a pawn for their own selfish purposes.

Here we are, not the one I remebered seeing but on pint none the less

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19960119&id=dLsMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yl4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6737,3341297

Beth, I won't argue with your contention about the guy. The disturbing thing here is the female charge/sentencing discount: they're both equally culpable, he gets 8 to 15, she gets a year (which will reduce to a couple of months with good-behavior time and parole). And apparently several charges that applied to her weren't even prosecuted.

Cousin Dave: (BTW, I've never told you this, but I love that handle!)

I *think*--and this just from reading the article--that it came down to the charges tried and which charges were found to be substantiated. The article did say that the female (ex) got the maximum she could have received for contributing to the delinquency of a minor--1 yr jail. And it also mentioned his previous sexual assault conviction as being a mitigating factor in his harsh sentence. Again, and my disclaimer is that I am not a lawyer, and I'd love to hear what the lawyers on this blog comment on this--I *think* that it comes down to LEGAL definition of rape, statuatory rape, etc and their associated max sentences. I don't know how (Nebraska's?) statutes read, but it is possible that in that state a woman could not by legal definition to be able to commit "rape" and therefore could not have been charged with that particular crime.

I agree both are equally despicable and there should not have been such a disparity between the two sentences.

From the information given, all three of them are a waste of time.

"Deputy Lancaster County Attorney Bruce Prenda suggested he had concerns Ticnor may be minimizing what he did and said the victim had been affected by it, despite her decision not to give the court a statement."

I hope the affect on the victim has been to wise up a little bit.

If you think I'm picking on the poor little kid, I'm not. I'm remembering the behavior of myself and some of my friends at that age. From the articles published these days, it sounds like your average 15-year-old is less innocent than we were, and we weren't particularly innocent.

"The article did say that the female (ex) got the maximum she could have received for contributing to the delinquency of a minor--1 yr jail. "

Beth, that is what the aerticle said. What the article failed to bring up was that the women also had sex with the the minor and that the DA failed to charge her for that sex, which was just as much rape as the man's having sex with her was. That is the female sentencing discount Dave is speaking of.

The guy was an idiot to have anything to do with a ex-girlfriend in the first place, and trusting one is just culpable stupidity.

I think it's a good thing to consider past behavior at sentencing. I also don't have a problem considering a pattern of past behavior that's indicative of possible guilt in the current matter at trial.

DA should have charged the female rapist as well.

Jim, I inferred that the female ex also had sex with the girl, at least to some extent, when they mentioned a 3-some.

I'll say it again, though, it comes down to the legal definition used for rape, sodomy, etc. In the UCMJ, for example, penetration of a genital opening must occur as one of the criteria for rape to have occurred. The DA may not have been able to charge the woman with "rape", per se, based on the testimony of the witness and evidence; for example, if the woman had "warmed them up" by general foreplay and then taken a less active role, etc. (Of course there are other lesser charges, indecent liberties, sexual assualt, etc, that falls under.)

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to defend the woman's behavior as any less skeezy than the guy's. After all, she set the whole thing up. It's sick all around. But when we're talking about what we're able to charge people with and which charges stick, the law has its limitations.

@Pp: Your point about the 15 year old not being as innocent, etc. is the same that some have tried to use to cloud the validity of the Polanski case. I.e. that the 13 year old girl had already been around the block and wasn't a virgin, etc, and was posing nude for the guy. I mean, where do you draw the line? Most states have drawn it at 18.

boyo forgot the reason an ex is that... sad lapse of judgement. Is it worth taking that large chunk of his life? Dunno, arguments for and against there, glad I'm not the one who has to decide. Depends on how relevant the previous convicition is, and I don't know that.

However. There IS a person who got off basically free with this. Who drugged and took advantage of an underage girl. Her motive is inmeterial. What the other party in the assult did is inmeterial. That is a separate issue. What this woman did would have gotten a guy 25+ years certainly, and registry in the offender database.

Contributing to delinquency? Give me a frelling break. It's a conservative state, but they are totally buying into the bad man/innocent woman thing.

And the kid is the one who loses. If somebody doesn't step in, could be a downward spiral for her. It's a shame.

C'mon Amy, you feel sorry for this guy? He was "unwittingly" trapped into sex and it's "sickening" that he was sentenced for having sex with a minor? Give me a break-the guy was an idiot who deserved what he got. You might as well feel sorry for the people who "unwittingly" send their bank account information to Nigerian investors who are just clamoring to give them millions of dollars ("b-b-but Abdullah SAID he was a real Nigerian prince!")

The injustice here is the ex wasn't equally punished (really, she should have received double his sentence) but that doesn't mean the guy's punishment was undeserved.

Lesson learned guys: If your estranged ex calls you up and suggests having a three-way with an "18 year old", run the other way. In fact, if you're 37 years old, a good policy is to not sleep with 18 year olds, period. Give yourself a nice big margin of safety so that your liberty is not hanging over the question of whether her birthday was in April or May.

Hey, other Beth, thanks for the compliment! The handle was an inside joke between myself and long-ago blogger Susannah Cornett, she of the late great Cut on the Bias. She was doing her Ph. D. in criminal justice, and she had some very non-PC views of the subject. I still remember this quote from her: "The problem with trying to rehabilitate prisoners is that most of them were never habilitated in the first place."

One note, related to that and what Robin said: The legal standard in the U.S. is that information about prior convictions is not admissible in a criminal trial. I can understand the arguments the other way; per what I just quoted, a person who commits a felony is pretty likely to commit another one. However, I still think it's a good rule; my fear is that without it, the criminal justice system could degenerate to a "round up the usual suspects" thing (which it does at times anyway).

other beth:
"I mean, where do you draw the line?"

Well, that's kind of my point. While I know it's improbable that they could handle these things on a case by case basis, I really wish they could.

I know that when I was fourteen, I could have passed for eighteen easy, but I was a kid at heart. My friends and I all liked older guys, as many girls do. Long story short, I learned some very hard life lessons during my fourteenth summer,including the difference between statutory rape & the worse kind.

Based on my own experiences and those of my far more worldly friends,I am 99.99% sure this girl knew what she was doing. The story does not indicate that she was at all mentally handicapped. They don't mention what kind of drugs she was given by the woman, but if the girl had been knocked unconscious or insensible you would think they would mention it.

It doesn't indicate that she got pregnant or caught a disease from the incident. Seems that all that happened to her was she was involved in a threesome. How bad that makes her feel is up to her. It doesn't appear, from what information has been supplied, that she has been particularly traumatized by what happened.

I'm not saying the idiot should not be punished, but I don't think he should get more than a year, tops, and maybe another year for stupidity.

As for Polanski, again, different case. He knew how old she was, gave her the drugs himself, and used his money and influence to protect himself, not to mention running away and hiding. The trucker is more of a man than Polanski, which isn't saying a whole lot, I know.

The girl is awful and deserves as much time as he got. But he doesn't deserve less than what he got. Esp with a prior history-there's a reason courts look at that! One sex assault charge, okay maybe it was a bad situation, you were stupid, whatever. But 2? 2 is a pattern and you have issues. Period.

Pricklypear, I had this whole long response typed out and then lost it all! Dang it, hate when that happens...so this will be shorter than my original response (a good thing, I assure you).

First, thank you for your detailed and well-laid out background on your perspective. It's nice to be able to "disagree" with someone on here while maintaining a respectful tone.

I do agree with you that not all 15 year olds are equal in their maturity, experience, judgement, innocence, etc. But, here's the thing--it's not as simple as: no preg + no STD + no "force" = no ill effects.

Bottom line, she was USED by these people; both of them. And no matter your age, it feels very shitty to be used. For a young impressionable teenager figuring out her view of the world, being used in this manner by two supposed "adults"--how could there not be adverse effects suffered?

I see your point about RP, and yes, his knowledge of her age and the personnally drugging her does make his more egregious, IMO. But, the same basic argument of "Well, she wasn't an angel, she was posing nude for him, she'd been around the block, etc" has been touted on his behalf as a mitigating factor in that case too. It shouldn't be a factor at all.

Lower age of consent to 15, and get the government out of our lives.

"I'll say it again, though, it comes down to the legal definition used for rape, sodomy, etc. In the UCMJ, for example, penetration of a genital opening must occur as one of the criteria for rape to have occurred. "

Beth, I don't quite understand why you're bringing the UCMJ inot this; this was a civilian case. The two systems of law are fundametally different. In most civlain jurisdictions I can think of, rape is non-consensual sex, period. Any other standard would let off all these rapist teachers leching after their boy students. You don't want that, i'm pretty.

"@Pp: Your point about the 15 year old not being as innocent, etc. is the same that some have tried to use to cloud the validity of the Polanski case. I.e."

Not really. That was used to excuse Polanski, and no one her eis trying to excuse him. Pp is just saying that along with these other two POS's, the 15 year old girl was a skeezy little tool. Or else just a tool. Either way she's a tool. It's pretty hard to dispute that.

"Esp with a prior history-there's a reason courts look at that! One sex assault charge, okay maybe it was a bad situation, you were stupid, whatever. But 2? 2 is a pattern and you have issues. Period. "

All true, but that's true for any crime. But the courts ususally don't allow that evidence in in the case of any other crime. Why the double standard for this particular crime?

"Bottom line, she was USED by these people; both of them. And no matter your age, it feels very shitty to be used."

otherbeth, this is what I meant by saying in my first post that I hope she wised up, and what I meant in my second post about hard life lessons.

Okay, I'll even give this girl the benefit of the doubt--that she was confused, pressured, going along with what the older woman wanted because she didn't want to tell her no and lose her friendship.

I hope she realizes she survived something that could have been so much worse in every way. I hope she learns to choose her friends more carefully in the future. I hope she learns to take seriously the consequences of her actions, and not just the consequences to her personally.

My cynical half just has to add: Because if she isn't so innocent, if she knowingly (repeat, Knowingly),went along with this to score points with her friend, that would make her guilty of entrapment.

Yet again, another case that proves the hypocrisy of all those rape-shield laws.

"But the courts ususally don't allow that evidence in in the case of any other crime. Why the double standard for this particular crime"

That seems directly contradicted by the 3 strikes rule. If no one could look at prior history, no one would know it was their 3rd strike. I think evidence of past crimes is almost always allowed in the sentencing phase. And the DA no doubt uses it when deciding what charges to bring, whether the trial jury hears it or not.

Pretty harsh on the 15 year old, trying to blame her for the actions of a nearly 40 year old. Really, we want people to be responsible, unless they "ooops, my bad" have sex with a minor, in which case they should have no responsibility? That makes lots of sense. If you're a man and can't tell a girl is underage, you're not real bright. I don't care how much make-up she's wearing, or how big her boobs are. There is just a huge difference in skin texture, coloring, perkiness, vocabulary, etc etc between kids and not kids. Learn it, use it, stay out of jail.

momof4 said:

> If you're a man and can't tell a girl is
> underage, you're not real bright

So, how DO you tell the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old?

"If you're a man and can't tell a girl is underage, you're not real bright. I don't care how much make-up she's wearing, or how big her boobs are. There is just a huge difference in skin texture, coloring, perkiness, vocabulary, etc etc between kids and not kids."

Momof4,
I'll grant you vocab/general attitude but I think you're far underselling the acting capabilities of teen girls. Nevermind that the attitudes and actions of many women in their 20s these days are the same.

Besides, I thought girls matured faster than boys?

"If you're a man and can't tell a girl is underage, you're not real bright." momof4

yeah? bull. I live near a highschool and many of the girls there, you wouldn't be able to tell if they were legal or not.
However... this is where there is another aspect to what you are saying.

There is a reason they are called jailbait. You CAN'T really tell, espcially if they are good at what they do. SO YOU STAY AWAY. Or you end up in jail. Jail. Bait. This has been the case since I was in my 20's, keeping my drunk friends away from 14year olds dressed like hookers. Why those girls wanted that, I've no clue, but they weren't mature enough to consent regardless. Boyo just learned a very hard lesson about manipulative people. At 37 you have to figure that any woman under 30 who is interested needs some investigating, because it is more likely that something is wrong with that, but you will be blamed. couple to the having the ex involved? Yeah, boyo may not be too bright.

"So, how DO you tell the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old?"

If you're 37 years old and you have to ask that question, then it's a tip-off that you p-r-o-b-a-b-l-y shouldn't be sleeping with that girl. You don't ask, you walk away.

You got it, SwissArmyD

Another stroll down memory lane for me. Okay,I hung out with the "wrong crowd" for various reasons. One was that the girls in the so-called right crowd were the most back-stabbing bitches you can imagine.

The girls (aka tramps) I ran around with were mainly trying to get away from their mothers, I think. They smoked and drank and slept around. (I was the "backwards" one in the bunch, and that probably had to do with the fact that my dad was a cop.) They made great protective coloration and they were related to the most dangerous young men in town.

I never was involved with any of these guys, partly because if any of them started putting moves on me, another one would say something like "5 to 20, man", which I guess is the sentence for statutory rape there.

I find it hard to believe that delivering drugs to a 15 year old in order to intoxicate her for sex with someone is not sufficient grounds for any other crime except the one charged here.

Surely, surely in all the web of laws we live under, a prosecutor can find a charge more substantial than the one this woman faced.

How pray tell, was she "used" by him?

They had sex yes. But he didn't know her age.

The girl and the exgirlfriend both knew her age.

And underage or not, the girl in question CERTAINLY knew well enough what was expected out of her.

Yeah, she IS a victim. But not a victim of HIS.
She is a victim of that vindictive ex, and her own obviously negligent parents. Where the fuck were THEY in all this???

A man, is dead on the money, how the fuck can you tell the difference?

You can ask for a drivers license, but fake I.D.s are a dime a dozen.

SO what then?

What...pray tell...THEN?

The guy did wrong, but he was so blatantly tricked...what was the punishment actually FOR?

Part of what defines a criminal act should be the knowledge of guilt, an awareness that one is committing an illegal act, and no I don't mean the immigrant fresh off the boat robbing & raping because that was defined as shopping & marriage in whatever country he came from. No, those are aware of that they're "not in kansas anymore", and generally speaking learn the ways of their new country.

Lets posit a hypothetical. Let us say that a man gets a call from one of his friends to come pick him up. So being the helpful guy he is, he goes and picks up his friend. Well some ways down the road he gets pulled over, and his friend gets pinched for a robbery he'd just committed, and still has the stolen cash on him.

Should the unwitting driver of the "getaway car" get sentenced as an accomplice? Why?

We'd be appalled at such a thing and rightly so.

Why then, should the man in this story be sentenced so harshly?

He was lied to by the girl.
He was lied to by the ex.
He had no reason apparent to us to believe it was a facade. (Though most of us might be suspicious, it depends on the girl, the circumstances, the story, etc)
He had no knowledge that a crime was being committed.
He did not supply the girl with the drugs.
And by no account did he apply any pressure to the girl at all, or was even aware that there was pressure on her.

Look I understand the inherent desire to protect our girls, its human nature, but DAMN people???

The bulk & sum of arguments favoring nasty prosecution & sentencing on the guy can be summed up with:

He had a prior record.
He should have known better.

The first argument is...NEWS FLASH FOLKS...UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Point blank end of story. You cannot be punished twice for the same crime. Your desire to do so is...however emotionally satisfying, NOT a basis for justice under the laws of our constitution. Indeed it is the antithesis of justice.

The second argument is just fucking stupid. Have y'all even LOOKED at 12 year olds these days? Let alone 15 year olds? Its harder and harder to tell them apart from the 18-20 year olds. Girls are developing more and younger, and behaving older & older, and with the "growth spurts" of teen years, you can't even go by height or build as you might be able to guess with males.

So the "should have known" argument is shot to shit.

Yeah, I'd sentence the guy to a year of probation, and the exgirlfriend to 8-15 for that crime, plus max her for the rest of her crimes, conspiracy to commit rape, contributing to the delinquincy of a minor, I'm sure there are others.

She needs to be shot.

The teenage girl, she needs counseling, extensive, and BETTER FUCKING PARENTS.

@Jim: The primary difference between the UCMJ and civilian statutes is their jurisdiction; fundamentally, there are basic similiarities--namely that in order for a prosecutor to prove a case, he/she must prove all of the elements of the charge.

The only reason I brought up the UCMJ is that is the "statute forum" with which I'm most familiar. I was trying to make the argument that the legal definition of rape, etc. would need to be satisfied in order for the woman (ex) in this case to be charged and convicted of rape. I don't know what state of Nebraska's legal definition of rape is. I've said this a few times, but it's entirely possible that the ex may not have been able to be charged with x or y because the DA wouldn't have been able to satisfy the proof of the entire legal definition of the charge.

As far as the 15 yr old being a skeezy little tool, or a tool, even if she was the "town bicycle", she is 15!!!. That's a kid. I can't imagine you'd feel the same way if it was your 15 year old daughter. She was not to blame for any of this; hard lesson learned? Yeah, I'd hope so too. The grownups are responsible here, entirely, not the kid.

"Part of what defines a criminal act should be the knowledge of guilt, an awareness that one is committing an illegal act"

Except no, it's not, legally. Breaking the law-whether one had knowledge of it or not, is punishable. And should be. "Sorry Officer, I didn't know I was speeding" doesn't cut it, and neither does "sorry, Officer, I didn't know she was underage".

Again, if you can't tell, you need A) help and B) to be shopping in a much older dating pool. Grow up and stop sniffing around the kiddie pool.

She's a kid. We have age of consent laws for a reason, and the biggest one is the inherent power difference in an adult and a kid. No kid can truly consent as an equal partner. Period.

"The teenage girl, she needs counseling, extensive, and BETTER FUCKING PARENTS."

Robert, your above statement is the one with which I wholeheartedly concur. I've been thinking the same thing. Where in the hell were her parents?

Now as to the rest of your post...here's what the guy should've done. Instead of *assuming* she was of legal age, he should have listened to his gut and said, Hmmm, she looks pretty young. Can I see some proof? The article doesn't say that fake ID was produced that said she was 18. I'd have to give him some credit if he had done so. Because at least he would've showed the good judgement to ask.

He just assumed (because I'm guessing he really, really wanted her to be legal). And it bit him in the ass. I don't buy the argument that he was an innocent victim. He wasn't a 21 year old, either. Thirty seven years old and you don't have the good sense to be suspicious when a young girl is brought to you on a platter for sex?

Swiss Army D makes an excellent point--they're called "jailbait" for a reason. Don't play with fire unless you're willing to get burned.

M4 writes: "Breaking the law-whether one had knowledge of it or not, is punishable."

Actually, it's my non-expert understanding that, up until about 1960, strict liability in criminal law was generally found by the courts to be unconstitutional. That's the basis behind the whole slew of "insanity" defenses -- a person who literally cannot tell right from wrong, due to mental defects, cannot be held criminally liable for their actions. In order to convict someone of a crime, it was always necessary to demonstrate that the defendant intended to commit a crime. Referring back to your example, there are cases where people have gotten off of speeding tickets when they were able to demonstrate that their speedometers were not working properly. (You might recall that back in the day, some highways had "speedometer check" measured distance zones, marked by signs. The usual setup was that the distance was measured so that if you drove right at the speed limit, it would take you exactly one minute to traverse the zone.)

Where it really started to change was, I think, in tax law. The IRS has, over the last half century, been very successful at convincing courts to uphold tax convictions in cases where it was impossible for the non-tax-expert defendant to understand the tax code in question. That seemed to open the floodgates. Now we have strict liability all over the place in criminal law -- and most of it seems to be in "criminalization of everything" laws, as opposed to laws that cover things done by actual criminals.

I'm not sure how relevant this is to the point you were making, but it's worth considering.

"Pretty harsh on the 15 year old, trying to blame her for the actions of a nearly 40 year old. "

Pretty poor read of the comments - people are blaming her for her actions. He did his actions, and he is getting balmed for them, and she did her actioas and should be blamed for them. She helped entrap a man and she should pay for it.

And don't even try to tell me the coochie was all innoncent and wide-eyed in this. A fifteen year old is hardly an innocent. She helped send soemone to jail and she knew damned well the sex was illegal.

So now we know that momof4 has no ideas whatsoever.

If you cant tell...you need help.

--------------------------------------------

Ok, first of all, you haven't explained HOW you can "Tell". So obviously aside from your psychic powers, you don't have a clue.

Second of all, he didn't go after her himself, she was with his ex. Look if this guy had been eating at a known teenage hangout and picked her up there, then yeah, I'd throw the book at him the same as you would. Because any reasonable person knows that someone coming out of a high school, or a teen focused hangout spot, is almost CERTAINLY underage.

But that isn't the case here, he didn't go anywhere near her school or residence or anything of the sort. He was introduced by the ex, who obviously had the girl lying left & right.

--------------------------------------------

Your speeding analogy would work very well except one little problem. Streets have signs posting speed limits, while driving you are expected, and taught, to be aware of those signs on the road, and monitor your own speed accordingly. That is why "I didn't know I was speeding" does not work as a defense against the charge.

HOWEVER, what we have in THIS case, to borrow your analogy what we have is:

driver: "Sorry officer, I didn't know I was speeding."
officer: "Did you see the speed limit sign back there?"
driver: "Yes, it said 55."
officer: "Yes it did, but the actual speed limit is 35."
driver: "How was I to know?"
officer: "Well you should have been able to tell, or driven on a different road if you weren't sure."

...see how stupid it sounds now?

I'll agree we have age of consent laws for a reason, but that reason isn't to just throw people in jail left & right. If anyone belongs in jail here, its the ex, SHE had sex with the girl TOO. Why aren't you throwing her in jail, SHE actually knew the girl was underage, and fucked her anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------

The problem with our discussion as I see it Other Beth, is that we don't know some of the details. Was a fake ID used? How old does the girl actually look? Old enough to have a gut feeling something is amiss? My point in all this, no matter what his internal thoughts were, is that he was obviously decieved by not one girl, but two, and yet he is bearing the burden as though he'd been diddling her between her math & history classes, seeking her out on his own. One would expect maturity of behavior to be an age indicator...but we all know people in their 30s who act like idiot kids, so we can't go by that. Doesn't leave much here does it?

The ex should be in for 8-15 years, he should be on probation, the girl's parents should be in jail for contributing to her delinquincy by failing to do THEIR jobs, and the girl should be in heavy counseling.

"Old enough to have a gut feeling something is amiss?"

How about the fact that his estranged ex-girlfriend offered to set him up with a TEENAGER-shouldn't that set off the alarm bells that something might be amiss? Or the fact that he's MARRIED with children-shouldn't he be getting a gut feeling that cheating on your wife in a three way with your ex-girlfriend is wrong?

I have zero sympathy for this guy. He's a gullible idiot who cheated on his wife with a drugged-out teenager. Speaking of parents who fail to do their jobs-what kind of example does this set for his kids?

Robert, I think that if a fake ID had been used, his lawyer would've used that as a key defense of her client. And with good reason. I inferred that there was no fake ID because it wasn't mentioned.

And yes, we do assume as a society that because people have attained a certain number of years that they have a certain level of maturity. I think we HAVE to make that assumption because if we don't, then there is no standard whatsoever. "He's 37, your Honor, but really a kid at heart." (What a can of worms that would open!)

And Jim, to address your comment about the 15 year old not being wide eyed and innocent. No, she very likely wasn't. It mentions she was troubled and plied with drugs and (responsible) parents probably no where in the picture. But the reason there is a legal age of consent is, again, as a society, we've made an assumption that an 18 year old is old enough to make these types of decisions for themselves. Not 17, 16, or 15.

Kids under 18 commit crimes. And the reason they're held to different standards, i.e. juvenile court, with few exceptions, is because as a society we've determined that a younger teenager's sense of judgement is not fully formed yet. They are cut some slack because they're still in the formative stages of development in their sense of the world, right/wrong, etc.

May I ask you if you have a teenaged daughter? I think your perspective would be different if you did. The view of a parent on such matters is far different than one of reminiscence "Well, when I was that age..."

Actually, it would be more like you getting a ticket for speeding because you couldn't be bothered to read the speed limit sign, but your friend told you it was 60, so you went 60. No responsibility to check for oneself, right?

And I said the woman should have got the same sentence as him. No doubt. He just shouldn't get any less.

"Or the fact that he's MARRIED with children-shouldn't he be getting a gut feeling that cheating on your wife in a three way with your ex-girlfriend is wrong?" Shannon...
I actually got the impression that the wife and kid came later...

In any event, seems like we are focussing on the wrong thing here... The guy is culpable, and Robert, regardless if I agree about what he knew and when he knew it, or whatever... the law is set up that way, which is why guys have to be wary. If the law was written differently, it would devolve into a he said/she said.

The important thing here is not if she 'was asking for it' but if she is old enough to understand and cosnsent. THAT is why at younger ages IT DOESN"T MATTER what they say.

For an adult, you know that, and you can't tell me somebody 37 had never heard of it. You have to err on the side of your OWN safety as well, not JUST the other person.

So, what's the real issue? The real issue is the slap on the hand for the woman. I'm sure there would be much less an uproar about what jail time this guy got, if it was obvious the the other assulter got the same. But she got the veritable slap on the wrist even though her crime was the more extreme, with planning, and deception.

Bet she does it again with the next person she's vindictive with? Or maybe this time it's worse. To use an innocent as a pawn to inflict damage on another iondicates you don't care about anything... the next time, it could be worse than an assult.

The guy was an idiot but the sentence does not fit the crime for any of the parties involved.

There are underage boys paying child support to the adult mothers of their kids, stat rape don't mean nuthin compared to "best interests of the child". There was a case not too long ago where a teen boy got years in jail for causing his girlfriend's miscarriage... that she asked him to do. She got no time at all. This case is just another prime example of the pussy pass.

No one comes out of this story looking good, but it's a serious mistake to excuse the man's behavior as "unwitting" or to suggest that he is somehow an innocent victim. His ex offered him a sexual experience; she didn't force him to partake in it. He made a poor decision to sleep with an intoxicated 15 year old. Now, I believe that statutory rape should be a misdemeanor at most - if there's force, coercion, or abuse of power, it's rape and should be charged as such, and if the victim is actually a child (12/13 or below), then it's child molestation - but it's ludicrous to suggest that this man is somehow absolved of personal responsibility just because of the nefarious motives of his ex.

but it's ludicrous to suggest that this man is somehow absolved of personal responsibility just because of the nefarious motives of his ex.
- CB

Why not? The woman was absolved of all personal responisbility simply because she didnt have a penis even though she is the one who found the minor, druged the minor, and coerced the minor.

"Bet she does it again with the next person she's vindictive with? Or maybe this time it's worse. To use an innocent as a pawn to inflict damage on another iondicates you don't care about anything... the next time, it could be worse than an assult."

Agreed, The precedent has been set, it doesn't have to be her per se. Bet money she knew she would do time, and I also bet she knew it would be MUCH less compared to him, despite what she set up.

"Why not? The woman was absolved of all personal responisbility simply because she didnt have a penis even though she is the one who found the minor, druged the minor, and coerced the minor."

She was most definitely not absolved of all personal responsibility - she received the maximum sentence, which was one year incarceration. Please don't tell me you're one of those morons who says "taking a year of a person's life is just a slap on the wrist!" How much is a year of your life worth to you?

"she received the maximum sentence" CB

the max sentance for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Not Rape. Or any of the other laundrylist. Also, IMPORTANTLY not a crime that'll put her on a sex offender list for the rest of her life, and make sure she can't live within 1000 feet of any edifice containing children, and so on. Yeah, it's a slap on the writs beacause it's a misdemenor, will be bargained down to time served, or 30 days or summat.

That would be the definition of a slap on the wrist when you drug and rape a child.

Problems with your statement Shannon:

First, the fact that he was married with children has NOTHING to do with the case or the trial. Is it right, of course not, but it is NOT a criminal statute punishable by 8-15 years. If it were, there would be a great many more people in jail right now, men & women.

As far as his example to the kids...first phrase that leaps to mind is: A cautionary example.

And sofar as the ex goes, while obviously she didn't take the breakup well, there are more than a few women in the world who will pretend one emotional state while plotting something devious. I went out with a girl when I was in college, and when I broke up with her, she pretended to be fine with it...then when I started going out with another girl, she made numerous anonymous & threatening phone calls, she had some of my personal info, and called a hotel and cancelled reservations I'd made for an out of town trip (that was an unpleasant surprise) and numerous other petty little bitchy things, all while pretending to be a pleasant person well adjusted to our breakup, even friendly.

SO which is worse shannon? His gullibility? Or the exgirlfriend's BRUTAL vindictiveness?

--------------------------------------------------

Other Beth, I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with you, if indeed a fake i.d. were used, it SHOULD be a valid defense, but presently under the law it is NOT. The fact is she could fake 2 I.D.s, a birth certificate, and a driver's license, and he's still liable and guilty under the law even though he attempted to verify her age. In no way is the minor liable for the lie, and in no way is he exonerated by it. That is where my biggest problem with this case is. The guy is no saint, I don't like him, but this same exact situation can and has happened to far better men than he.

I don't want the minor in jail over this, but I DO want her sentenced to some form of counseling to give her some help. Did that happen? I doubt it.
And what example are the courts setting with the ex here? Ladies, if your man dumps you, just trick him and get him thrown in jail...and you'll get off almost scot free? Great job there.

--------------------------------------------------

And momof4, we have nothing to suggest he never attempted to verify the girl's age. The fact is there were TWO verifications. The ex who lied, and the girl, who also lied. Did he ask for an ID? We don't know, it doesn't say. But let me ask you this, if he did ask for ID, and was shown a fake one, is he then just as liable? Do three lies from 3 sources provide sufficient protection to your mind?

Or:

Are you suggesting then that a man out to inherently distrust any woman, and that the failure to distrust them is grounds for a 15 year jail sentence? (I really hate extreme statements, but this IS what you imply, by holding the decieved as culpable as the deciever)

Frankly...from what you've suggested thus far...I'm actually inclined to believe your implied statement.

--------------------------------------------------

I have to agree with lujlp on this one.

He had no culpability at all as the story is written. He was lied to at every turn, but his penis landed him in jail for a huge chunk of his life, while the ex girlfriend's vagina got her a slap on the wrist...and the 15 year old girl? She got thrust back into the same fubar situation she was in in the first place. Great job justice system.

--------------------------------------------------

And CB, 1 year IS a slap on the wrist, because she will NOT do all of it. Good behavior, she'll be out in half that, or even less. He got 8-15 years. She'll be out of jail before I get out of Iraq. He'll be out of jail maybe in time to see his kids graduate high school. Granted a year of my life is worth quite a bit, but not nearly as much as 8-15 years of it!

Robert, are you contractor or military?

"But let me ask you this, if he did ask for ID, and was shown a fake one, is he then just as liable? Do three lies from 3 sources provide sufficient protection to your mind?"

I'm suggesting if you're so hot to screw something that young looking that you have to worry about it at all, and you're more than about 21, you have problems and need help. THAT'S what I'm suggesting.

"Actually, it's like no signs being posted."

So if you're driving a stretch of road, and don't see a sign for the speed limit, you assume it's what you want it to be? Personally, when that happens, I err on the side of caution. Because that's what intelligent adults do.

I think this is going to be my last word on this thread; we don't seem to be making further progress.

CB writes: "She was most definitely not absolved of all personal responsibility - she received the maximum sentence, which was one year incarceration."

She got an enormous discount at the prosecution phase. The prosecution decided not to pursue a raft of felony charges that could have applied, and instead pursued only one measly misdomeanor charge. This is glaring in contrast to the charges levied against the guy, and there is no apparent reason for it other than her gender. We all acknowledge that the judge's hands were tied.

Robert writes: "Other Beth, I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with you, if indeed a fake i.d. were used, it SHOULD be a valid defense, but presently under the law it is NOT."

Here's an interesting analogy. Before I started college I worked for a while in a restaurant to save up money for school; this was in 1979. At the time, we were told that if a patron wanted to order beer and they presented a plausible looking ID, serve them. If the ID later turned out to be fake, the server and the restaurant were not liable.

It's my understanding that this is no longer the case; strict liability applies and the server can be tossed in jail even after making a considerable attempt to verify the patron's age. There was no intent on the server's part to commit a crime -- in fact, the server was trying hard to avoid committing a crime -- but it's a crime nonetheless.

M4 writes: "So if you're driving a stretch of road, and don't see a sign for the speed limit, you assume it's what you want it to be? Personally, when that happens, I err on the side of caution. Because that's what intelligent adults do."

Yes, but how much caution? If it's a two-lane country road, you may slow down to, say, 40, because that would be a reasonable speed limit for that sitution. But what if the actual speed limit is 25? OK, so you decide to be more cautious, and you slow down to 25. Problem is, you've now created a hazardous situation because you're going so much slower than the other traffic. Where do you you draw the line? I know a woman who looks and acts about 30, but I happen to know she's 20.

There's a lot of misunderstanding about criminal law on this board. Obviously things differ state by state, but in most places, receiving a 12 month sentence means that you do not go to prison, you go to a detention center. There is no early release for good behavior - you will serve the entire sentence. And the sentence has already been handed down by the judge, so whoever was suggesting that it would be reduced to thirty days has no idea what s/he is talking about. Yes, her sentence seems unfair compared to the sentence the other adult receive, because there is no way he should be getting 8-15 years for his actions. (This is just another example of how disgusting our criminal justice system has become.) However, considered by itself, it is a full year of her young and healthy life that has been taken away. Again I ask - how much would you accept for a year of YOUR life?

But the larger and more troubling issue is still that some people apparently want to absolve this man of personal responsibility. There have been plenty of stories on this board about women who stupidly get pregnant or are otherwise deceived by men who lie to and trick them. The general response is: "This is just the way men are; be smarter and take responsibility for your own choices." That is exactly what happened to this man - he was lied to and tricked, but he wasn't forced or coerced, and it was his choice to sleep with the girl. So why the double standard?