Bullshit. Sorry to be so direct.

He was charged with, and convicted of, sex with a minor. What used to be called statutory rape. Had she been a day over 16, none of the assault charges brought against him would have had any merit.

The attempt to use his case to bolster some sort of narrative about class and privilege - if he'd been rich and more 'privileged', he would have got away with it - is some pretty weak tea, not supported by any evidence except the writer's own prejudices. Note that other cases of alleged assaults by 'privileged' young men (Duke lacrosse, UVA 'Jackie' story etc, etc, etc) have been aggressively investigated and prosecuted, far beyond any actual evidence. What did for him - the only thing that did for him - was that he didn't check her birth certificate.

The writer has hijacked this story to further some sort of 'social-justice' narrative, claiming that 'privileged' young men get away with this sort of thing all the time, and only his lack of the requisite 'privilege' caused him to run afoul of the law. But actual evidence shows that cases like this are generally aggressively pursued, regardless of the alleged 'privilege' of the young men involved, on what in other cases would be very slim evidence.

llater,

llamas

The article makes a bit of mess, reporting this. It sounds like the final stupidity was her being 15 and him 18...

On a related note: Judgy Bitch thinks women should take responsibility for their sex choices. What a concept.

llamas +1000

He talked about Fight Club.

What did for him - the only thing that did for him - was that he didn't check her birth certificate.

Now he is one of those who will be marked as a sex criminal--but who surely doesn't actually pose a danger to society, like so many of those who had sex with a slightly younger teen.

This should not be punished the way we punish, say, a 34-year-old teacher who has sex with a student. Should it even be punished at all?

This is where the concept of Judicial discretion should come into play. The kid was a jerk, and did break the law, so he should be punished. However, make the punishment light enough to be survivable (a week in the slammer, probation, but no sex offender registration), so he understands he can never do that again, but it hopefully won't destroy his life.

@ Amy Alkon -

I do not disagree - to some extent.

But he was 18 at the time of the assault, and she was 15. His was a (statutory) adult, while she was a (statutory) child.

I understand that there are degrees, and nuances, and that a lot can depend on the age of the parties, which is why some places have 'Romeo and Juliet' laws to try and prevent everyone's life from being ruined entirely when they are still children. I can see the justification for them, to some extent, and I could cut him more slack if her were a lot closer in age to her. But the fact remains that he was an adult, and she was not. If we don't like the lines as they are currently drawn, where would we like them to be drawn? Having met few 16-year-old girls or boys lately, I'm probably not in a position to judge. Looking back to the days of my youth (gas light, steam trains, etc, etc) 16 years old seems like not-a-bad-place to set the line.

The author of the linked article is merely using this case as a hook on which to hang her grievances about how those Horrible Men persuade pure innocent young girls into bed with their sweet talk and empty promises, as well as her delusions about 'privilege'. Instead of celebrating the fact that this case of assault by an adult on a child was NOT swept under the rug or dismissed as 'Romeo and Juliet', (and was, in fact, vigorously prosecuted) she instead chooses to weave some fairy-tale about how, if he'd just been a bit more 'privileged', it would have been.

If she wants to talk about 'privilege', perhaps she should be looking at the 'privilege' exercised by another group of St Paul students - the group of girls, including the sister of the victim, all the daughters of rich and prominent families, who gave Mr Labrie a pretty-effective beating for what he did. Apparently, violent assaults don't count when carried out by pretty girls from good families. Privilege, much?

llater,

llamas

I disagree Spqr. This is the perfect example of judicial and prosecutorial discretion. While a child with better connected parents (not richer) would have gotten off with maybe a hand slap those without connections get hit with the full force of the law. Discretion far too often is permitted corruption.

If this Senior Salute was such a nefarious tradition, and he was such a well-known cad--why did 't the older sister warn the younger one? something more to the story than we've been told?

To a_random_guy:

Why should a 15-year-old count as an adult (whether according to you or Judgy Bitch) when she can't even marry without her parents' permission? Or drive alone or vote or join the army - even WITH parental permission?

Also: How many parents of girls want girls of that age to count as adults in the eyes of the law? Darned few, and that's the way their attitude will stay. (I have no idea how parents of underage boys victimized by older women feel.)

Why do so many people have trouble grasping this? How many of them HAVE young daughters?

Ben +1000.

We need a graduated age-of-consent law like they have in Germany (where a guy within 4 years of the same age cannot be guilty of "statutory rape").

KateC - "something more to the story than we've been told."

Yep, I agree; there is a lot more to this story then the public will ever know.

In the meantime, as has been pointed out, others will come along and add their twist to the story to move forward with their own agenda.

The REAL crime of the St Paul's story is that are perhaps a dozen senior boys who have, like Labrie, several conquests of younger women, and those guys have escaped any legal accountability.

Labrie is a scapegoat. A guilty rapist to be sure. But also a scapegoat.

To jdgalt:

I agree that if she's under 17 and he's four years older, yes, it should automatically be statutory rape. (Incredibly, quite a few young men even complain about THAT idea.)

However, there are perfectly good reasons why that gap tends to shrink as the younger party gets younger. (Hint: If she's 12 and he's a day under 16, do we really want to let him off the hook?)

Plus, of course, once you're over 18 (which Labrie was), you know, at least, that there's a long list of things you'll be held accountable for, even if you haven't read the list yet. That's now your job.

It is hard for people who don't have kids to understand how much a difference a year makes in a child's life with regard to maturity. We see them as tall, highly vocal young adults and then begin to ascribe adult abilities to them, but I can tell you as the mother of a 16 year old girl there are changes in maturity from year to year. That is why 15 to 18 makes a difference. My daughter has friends who are in her grade level at high school, but I can tell you which ones had a summer birthday and are a year behind age wise. It makes a difference, especially in terms of the freshman/senior divide.

I don't know the polite way to say this so it will probably be found offensive.

Biologically you have puberty. Pre-puberty you are a child. Post-puberty you are an adult. The vast changes that happen post puberty are not biologically driven but instead learned (in my opinion). Yes, there are huge differences from 15 to 18 (but less per year than a child goes through). But coddling a person and protecting them from the consequences of their actions retards their growth and maturity. The desire to keep adults as children is a major cause of the lost boys/bitch girls phenomenon of my generation.

I'm not supporting this guy. As llamas points out, he broke the law. Yes the law picks an arbitrary age and says 'Here is the line because I said so.' I don't have a better solution. Letting the experienced target the inexperienced is a bad idea.

I looks to me like she made a poor decision. He definitely made a poor decision. Now they all have to live with the consequences of those decisions.

At least somewhat relevant. This is why laws that are easily abused are a bad idea. Imagine being the teenage boy in this case.

You know what I find odd about these cases is all the asshole who claim boys dont mature emotionally or mentally as quickly as girls until the subject turns to sex, and suddenly any girl under 19 is basically 12 and any boy over 13 is basically 37.

Less than 3 years difference?

No one cared about the seven years difference of that Jenner/Kardashian kid and her boyfriend.

And lets not pretend this is about protecting minors its about protecting women from sex, as though its a horrible crime until transformed by the religious sacrament of marriage.

Were this an 18yr old girl and a 15 yr old boy they would have charged the boy.

Out here in AZ some kids has been sitting in jail for nearly two years. When they mention the story he is always a 19 yr old man accused of sever rapes of minors as young as 13.

The fact that he was 14 when he had sex with the 13 yr old half a decade ago is never mentioned, neither is the fact that half the girls he slept with were OLDER than him.

As for this kid, he was assaulted by the older sister, as she was also a senior and an adult was she charged with a crime for attacking him?

That is why I oppose proprietorial discretion Lujlp. When the man is older and the parents don't like him it is rape. When the woman is older most prosecutors don't see a problem. The law should be enforced equally.

Yes, well, one problem is, from what I've seen at MRA sites, the people there don't really want the law to be enforced equally unless the older male predators get off the hook entirely. Again, parents of girls are never going to allow that, so if MRAs don't at least get a lot louder about the female predators, that would suggest that the critics of the MRAs are correct: MRAs don't really care much about helping men and boys who are hurting; they prefer yelling and self-promotion to any real action.

Maybe Lenona MRA groups are not where justice will come from. Gee, is it any surprise the male supremacist are not that different from the female supremacists?

So what division of society WILL it come from, do you think? Assuming we're talking about "equal enforcement," which could go in either direction?

Seriously Lenona, groups solely interested in justice and equality. I also wouldn't be surprised if 'fourth wave' feminists were part of it. These laws don't just affect men but also the women who want to be part of their lives.

There are already groups interested in good governance and justice that are changing family court laws in the south. MRA groups are neither wanted or welcome. As you note, they seem to be made up of scum bags . . . just like extreme feminist groups.