Harshest Penalty for Alleged Rapist Was For Using a Computer To Arrange Contact With Teen

An anonymous reader writes: Today in a nationally publicized case, an alleged rapist from a fairly elite boarding school was convicted of a number of related misdemeanors, but the jury did not find him guilty of rape. According to the New York Times, his lone felony conviction was "using a computer to lure a minor." In effect, a criminal was convicted of multiple misdemeanors, including sexual penetration of a child, but the biggest penalty he faces is a felony record and years in jail because he used a computer to contact the child, rather than picking her up at a coffee shop, meeting her at a party, or hiring a fifteen-year-old prostitute. Prosecutors have these "using a computer" charges as an additional quiver in their bow, but should we really be making it a felony to use a computer for non-computer-related crime when there is no underlying felony conviction?

Comments

It's not about the crime

[fustakrakich]

It's about facilitating prosecution. There are all sorts of reasons to do that. It's another 'probable cause' to bust down your door

Re:It's not about the crime

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Exactly. Prosecution has been doing this sort of stuff for years. Move along, nothing here to see...

Re:It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, rape is very difficult to prove; in the absence of witnesses or physical corroborating evidence, it's basically he-said-she-said. So if the rape suspect has comitted a felony along the way that you can prove, you're going to use it.

Re:It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

So who cares about the facts? 'Obviously' she didn't lie about rape, so therefore lets lynch him with stacked/extrapolated charges instead? Are you serious?

Re:It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, yeah she lied about the rape, the jury aquitted him of the rape charges. Convicted him on statutory rape because she was 15 years old 7 months rather than 16 the age of consent in NH. She was a willing participant and it was very clear from the trial.

Two teens consensually hook up and you want to lynch the kid? Unreal

So wake up.

Re: It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Except one of them was legally an adult. You don't just get the benefits of adulthood without any of the responsibility.

Re: It's not about the crime

[ganjadude]

people get tried as adults as young as 10 now for crimes

at 18 you can buy smokes but not beer, you can get shot at in war

21 you can finally buy beer, but still cant rent a car

25 you can finally rent a car

they made the word "adult" a useless word years ago

Re: It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

The car rental people are correct. 25 is about right for everything. It's when the brain begins to, um... solidify... But hell, I wouldn't mind kicking the little parasites out when they reach puberty... They're pretty obnoxious at that age. They don't need their mother watching over them all the time any more. I got needs too, you know.... Oh, bumpkins.... don't forget to bring up the whipped cream... and the pickles

Re:It's not about the crime

[Rei]

Let's say it all together: Acquittal doesn't mean that the accuser lied. Just like in the vast majority of cases, rape is incredibly hard to prove. If they felt there was evidence that she lied, rather than insufficient evidence to prove "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", then they would be trying her for making false charges - which, computer used or not, is usually a felony.

Regardless, I won't consider justice "blind" until "she consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standard as a robbery defendant's claim "he consented to give me the money" - as an affirmative defense / defense theory.

Re:It's not about the crime

[Rei]

Basically, like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.

Re:It's not about the crime

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Regardless, I won't consider justice "blind" until "she consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standard as a robbery defendant's claim "he consented to give me the money" - as an affirmative defense / defense theory.

Well, it should be! For example, if you E-mail me and ask for $10 to help you out and I agree to give you that money when me meet, you wouldn't get convicted of robbery even if someone sees me giving you that money; the presumption would be that it was voluntary. Neither would you be convicted of robbery if we had dinner together and two months later I claim that you took $10 out of my wallet against my will. Yet, for some reason, if you replace the $10 with "sex", you seem to think that someone should get convicted simply because I claim that you took my money against my will, with no corroborating evidence.

The standard for robbery is pretty clearly that there need to be witnesses to coercion and/or that there needs to be physical evidence showing that you coerced me and harmed me. And you're absolutely right: that should be the standard for rape as well.

Re:It's not about the crime

[Rei]

To be more technical:

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard requires that the "facts of the case" be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - every one of them individually, with a list of facts to prove being given in the jury instructions and depending on the crime and jurisdiction For example, in a murder case, basic facts can be "The victim is dead" and "The defendant deliberately killed them". Beyond that, the prosecution "bears the burden" of demonstrating these facts as undeniably true. For more about what the legal burden is, there's details here.

The same does not hold true to what are called "affirmative defenses" or "defense theories". For example, if you charge me with assault and say I hit you with a chair, and I say that I was trying to stop you because you were trying to rape me, you don't face a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and 100% of the burden to prove that you weren't trying to rape me. Depending on the circumstances, there's either a "shared burden" or I would bear the burden of proof on my own. If the defense is to be analyzed on its own, as it's not a "basic fact", but rather a "defense theory", it would not on its own face a "reasonable doubt" standard (generally a "preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence" - although the claim may shift the jury's views toward whether there's reasonable doubt toward the basic facts in other ways.

There are many different types of defense theories, too numerous to go into here. And in most crimes, claims of consent are treated as defense theories - they don't on their own need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (they contribute to doubt relating to the basic facts but are not themselves a specific fact for jury evaluation), and there's either a shared or shifted defense burden. If you say "Hey, I wasn't robbing her, she gave me the money because she wanted to help me out", the burden doesn't fall 100% on me to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt that I didn't - it's your theory, you have to bear part of the burden of proof for it. The case as a whole still needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, of course.

It would be nice - and in fact, would only be basic fairness - if rape cases faced the same standard. Unfortunately, in most jurisdictions, it does not work that way. Consent is not treated as a defense theory. Humans are not treated as in a perpetual state of consent for giving away money, for being taken strange places by strangers, or any of the other sorts of cases where "consent" defenses are common.... except that they generally are treated as being in a perpetual state of consent for sex. No matter how weird, twisted, sick the sexual practice, with whatever person they may be, even with a person not matching your sexuality, you're presumed by default to be in consent for it. And the burden falls 100% on the accuser in this one type of case to prove that consent was not given.

And this is wrong.

Re:It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't equate the transfer of money with sex! that would mean all sex would be prostitution! although I would heartily support the use of sexual favors for the payment of all debts, public or private.

Re:It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that about 2% of women are psychopaths willing to make false accusations of rape simply because they feel the urge to ruin the other individuals life. To a psychopath, false accusations are a particularly powerful tool that can be used without remorse.

Unfortunately, a significant percentage of accusations of rape are by psychopaths and are false accusations, while non psychopaths fail to report rape.

Knight16 notes that "the fact is that a significant proportion of allegations of rape and indecent assault reported to the police are found to be untrue. This is often hotly denied by women's groups, but is an indisputable fact, proven by many subsequent admissions by girls that no such attack took place." "However, against this is the equally true fact that only a minority of real sexual assaults are reported to authorities."

http://www.drrichardhall.com/a...

So your 'man is guilty of accusation until proven innocent' is an utterly insane position.

Re:It's not about the crime

[dbIII]

Perhaps if you thought before writing it there would be something to think about instead of something to dismiss out of hand as a very silly use of a flawed analogy.
How about we discuss the subject at hand instead of trying to second guess what you would have written about something only loosely related if you had put a bit more effort in?

Re:It's not about the crime

[shutdown -p now]

If what you propose would become a reality, it sounds like any person who has had a sexual relationship could then be accused of rape, and, so long as the mere fact of intercourse is proven, would basically be considered guilty by default unless they can show some proof of consent. Do you not see the obvious and incredible potential of abuse here?

FWIW, as far as your analogies go, I don't think they're correct, either. If I go to the local convenience store and buy something, and then later accuse the shopkeeper of stealing my money, I very much doubt that any court would entertain the notion that the shopkeeper should prove on preponderance of evidence that the transfer was voluntary, and that if he is unable to do so, he gets locked up for robbery.

Re:It's not about the crime

[ArsenneLupin]

Consent is not treated as a defense theory. Humans are not treated as in a perpetual state of consent for giving away money,

A charity (or even a beggar) rarely needs to prove that the giver gave the money voluntarily.

for being taken strange places by strangers,

A taxi driver (or even bus driver...) rarely needs to prove that their passenger did indeed want to go where they wanted to go... Even if he is a minor (at least for buses). And even if you do accidentally hop on the wrong train, I don't think you've got a case to prosecute the driver for kidnapping...

or any of the other sorts of cases where "consent" defenses are common.... except that they generally are treated as being in a perpetual state of consent for sex.

Really, in daily life, giving or lending money, or giving people a ride is common, without needing to worry about getting a written affidavit that it is indeed voluntarily. And somehow, this still doesn't hamper our ability to prosecute against genuine cases of theft or robbery, or of kidnapping. Why can't sex be treated the same way?

Re: It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the word adult must only have one precise meaning, unlike every other word in English or any other natural language!

Re: It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

people get tried as adults as young as 10 now for crimes

  at 18 you can buy smokes but not beer, you can get shot at in war

  21 you can finally buy beer, but still cant rent a car

  25 you can finally rent a car

  they made the word "adult" a useless word years ago

Given how "adults" tend to act until they wise up about the world, you're right. "They" made the word rather useless.

As far as going to war, the act of war itself isn't usually an intelligent one, so they're not looking for intelligence or wisdom. They're looking for humans old enough to point a gun in the right direction and take orders. Youth breeds ignorance, so that tends to help too.

Re:It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

If what you propose would become a reality, it sounds like any person who has had a sexual relationship could then be accused of rape, and, so long as the mere fact of intercourse is proven, would basically be considered guilty by default unless they can show some proof of consent. Do you not see the obvious and incredible potential of abuse here?

There have been many proposals of just such a law in scandinavia.

Re:It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

the jury aquitted[sic] him of the rape charges

In effect, a criminal was convicted of multiple misdemeanors, including sexual penetration of a child

You and I have two entirely different understandings of what the word "acquitted" means.

Re:It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed the important part. Forget what he may or may not have done. According to TFS, sexual penetration of a child is considered a misdemeanor, while using a computer to contact said child is a felony. Now, does that seem right? Because it sure as shit doesn't seem right to me, that the actual, physical, LITERAL act of rape is considered to be a LESSER crime than using a computer to arrange for a meetup.

Re:It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say it all together: Acquittal doesn't mean that the accuser lied. Just like in the vast majority of cases, rape is incredibly hard to prove. If they felt there was evidence that she lied, rather than insufficient evidence to prove "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", then they would be trying her for making false charges - which, computer used or not, is usually a felony.

Regardless, I won't consider justice "blind" until "she consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standard as a robbery defendant's claim "he consented to give me the money" - as an affirmative defense / defense theory.

Rape is easy to prove. If a woman or man is raped get themselves to a hospital for a rape kit. Then file charges and the police can obtain a warrant for DNA sample from the alleged rapist. No match? No charges filed and no record allowed. Any false reports filed should result in a criminal record for the liar.

Re:It's not about the crime

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

instead of something to dismiss out of hand as a very silly use of a flawed analogy.

Rei made the "very silly use of a flawed analogy" (paraphrasing: "rape should be treated like robbery") to make a point. I was pointing out to him why it was flawed.

My position is simple and doesn't require any analogy: nobody should be convicted on the word of an accuser alone; there needs to be independent evidence of the crime. Applied to rape, that means saying after two people get together "I didn't consent to sex" or "I said 'no'" should not be sufficient to find someone guilty, and neither should be hearsay (e.g., "she seemed distraught afterwards").

How about we discuss the subject at hand

How about you actually bother to read a thread before responding?

Re:It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

If you replace $10 with $10k, it would suddenly seem normal for things to face more scrutiny.

The strangeness of the English language seems to be catching some people up... sex is not something that is given or taken or received, any more than a punch is. It's not the noun that matters, it's the verb!

And if you have sex with everyone that you go to dinner with... wow, that's just disturbing.

Re:It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you actually bother to read a thread before responding?

Have you actually been in a relationship that lasted more than a week?

There seem to be a lot of young guys here that are going around in the world acting like women are the enemy or something. It's so sad.

Re:It's not about the crime

[dbIII]

nobody should be convicted on the word of an accuser alone;

Oh really?
So witness testimony is worthless in your opinion?
Please justify why you think such an opinion is worth consideration.

Re: It's not about the crime

[jedidiah]

...except this isn't "English", this is law including little things called rights and criminal liability.

If you aren't a full adult, then you're just another variation on the underclasses. What's sadder still is that some people are enthusiastic to go along with that kind of crap.

People are considered "children" and "protected", except when they aren't. People are considered "adult" and granted full rights, except when they aren't.

Re:It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

[A] nobody should be convicted on the word of an accuser alone;

Oh really? [B] So witness testimony is worthless in your opinion?

Can you explain by what chain of reasoning statement [A] implies statement [B]?

Re: It's not about the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mixing legal freedoms with what's simply common. There's nothing illegal about renting a car under 25. It's just that many companies are not willing to rent one out to you. Some will rent with an extra fee, and some will allow employees of their corporate clients to drive even under 25.

Re: It's not about the crime

[ncc74656]

21 you can finally buy beer, but still cant rent a car

I was 19 the first time I rented a car. Mine was in the shop for collision repair (dumbass backed into me in a parking lot right as I arrived at work). There weren't as many options and they charged more per day than if I had been 25, but I was able to rent a car. It beat biking through the summer heat to get to work.

Re:It's not about the crime

[Cinnamon Beige]

Humans are not treated as in a perpetual state of consent for giving away money, for being taken strange places by strangers, or any of the other sorts of cases where "consent" defenses are common.... except that they generally are treated as being in a perpetual state of consent for sex.

[...]

And this is wrong.

That's because the social assumption currently is that humans are, in fact, in a perpetual state of mindless heat and will be DTF--or have you missed how much trouble it can be for a woman to get their healthcare providers to grasp that they're not sexually active? You're right that it's wrong, but the part that needs addressing is that assumption.

Or have you missed that this assumption is even stronger with men, to the point that getting a female-on-male case to court is a PITA because our culture insists that men always, always want sex and if they can be raped it is only by other men?

That said, a few of these cases probably are best off collapsing on the rape charges given that the nasty truth is sometimes that both sides had defective consent--for example, let's say that I'm underage but I told you I was legal to get you to have sex with me. What you did is statutory rape but what I did was rape by deception, which is a charge some jurisdictions have. Because I'm underage I simply lack the ability to consent, while for the sake of manners I'm going to go with the presumption that you'd not have consented if you knew I was underage. (Please note that your argument covers why it ought to be a charge recognized in all courts: consent gotten by lies isn't accepted in other situations, so why should it be with sex?)

Of course, what would be really interesting is if such a case was simply treated as a mutual rape--so both sides get charged and go to trial, and given the charges involved the minor fact that both consented would be a non-issue. (In fact, I might be better off claiming you didn't consent, so I'm innocent of the specific charge--something people have gotten away with, but best done only when a not guilty verdict will prevent you from being charged with the 'correct' crime.)

Re:It's not about the crime

[dbIII]

It's quoted. What do you think the testimony of a witness is?

Re:It's not about the crime

[Kartu]

But a witness is not an accuser, is he/she?

Re:It's not about the crime

[Kartu]

And?

PS
Frankly, I thought it was already the case and not just in Scandinavia, in most of the western countries.
E.g. Tyson's case.

Re:It's not about the crime

[dbIII]

Quite frequently depending upon the testimony. Use that brain instead of a dictionary.

Re:It's not about the crime

[goose-incarnated]

Let's say it all together: Acquittal doesn't mean that the accuser lied. Just like in the vast majority of cases, rape is incredibly hard to prove. If they felt there was evidence that she lied, rather than insufficient evidence to prove "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", then they would be trying her for making false charges - which, computer used or not, is usually a felony.

Regardless, I won't consider justice "blind" until "she consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standard as a robbery defendant's claim "he consented to give me the money" - as an affirmative defense / defense theory.

They already are treated by the same standard. If someone grabs $10 of you and you have no way to prove that it is yours (no witnesses, etc), then that person will not be convicted. Your accusation alone is not enough to get someone convicted.

Re:It's not about the crime

[goose-incarnated]

You are a very confused person.

Re:It's not about the crime

[goose-incarnated]

nobody should be convicted on the word of an accuser alone;

Oh really? So witness testimony is worthless in your opinion? Please justify why you think such an opinion is worth consideration.

You appear to forget that there are *two* witness testimonies in he said/she said cases. Why do you feel that the accuser's testimony should carry more weight?

No, obviously

[Narcocide]

... unless of course you're terrified of computers and networks, view them as tantamount to witchcraft, don't understand them, and hate and fear anyone who does. Then of course, by all means, grab your torch and pitchfork. The rest of the loonies will be waiting in the town square at midnight.

Re:No, obviously

[rtb61]

Not really so funny. Yes, failed jock strap bully law enforcement types are really jealous of computer geeks and nerds and do hate them, this includes all those scammy ignorant politicians. So those laws were written to up scale what should be a misdemeanours as full felonies as an act of revenge for 'er' 'um' computer geeks and nerds being so, so much better at learning and doing it so easily. So you end up with greater penalties for DDOS some corporation temporarily than sticking a gun in some ones face face and threatening to kill them, Hell, if you out of control law enforcement sticking a gun in someone's face and threatening to kill them is approved policy.

Re:No, obviously

[Jane Q. Public]

unless of course you're terrified of computers and networks, view them as tantamount to witchcraft, don't understand them, and hate and fear anyone who does. Then of course, by all means, grab your torch and pitchfork. The rest of the loonies will be waiting in the town square at midnight.

It's the whole "enhancement" idea in the law that is just so much hogwash.

Why was the crime "worse" because a computer was used? Did the victim suffer more? Was there more physical damage?

In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used? Would a crossbow or a big knife have been any different? They're all deadly weapons.

"Enhancements" like these are an expression of fear and attempted control. It's not a matter of justice, it's a matter of trying to control people. Plain and simple.

Re:No, obviously

[currently_awake]

Money crimes are given greater weight in law. The rich must be protected.

Re:No, obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

no its not funny.
politicians are fucking clueless and scared of computers.

Re:No, obviously

[Solandri]

unless of course you're terrified of computers and networks, view them as tantamount to witchcraft, don't understand them, and hate and fear anyone who does.

This is the way the world works. The 50+ generation grew up in a world without computers. The 30+ generation grew up during the transition to widespread computer use. And anyone younger grew up when computers were ubiquitous.

As long as those (currently) 50+ people are alive, these laws will probably stay in the books for the reasons you cite. As they grow old and die, people will start talking about getting rid of the "silly" distinction of crimes using a computer. And when only those currently under 30 are alive, they'll see no point to these computer-specific laws and will repeal all of them.

In other words, people's opinions don't really change. They just grow old and die, causing a shift in the prevalent opinion of the electorate.

Re:No, obviously

[piojo]

Why was the crime "worse" because a computer was used? Did the victim suffer more? Was there more physical damage?

In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used?

Yes, that should be obvious. A gun causes more suffering. You will have nightmares about it. Every time you remember it, your heart will race and you will start to sweat. A strong man's fist is a deadly weapon. You're telling me a fighter waving his fist in your face will traumatize you equally compared to a gun under your nose? Come on.

Re: No, obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

And when only those currently under 30 are alive, they'll see no point to these computer-specific laws and will repeal all of them.

No, most likely they won't. They will just add new laws to further punish whatever scares them.

Re:No, obviously

[ultranova]

A strong man's fist is a deadly weapon. You're telling me a fighter waving his fist in your face will traumatize you equally compared to a gun under your nose?

Why wouldn't it? Guns have no magical powers fists lack that cause the (mental) trauma. It's the violence that does, and as you yourself noted, fists are all you need for that.

Re:No, obviously

[Culture20]

In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used? Would a crossbow or a big knife have been any different? They're all deadly weapons.

Armed robbery includes any deadly weapon brandished as threat of force during the robbery, not just firearms. Branding a weapon while robbing lends insight to the mindset of the criminal; that he or she is willing to cause bodily harm or kill in their commission of a crime. Killing (even accidentally) in the commission of a felony is usually considered murder, so planning to kill in commission of a felony is like planning to murder.
As usual: I am not a lawyer, mileage may vary, void in the Commonwealth of Oklahansas.

Re:No, obviously

[Cinnamon Beige]

In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used? Would a crossbow or a big knife have been any different? They're all deadly weapons.

Armed does not equal gun here--a crossbow and a big knife count as 'armed' in probably all jurisdictions, and I've heard at least one has had to specifically say alligators count as 'armed' too. Rocks can and have counted for armed. If you've got a certain level of martial arts training you may count as armed even if wearing absolutely nothing whatsoever, depending on the jurisdiction and its laws on if and under what circumstances a person counts as a deadly weapon.

Those last two words are the key thing: armed robbery means that a deadly weapon was brought to the crime and its use threatened. You're probably okay bringing a very obviously-a-boffer item and threatening to boff them if they don't give you the goods, but I am not a lawyer and moreover I advise against robbing people in any manner under any circumstances, even ones as absurd as those discussed here.

Re:No, obviously

[guruevi]

It's because people don't understand computers, plain and simple. What people don't understand they're afraid of. And when people are afraid, the people using the techniques in question must be punished harsher.

The main reason is because people think it's "on the internet" that these practices must therefore be not only ubiquitous but also easier and 'better hidden'.

My question is: where were the parents of this kid, at least they should be charged as accessories for allowing their kid not just to meet people online but subsequently go out and meet them on their own without any parental involvement or oversight or even suspicion at any point along this road.

Re:No, obviously

[piojo]

Guns have no magical powers fists lack that cause the (mental) trauma.

Sure they do. I think this is common sense, unless you live in the land of Rubber Bullets. The reason for this is probably the same reason as the reason using a gun in a crime carries stiffer penalties. Guns don't do half measures. They inflict grievous bodily harm, every time. (Barring misfired/misses/etc.) So if you carry a gun to your robbery, there are serious chances you'll kill the victim. The same isn't true of a mugging with fists. (I read about a hugely strong man mugging a stranger with a handshake--"Give me your wallet or I'm going to break your hand". That victim never feared for his life.)

Imagine you have an argument with an acquaintance and he pulls his arm back to hit you. Now imagine you have an argument with another acquaintance and he pulls a gun and points at at you. Do these two situations really feel the same to you???

Re:No, obviously

[Jane Q. Public]

A gun causes more suffering.

Compared to, say, nearly bleeding out from a knife wound? Getting your head bashed in with a baseball bat?

That's crazy. Irrational.

Re:No, obviously

[Jane Q. Public]

They inflict grievous bodily harm, every time.

Nonsense. Where do you get these ideas?

MOST shooting victims today (some sources say as much as 90%) survive.

MOST knifing victims (some sources say as much as 90%) bleed out before help arrives.

Your irrational fears, based on faulty perceptions, are not a rational basis for making law.

Re:No, obviously

[Jane Q. Public]

Armed robbery includes any deadly weapon brandished as threat of force during the robbery, not just firearms.

Do you understand what "enhancements" are? In some states, using a firearm specifically will result in an "enhancement" to your sentence if found guilty. It's the same crime (armed robbery), but carries a stiffer sentence if thw weapon happens to be a firearm.

Killing (even accidentally) in the commission of a felony is usually considered murder, so planning to kill in commission of a felony is like planning to murder.

True, but irrelevant to the point being made.

Re:No, obviously

[piojo]

There's no way those statistics could possibly be representative. They do not include, for example, mugging victims that run away from a knife and are not stabbed. I think you are making a willfully obtuse argument. I would prefer to go against a baseball bat rather than a gun any day. (And my choice of weapon would be made by Nike, if you haven't figured that out.)

The point is that guns don't do half measures. Here's a real statistic, not some cherry-picked irrelevent percents:
"Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used," (followed by three citations, which you can look up if you're interested).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Additional...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that be, "additional bow in their quiver"?

Re:Additional...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Not to be mistaken for Quiverfull... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Additional...

[wonkey_monkey]

It shouldn't be either. Arrows go in quivers, not bows.

Someone's got it confused with "another string to your bow," most likely.

Re:Additional...

[rossdee]

No, it should be 'additional arrow in their quiver'

And we all know archery is immoral (see Walter Palmer) but guns are ok (2nd Ammendment)

Re:Additional...

[Anonymous Coward]

It shouldn't be either. Arrows go in quivers, not bows.

Someone's got it confused with "another string to your bow," most likely.

Or another feather on their hat / cap.

Re: Additional...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you must be mistaken. It should be "an additional whisker biscuit to your bow".

Re:Additional...

[I'm New Around Here]

Bows and arrows should be just as protected under the 2nd Amendment as firearms are.

Unless they're nuclear tipped arrows, of course.

Re:Additional...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "another hair on the biscuit" - get it right.

Three Felonies a Day

[Tokolosh]

Read "Three Felonies a Day" by Harvey Silverglate to understand the fed's rationale. The ends justify the means. After all, Capone ended up in Alcatraz for tax evasion. The book is sickening reading.

http://www.harveysilverglate.c...
http://www.threefeloniesaday.c...
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Fe...

None of this excuses the youngster's behavior.

Re:Three Felonies a Day

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, kat.cr has it for an even lower price, if you are OK with an electronic version.

Re:Three Felonies a Day

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably committing at least eight felonies (all of them "on a computer," so subject to execution in the United States) if you go that route.

Re:Three Felonies a Day

[Anonymous Coward]

... the youngster's behavior.

I assume you mean the female, since both were legally minors. I'm sure many other people won't hold a girl responsible for her mistakes but I try to enforce gender equality.

The summary makes me quiver

[pr0t0]

"...another quiver in their bow"

They fire quivers with a bow? I believe the phrase you were looking for was "another arrow in their quiver". Probably a good idea to submit anonymously.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

As an archer, I have to admit reading that made me quiver with laughter; but then again, after I loose* an arrow, the bow does quiver for a bit.


*First correct usage of "loose" in a sentence in the history of Slashdot.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Yaztromo]

I lost an arrow once, and you still spelled 'lose' incorrectly.

As an archer myself, the grandparent poster used the correct spelling of the word they were going for.

To loose an arrow means to release the string to fire an arrow. It was not intended to mean that an arrow went missing and was lost.

Yaz

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Anonymous Coward]

The submitter meant to take a quiver in the knee....

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[zennyboy]

AKA I let the dog loose. I let loose the arrow. I let loose...

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Anonymous Coward]

I lost an arrow once, and you still spelled 'lose' incorrectly.

As an archer myself, the grandparent poster used the correct spelling of the word they were going for.

What sound does an arrow make? WHOOSH!

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Anonymous Coward]

It could not whoosh over my head, my reflexes are too fast, I would catch it.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Anonymous Coward]

the Kraken

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be an archer like you, until I took an arrow to the quiver. /ducks

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Anonymous Coward]

youre a loose arrow!

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[meta-monkey]

You. You sir win slashdot.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[I'm New Around Here]

Starlord and Gamora: Eye roll. 9_9

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[I'm New Around Here]

Next, are you going to inform me that a computer network doesn't actually have a net in it?

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Anonymous Coward]

You used to be a grammar nazi, until he loosed an arrow into your knee.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[ebvwfbw]

Check out his handle - I'm new around here. Just excuse his stupidity.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[marked]

Of course it does.

It is used to catch the Evil Bits.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Hognoxious]

You're a hoot at parties, aren't you?

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Zontar The Mindless]

Dammit, now I'll have to change my sig back.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Anonymous Coward]

Next, are you going to inform me that a computer network doesn't actually have a net in it?

Is it the sort of thing you're going to need to be corrected on?

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Anonymous Coward]

Next, are you going to inform me that a computer network doesn't actually have a net in it?

Is it the sort of thing you're going to need clarified? In related news: water is wet, fire is hot and if you jump off a really tall building you'll bounce without injuring yourself.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL Fail Troll

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[I'm New Around Here]

Sorry the [humor] tag didn't make it through the slashdot filter for my original post. You guys have a hard time catching jokes. And with your ID you should be able to figure that out by now. BTW, my first account had a number about half of yours. You don't even get the joke in my newest account name.

Oh well. I'll have to be satisfied that at least one AC caught the joke, possibly two.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

NO! "Death by JSON" is even funnier than "XML is like violence..."

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

I knew you were joking, I couldn't believe some idiot modded it "troll". Of course sometimes when you loose arrows you lose arrows.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Zontar The Mindless]

You're thinking of someone else (although the XML reference would certainly be appropriate to me, as well). My previous sig was "RELEASE THE KRAKEN...".

The current one is a variant on the punchline to a joke I first heard about 30 years ago. Or perhaps you inferred this already.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Al Al Cool J]

Archers are such a bunch of loosers :-P

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[ebvwfbw]

Sorry, you missed my joke. I thought that was very funny. Seemed almost tailored made - your handle, not knowing... just too good to pass up.

Don't go anywhere folks, I'm here all week.

BTW My handle - that was the captcha. I tried to get I don't know how many handles and everything was taken that I tried. So I just typed that in and it worked. I had another handle and lost it. No idea what I used. This handle I think I've had for about 15 years.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[I'm New Around Here]

The TV show Furturama had a take-off on that. The native tribe was of amazon females, and it was "Death by snu snu." The remains of the previous captives showed how they chose to die.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[I'm New Around Here]

Hey, good to hear back. Sorry if I got defensive. Well, not exactly sorry, but I'm glad I didn't go postal about it. It is hard to pick up humor on this site. And it's good to know we are all in the same boat trying to select second or third names.

Have a fun weekend.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[Zontar The Mindless]

Oh, right. I'd completely forgot about that, somehow.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[I'm New Around Here]

Cool. It's just that the first image that came to mind when I read that was back when I was ten years old, and got a simple bow and arrow set for my birthday. I got a few hay bales from the barn, fixed the paper target to them, and started firing arrows at it. Soon enough, one went over the bales, into the grassy field behind them. I searched that damn field for a few hours, but the arrow was gone. I lost it, and the set only came with three.

As for "loose", I've read enough 'swords-n-sorcery' stories with that usage that I knew what you meant, and I thought your post was a very intelligent send up of the usual misspelling. I just had to add my personal note and slight joke, which of course others missed. Glad to hear you got it. :^)

So, anyway, before I start tearing up over my ratatouille, thanks for the post. The "troll" thing is strange, even for not getting the humor I meant, but that's slashdot for ya.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[I'm New Around Here]

My daughter's favorite computer game. Good show.

Re:The summary makes me quiver

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Now that's funny.

felony to be overturned

[turkeydance]

expunged, too, i'll bet.

All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.

If all the upperclassmen that had sex with underclassmen at my former high school were jailed, probably a third of the school would be behind bars. This is fucking ridiculous.

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Voted -1 Troll? More like -1 Disagree. Prosecuting a 17 year old for having consensual intercourse with a 15 year old is ridiculous.

Re:All bullshit

[trout007]

What is interesting is a few years earlier they could legally have sex. Then for a couple of years it's a felony. Then it's legal again.

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is that marked insightful?

The act was probably statutory rape. The jury evidently thought that intercourse occurred, but that it was consensual.

Re:All bullshit

[murdocj]

Isn't 15 underage? Why isn't it just plain statutory rape?

Re: All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

"The girl spent more time on the stand than Mr. Labrie. She said that he had bitten her and that he had scraped inside her vagina. She said she had told him âoenoâ several times."

Re:All bullshit

[Etherwalk]

Isn't 15 underage? Why isn't it just plain statutory rape?

It was statutory rape. They sued for regular rape hoping to send him to jail for longer.

Re:All bullshit

[timrod]

It's not plain statutory rape because New Hampshire, like a lot of states, has revised their statutory rape law to prevent people from being charged in cases where both parties involved are minors. There's usually a limit as to how far apart in age the two parties can be, but generally two minors having sex is not statutory rape in states that have revised their laws.

Re:All bullshit

[bob_super]

> It was statutory rape. They sued for regular rape hoping to send him to jail for longer.

Because our goal in life is to make sure people spend as much of theirs in jail as possible...

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.

That is what he claimed. Do you believe him?

Whether that is the actual sequence of events or not... that's what the trial was about. The answer is, they were unable to prove that the sex was not consensual. That's not quite the same as saying that the sex was consensual.

Do I believe him? I have no reason to believe, nor to disbelieve. I have no way to know either way.

Re:All bullshit

[Darinbob]

And how do you know this? Or are you another of those who think that guys never lie but girls always do?

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously teenagers should not be having sex. They are too young and stupid to think through the consequences, understand the significance, and make rational decisions.

But teenagers are wildly horny and puff pheremones like steam engines. They will have sex. There really is no stopping them.

When we throw them in jail and ruin their lives as a result, we do not protect them from anything, and we just make everything worse.

It *should not be* statutory rape when teens have sex with each other. The law does not serve us in this case, is wrong, and should be fixed.

Re:All bullshit

[Firethorn]

What is interesting is a few years earlier they could legally have sex. Then for a couple of years it's a felony. Then it's legal again.

Incorrect, barring any recent legal changes in the State of New Hampshire.

Felonious Sexual Assault: II. Engages in sexual penetration with a person, other than his legal spouse, who is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age where the age difference between the actor and the other person is 4 years or more; or
If he was 17 and her 15, that's only two years, well within NH's 4 year 'R&J' exemption. Indeed, by the way the statute is constructed, once legal they're always legal.

Though the second article says 18 and 15, but even at 3 years and change it shouldn't have triggered statutory rape charges by the letter of NH law.

Lacking statutory rape, they'd have go go for 'actual' rape charges, IE it was against her will, and browsing news articles, that's what they did. They simply failed to make that case.

Re:All bullshit

[HiThere]

To be fair, girls have more reason to lie afterwards than boys do. I would guess that they deny having been willing much more often than boys do, whether or not the population sampled was willing.

That said, in a "he said, she said" argument, you shouldn't believe either of them. You need additional evidence. Which is what the jury decided.

Re:All bullshit

[trout007]

Good info. I stand corrected.

Re:All bullshit

[Rei]

Where I live, there's pretty much no sexual shame for a woman to have sex, which eliminates the concept of this argument. Yet rape rates are still very high.

And seriously, I simply cannot comprehend this logic. The (incredibly common) logic used by people like you is based on the following premises:

1) The concept that a woman had sex is shameful
2) The concept of going down to a police station, telling them that you were raped, having strangers probe you, having the media cover your sex life, getting countless threats and personal attacks and people calling you a liar and a slut, etc, all for what everyone knows is a pitifully tiny chance of getting a conviction (wherein even more calls of "liar" and "slut" will be fielded), is totally easy and totally not shameful.

I mean, WTF people?

Re:All bullshit

[HiThere]

1) you're assuming that the argument is based on shame. My actual argument was based on potential economic cost. The shame concept could work either way. (It can be pretty expensive to raise a kid, though. And not only in direct costs.)

2) you're assuming that I'm contemplating only official complaints. I have a very hard time imagining a teen going to the police and saying she was raped unless coerced by her family.

That said, I still expect that the official claim of rape would be quite rare wrt even actual rape (especially if you count sexual contact induced by sufficient alcohol [etc.] to render acquiescence illegitimate). I believe that such statistics as are available (poor) validate my belief. Look up "date rape". Also "rohypnol".

Re: All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Did forensic evidence support her claims?

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Firethorn above demonstrated that it wasn't statutory rape.

Re:All bullshit

[Theaetetus]

He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.

18, not 17. It's in the article:

But at its core, the case was about an intimate encounter last year between a 15-year-old girl and an 18-year-old acquaintance, and whether she consented as it escalated.

And he was convicted because his story wasn't credible. He (now) claims he suddenly saw the light, seconds before penetrating her. And yet, for days afterwards she was texting him to ask whether he used a condom, and she went to a pharmacist for emergency contraception. Are those the actions of someone who wasn't penetrated? Add to that the fact that he repeatedly changed his story, and it's very easy to see why a jury didn't believe him.

And yet, despite all that, they didn't convict of rape. So you're right on that count, Anon. So why all your crying and attacking the victim?

Re:All bullshit

[Intrepid imaginaut]

This is gibberish. Clarify your poisition.

Re:All bullshit

[Etherwalk]

Thx.

Re:All bullshit

[maccodemonkey]

He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.

We've got a clairvoyant on our hands! Quick! Someone call James Randi!

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Take this recent Vanity Fair piece:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/tinder-hook-up-culture-end-of-dating

Let's ignore for a moment whether the piece describes a culture that applies uniformly throughout US society. However, it probably applies in some places.

That piece describes a lot of women who are essentially disgruntled and upset, being treated like objects by narcissistic men (and, to be fair, vice versa).

Let's assume for a moment that one of the women gets pissed about *something.* They get tired of being treated like meat maybe. Maybe some guy acts like a narcissistic egocentric asshole. Who knows. The woman regrets hooking up the guy. They then convince themselves that maybe they never consented in the first place, even though they did. Then they talk to their friends, and then, it's rape.

Today, that's all it takes to ruin the guy.

I've seen variations of this play out multiple times with different people--none of it resulting in trial or anything, but in all cases resulting in professional consequences. In all cases, it was really clear to third parties who knew the details that there was a woman who did something consensually, then regretted it, and didn't want to accept responsibility, and then lashed out at the guy to try to make themselves feel better. In one case, the woman explicitly lied about something to get the guy in trouble because they were emotionally hurt (about something that wasn't even the guy's fault). They lied out of spite. None of this had to do with shame about having sex, it was all about not being able to accepting the consequences of their decisions, or about "getting back" for perceived hurts (regardless of whether those hurts were really the fault of the guy).

Yes, women (and men) are raped. But they are also falsely accused. The pendulum has swung far too far in the wrong direction. I personally believe that an accused has to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, and that burden of proof has to be extremely high.

Re:All bullshit

[nbauman]

He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.

If all the upperclassmen that had sex with underclassmen at my former high school were jailed, probably a third of the school would be behind bars. This is fucking ridiculous.

The facts support you on this.

Half the population had sex by age 17. Are we going to put half the population in jail for having sex with the other half?

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org...
Percent of population having had first intercourse, by age
Males Females
25% by age 15 26% by age 15
37% by age 16 40% by age 16
46% by age 17 49% by age 17
62% by age 18 70% by age 18
69% by age 19 77% by age 19
85% by age 20-21 81% by age 20-21
89% by age 22-24 92% by age 22-24

Re:All bullshit

[circletimessquare]

because there are many sexists and misogynists on slashdot, and in life

there is such a thing as false charges of rape. but actual rape greatly outnumbers false charges of rape

but hear it according to the prejudices of sexist people, such as many comments here, and the discussion is immediately about fake rape charges. there is no thought or consideration to the more likely possibility the girl was actually raped. because that possibility goes against their misogyny. they have to reinforce their hate. so all of the "she's faking it" information-free comments get voted up and discussed. without the slightest shred of actually looking into the case and possibly discovering that there is solid evidence of rape

many people, as the comments in this thread show, are prejudicial assholes and morons, and don't think before opening their blind ignorant mouths, to pass shallow judgment on situations they don't know, and don't try to know, just so they can preserve their ignorance, hate, and prejudice

it's a window onto the souls of some people around you, as you can see in many of the comments here, some people are hardcore shitbags

Re:All bullshit

[Raenex]

http://nypost.com/2009/09/18/t...

Danmell Ndonye, 18, who had accused five men of gang rape, admitted the truth only when prosecutors confronted her after learning of a cellphone video that captured the whole sordid episode and showed she had willingly participated, officials said.

She created her outlandish tale when her boyfriend, a Hofstra student whoâ(TM)s been dating her since the semester began a few weeks ago, demanded to know where she had disappeared after a wild frat party early Sunday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

On advice from his lawyer, Banks had pleaded no contest to raping his childhood friend on campus 10 years ago, reports the Associated Press. He served five years in prison for a rape he didn't commit, and then spent the next five years on parole.

To his surprise, Banks received a Facebook friend request from Gibson after he got out of prison. During their first meet-up, Gibson confessed that she faked the rape accusation and expressed a desire to help him. It was music to Banks' ears -- except for the fact that she didn't want to face prosecutors with the truth for fear she would have to return settlement money her mother had won from the school.

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

... unable to prove that the sex was not consensual.

Which is the whole point of a trial. To prove that she said "no". It's frequently a matter of 'he said, she said', which may disadvantage the female. Many courts have a raft of polices, plus anti-rape laws to increase her leverage in the court room.

...saying that the sex was consensual.

But the court decided that one underage person was more responsible than the other. Notice the losing side was male: Where's that white (male) privilege that's supposed to disadvantage women and in particular, rape victims?

Re:All bullshit

[dbIII]

she was 15 when the sex occurred

Just about anywhere that's enough to get charged as if consent is not given, because for a variety of good reasons technically it is not. Fucking kids (who often don't know any better and are often easily convinced) is a bad idea and society reacts to it.
As for your school - the situation is out of control not the law.

Re:All bullshit

[TapeCutter]

Where I live, there's pretty much no sexual shame for a woman to have sex, which eliminates the concept of this argument.

It hasn't eliminated anything, there is nowhere on this planet (outside a 1970's hippie commune) where a 15yo girl can have sex whenever she wants, with whoever she wants....AND....still have nothing to hide because all the parents are cool with it.

Disclaimer: I make no claims about this case in particular but at the end of the day, some males are violent arseholes, some females are manipulative arseholes. Violent aresholes ruin lives, manipulate arseholes ruin lives. It's not, as Feminists and MRA's would have you believe, a "problem with men" or vica-versa, it is, what it has always been - aresholes being arseholes. Arsehoes can be suprisingly difficult to spot (eg:Rolf Harris), I pity any 'peer' with a conscience who is asked by society to find the truth in an "alleged sex-crime".

Re:All bullshit

[Zontar The Mindless]

Police and prosecutors care, which is sort of the whole point of this discussion, you boneheaded cretin.

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

2) you're assuming that I'm contemplating only official complaints. I have a very hard time imagining a teen going to the police and saying she was raped unless coerced by her family.

This goes completely against my experiences. I know multiple women who were raped as teenagers. They did not report their rapes in part due to being coerced by their families to not report.

Re:All bullshit

[u38cg]

Do you put this much effort into informing people about the specifics of real rape cases, which are vastly more common than false allegations?

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

40% of all reported rapes are false.
Women lie for all sorts of bullshit reasons.
Maybe you didn't call them back on time, maybe they had a boyfriend and they want to save face.
Maybe they want money. Maybe they are just insane.
Basically, if a woman yells rape, and it happened more than a week ago and it was in her house, or the guys house, she's probably lying.
Also note that they often wait long enough for any potential evidence to go away.
"Yeah he punched me, and I scratched him, but it's all healed by now".

Re:All bullshit

[Raenex]

How do you quantify that? If I were to go by high profile cases that made the news, I'd say that's a rather dubious statement. The parent poster was trying to make the case that the logic was just impossible. I provided evidence to the contrary.

Re:All bullshit

[cellocgw]

The question is not about how many people have had sex by age 18 (or 16), but whether this is really consensual sex in the first place.

While I agree that jail time is almost certainly counterproductive, I completely disagree with the premise that early-age sex is either psychologically or physically healthy behavior. Further, it really is rare that young women are engaging in a fully consensual manner. They may "want" to have sex as a way of "proving maturity," or to be part of the cool crowd, but that's a poor definition of 'consensual.'

A certain overly randy POTUS fired a very well-spoken Surgeon General who had the nerve to suggest that teens would be far better off both physically and mentally if they engaged in autoeroticism. High time we accepted that position and did whatever we can to reduce the societal pressures to have early sex.

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

or even more likely a prosecutor planning to run for political office. now he can cry how he 'protects' the 'children' as part of his campaign propoganda...

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

yep. if prosecutors really wanted to keep busy, they'd have a good chunk of the highschool population in jail, but you'll note that they only bother when they've got a nice juicy hign profile case guaranteed to punch their ticket to political office should they win, and these cases are pretty much indefensible given how ignorantly the statutes are written.

so, i guess that this by extension leaves up with a huge majority of police/prosecutors/judges who accept reality and exercise good judgement in application of said poorly thought out statutes.

as to the guy talking about pressure to early sex, you must be one butt ugly virgin hardup mofo. better look into a celibate religious order to join, because you are clearly abnormal.

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

This, possibly. I'm a pro-feminist male but to lump consensual "statutory rape" between young persons in with violent rape or child abuse is unfair and counter productive. On the other hand if she said no, fuck him.

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the his high school senior friends knew and told him it was a bad idea. If you can't figure this out you are a sad excuse for a human being.
She was 15 moron.

Re:All bullshit

[jedidiah]

>> The answer is, they were unable to prove that the sex was not consensual. That's not quite the same as saying that the sex was consensual.

> In MRA-land, they're identical.

The presumption of innocence isn't just a "bad idea from MRA-land", it also happens to be the law.

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

so, tragically, i think there's no question that rapes happen, and accusations thereof are often (if not usually) made because an actual assault has been committed. also, i suspect that most people probably know someone who has raped someone else, though they may not actively know that one of their acquaintances has done something so heinous.

anyway... most people are decent, i think, and surround themselves with people they believe to be decent. if someone accuses a friend or acquaintance (someone believed to be decent) of a crime, i think the natural response is to reassess that person, and whether or not they could have done something like that. most times the conclusion will be "no way", because otherwise you'd have had this sort of sketchy feeling about them, and they would not have been a friend.

so, you convince yourself that your friend must be innocent. and from there, all it takes is hearing one anecdote of someone in a similar position being falsely accused, and that'll become your position too. in the case where the crime in question is rape, i don't think the immediate supposition that someone is innocent of the crime is equivalent to misogyny. it's tribalism more than anything.

for this particular case, i have no details, nor have i reviewed any evidence, so can't really say what happened. i am rather bothered, though, by the notion that nonconsentual sexual penetration, of any sort, would be just a misdemeanor. that's really hard to believe.

Re:All bullshit

[Trailer Trash]

He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.

If all the upperclassmen that had sex with underclassmen at my former high school were jailed, probably a third of the school would be behind bars. This is fucking ridiculous.

Yeah, but did the upperclassmen in your school use *computers* to lure those innocent little underclasswomen into their lairs? Yeah, didn't think so. So, as you can see, it's *totally* different!

Yeah.

Re:All bullshit

[nbauman]

The question is not about how many people have had sex by age 18 (or 16), but whether this is really consensual sex in the first place.

While I agree that jail time is almost certainly counterproductive, I completely disagree with the premise that early-age sex is either psychologically or physically healthy behavior. Further, it really is rare that young women are engaging in a fully consensual manner. They may "want" to have sex as a way of "proving maturity," or to be part of the cool crowd, but that's a poor definition of 'consensual.'

A certain overly randy POTUS fired a very well-spoken Surgeon General who had the nerve to suggest that teens would be far better off both physically and mentally if they engaged in autoeroticism. High time we accepted that position and did whatever we can to reduce the societal pressures to have early sex.

The question is not about how many people have had sex by age 18 (or 16), but whether this is really consensual sex in the first place.

While I agree that jail time is almost certainly counterproductive, I completely disagree with the premise that early-age sex is either psychologically or physically healthy behavior. Further, it really is rare that young women are engaging in a fully consensual manner. They may "want" to have sex as a way of "proving maturity," or to be part of the cool crowd, but that's a poor definition of 'consensual.'

Claiming that sex under the age of 17 or 16 is by definition "not consensual" is handing prosecutors a free pass to torment, harass, convict and jail half the teenage population at their total unaccountable discretion.

Sex, starting in the early teenage years, is a normal part of human development. Most of the research that claims that teenage sex is harmful is done by right-wing religious organizations like the Heritage Foundation, who have a long track record of being anti-science. This is global warming for sex.

You have unfortunately been taken in by the right-wing fantasies about the innocent flowers of childhood, the pathology of sex, their atavistic view of guilt, and their belief that they have the right to punish other people for their private life, again at their own total unaccountable discretion (which they don't apply to themselves, for example Josh Duggar or Bristol Palin).

Back in the 1950s, homosexuals were arrested for hanging out in gay bars, teenage girls were sent to reform school for having sex, and abortion was illegal so hospitals were filled with women dying of sepsis from illegal abortions. After the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, including Roe v. Wade (which ruled that the government had no right to intrude in the bedroom), I thought those days were over, but now it looks like a pendulum swing. In the 1990s the same people created the day care child sex abuse cases, and put bewildered people in jail for years (for what turned out to be fabricated charges). And the right wing is banning abortion again, state by state. It looks like you haven't learned the lessons of those days.

Unfortunately there is a lunatic fringe of the feminist movement of people like Andrea Dworkin, who was a lesbian and convinced a lot of people into believing that all heterosexual sex is rape and exploitation of women by men. They'd like to see the issue of teenage sex framed as boys raping and exploiting girls, even if the girls actively want to have sex. There's a whole anti-sex industry that has moved into this issue, with its own fake experts and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation.

I'll go to the scientific literature. Teenage sex is normal, it 's been going on since prehistory, and it doesn't do any more harm than any other normal activity (and a lot less harm than driving, swimming or football). Why is it your business to tell a teenage girl that she can't have sex even if she wants to, or that sex is somehow wrong?

http://psycnet.apa.org/jo

Re:All bullshit

[cellocgw]

No, I'm claiming that a large number of teens get into sex because of peer pressure.

And so long as you're citing medical reviews, please look up some of the work in the last decade or so on development of the frontal lobes and the established physical fact that teens (and in fact up to the late 20s) do not have the capability to make judgements about engaging in behavior which is both pleasurable and risky.

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would apply if it was one long act?

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

MUH SOJINY! Fucking SJWs.

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

They may "want" to have sex as a way of "proving maturity," or to be part of the cool crowd, but that's a poor definition of 'consensual.'

And what would you consider to be consent? If they say they want to have sex, even if their reasons are poor, that is still consent. How can a person know if the other person has poor reasons, you cannot convict people for not being mind readers.

Re:All bullshit

[circletimessquare]

right, got it, it's all make believe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"there is no sexual harassment, rape, or abuse, and all cases of it can be ignored. because i found a retard on tumblr who takes things too far, that's why"

Re:All bullshit

[circletimessquare]

yup. it's like the church pastor who is caught having a gay affair, smoking meth, or committing adultery. a large number of his congregation will deny it, defend him, and attack the accuser. "slut, blackmailer, out destroy a good man because the devil" etc.

welcome to the human condition: too many tribal partisan morons with closed minds who don't want their precious, erroneous, beliefs challenged

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.

If all the upperclassmen that had sex with underclassmen at my former high school were jailed, probably a third of the school would be behind bars. This is fucking ridiculous.

Look up "Age of Consent". It varies state to state. Doesn't matter if it was consensual or not.

If teenager A is 17 and Teenager B is 15 and they fuck but the Age of Consent is 16 in that state, guess what happens to teenager A?

Hint: Statutory Rape. Doesn't matter if they agreed and have a Notarized Contract in front of a billion people and their parents or not.Teenager A is going to be a Statutory Rapist.

Sounds like your HS is giving Penn State a run for their money. Perhaps the phaggat protests too much and the law should look your way? Have you fucked an underage person today?.

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Police and prosecutors care

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that police and prosecutors, in the past, have been willing to enforce a variety illegal laws (violating rights arising under the 9th Amendment) with having something to with sex. Given that the vast majority of high school students have sex, criminalizing that is clearly a violation of rights retained by the people. Similarly, an age difference of a few years should be meaningless in any rational legal system.

Statutory laws that set arbitrary thresholds are always problematic, especially from a legal ethics perspective. There's also the issue of separation of church and state (not just protected under the 1st Amendment, but also a right of the people under the 9th and 10th Amendments), since many of the laws relating to sex ultimately derive from religious values (a point that is clearly shown by differences in how Europe handles these issues). In the land of the free, citizens should individual rights that are at least as strong as those possessed by the people of any modern civilized state.

There is a big difference between criminalizing things and making people take responsibility for their actions.

Many of the former sex-related laws are slowly being revised to be more consistent with rights retained by the people. It follows that the laws in those jurisdictions that haven't gone through revision are illegal. All prosecutions under the former laws are thus invalidated in any jurisdiction that respects the Bill of Rights.

The legal professionals involved in those case should have recognized that a violation of a fundamental rights was involved and the laws they were acting under were invalid, much like those Germans at Nuremberg who did terrible things should have recognized that the laws of their country (that required them to obey orders) were invalid. In both cases we have governments passing laws that fail to take into account the limitations of legitimate government authority, and the people involved had an individual responsibility to recognize that.

It's a lot like the situation with respect to pot: that several states have legalized it for certain uses is more than sufficient to show that a right "retained by the people" (9th Amendment) or "reserved to the people" (10th Amendment) exists regarding such use. This invalidates prosecutions under both federal and state laws with respect to the former laws, in any jurisdiction that respects the Bill of Rights.

It's pretty hard to find jurisdictions that respect the Bill of Rights, unfortunately. That's not a new problem: there are lots of examples in US legal history. Things like slavery, the Jim Crow laws, the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during WW2, abuse of tort law, abuse of copyright law, abuse of patent law, even some elements of property law -- all involve violations of the Bill of Rights. The legal profession is in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the law. Somehow they always manage to keep things in a state that creates a long term artificial demand for their services, a big part of which involves sustaining violations of the Bill of Rights.

Re:All bullshit

[nbauman]

And so long as you're citing medical reviews, please look up some of the work in the last decade or so on development of the frontal lobes and the established physical fact that teens (and in fact up to the late 20s) do not have the capability to make judgements about engaging in behavior which is both pleasurable and risky.

I read those studies. So does that mean people shouldn't have sex until their late 20s, because they can better make risky decisions then?

Teenagers routinely make equally risky decisions, such as following a religion, taking out college loans, joining the military, driving, swimming and playing football. Do you think they should be prohibited from doing all those things until their 20s?

According to Rind, teenage sex is no more harmful than any other activities of daily life. Every situation is different, so the person who is best able to make that decision is the person involved, the teenager. Your sweeping generalizations, like teenage girls have sex because of peer pressure, may not (and usually doesn't) apply to individual cases, so you don't have any right to tell all teenagers not to have sex, or that their consent doesn't matter, just because there is some girl, somewhere, who was harmed by having sex. It's their individual decision.

BTW, according to Rind, the small subset of teenagers harmed by sex generally come from families that follow sexually repressive religions. If you support laws that would prohibit children from being indoctrinated into religion, or entering buildings used for religion, until they reach their late 20s, I would be sympathetic to your argument.

Re:All bullshit

[Raisey-raison]

I completely disagree with the premise that early-age sex is either psychologically or physically healthy behavior.

1. We are all descended from hunter gatherers who had sex as teenagers and then bore children. You imply that the entire genesis of the human race was psychologically and physically unhealthy. We evolved that way, it is the way we are designed. Of course it's healthy.

2. If you look at data looking at the ease of child birth and the health of semen, if is obvious that people biologically should be having children from their mid to late teens to early twenties. Pregnancies are easy in a 18 year old body. By age 30, they are a lot harder. Semen is of a much better quality at age 18 than at age 30.

3. Teens desire sex because nature evolved that way. They are supposed to have sex. They are not supposed to be practicing abstinence. Doing so is psychologically unhealthy!

When I read statements like the one from I quoted from I really think humanity is f@@@ed. No amount of science, logic, data or common sense can help us - saying that teens should not have sex is unscientific, puritanical crap.

Re:All bullshit

[ultranova]

And seriously, I simply cannot comprehend this logic. The (incredibly common) logic used by people like you is based on the following premises:

No, it's based on the idea that women are unreliable, immoral and not really sapient and will thus throw their lover under the bus the second it seems profitable, even if the long-term results are negative.

The "logic" is incomprehensible because society has advanced to the point where saying the main premise out loud is frowned upon. But people can read between lines, so as long as sexism will exist in any form it will always resurface. Dehumanization and discrimination are the two sides of the same ugly thing, after all.

Re:All bullshit

[DarkTempes]

The guy is a scumbag objectifying sexual predator and possibly did rape her but the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty" means that I'm obliged to believe him until proven otherwise. In my mind it is better that some bad guys get away, to get caught another day, than to ruin the lives of innocent people.

If I'm obliged to believe that he's innocent then logically I have to consider that her claim might not be provable. That obviously doesn't mean she has to be lying but it doesn't mean I should flat out believe her either. At least until I hear about convincing evidence otherwise.

Hell, it's the same reason I'm against the death penalty. I don't have an issue with, given current technological limits, killing murderers who can't be rehabilitated.
I do have an issue with the fact that we can't be certain that said murderer isn't actually innocent because time and evidence have proven that sometimes we fuck up and get it wrong and put innocent people to death.

That seems to be pretty much what the jury and prosecution were saying here when they found him guilty of "lesser" crimes that will still probably see his life ruined (sex offender registration, prison time, being a convicted felon.)
It seems to me they basically said, "Well, we can't find him guilty of rape but if I any adult exhibited this behavior then we'd obviously call him a sexual predator and we can use the same laws we would for that."

Now, I could see an argument that teenagers shouldn't be held to the same standards as adults because hormones, brain development, and a lack of experience make them into irrational sexual predators but, personally, I don't buy that.
These kids were systematically luring younger people to have sex with them as part of a competition. At some level they had to know that was wrong.
You don't use people like that and you don't facilitate others to use people like that.
I think everyone proven to be involved in that scheme needs mandatory therapy.

In a perfect world we would wipe the event from the victim's mind and wipe the guy's mind of his behavior and rehabilitate him so that he wouldn't be an objectifying sexual predator and could continue on to be a contributing member of society.
We can't do that though so I don't really know what the right answer is. It seems to me like everyone loses: the victim, the scumbag, and society.

Re:All bullshit

[antdude]

What about many nerds and/& geeks? Me as 1/one with to add to the stat(istic)s who is becoming a 40 years old virgin soon. :-P

Re:All bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir are obviously not familiar with My Part Of The World called Latin America!
Missing an entire continent! Your post is totally wrong. Completely and totally wrong.

You'd be lucky to find a 13 yo virgin of either sex here. And in my city...11...12?
A 15 year old? It's totally OK. AND ZERO SHAME. For girls and boys. Legal age. No stupid math either.
It's totally OK on a cultural level. Especially the newer mums in the last decade or so, give their 13 yo girls condoms, for f*** sake!

OK maybe not in Chile ;) /ducks

Be interesting to hear from someone in Sub Saharan Africa and SE Asia on this. I admit I'm ignorant, and will not pretend to know, nor speak for them.

We Latin@s live for sex and love.

Re:All bullshit

[goose-incarnated]

No, I'm claiming that a large number of teens get into sex because of peer pressure.

That's still consensual. If you want to claim that peer pressure is *coerced*, then you should get ready to jail the coerced teens peers, not the *other* teen they had sex with.

Re:All bullshit

[BobSutan]

This. The girl was quoted in texts that it was consensual and enjoyed their activities and everything was fine. Then her sister, who the boy had a relationship with, found out about them having sex and dragged the girl in front of her parents and police and made her accuse him. This is all by people who know them personally as the sister walked in on the girl in a party talking to her friends about having hooked up with him.

Re:All bullshit

[BobSutan]

Actual studies on the subject have found upwards of half of all rape claims in the US are false.

https://archive.is/at8Uo

https://archive.is/R4TNM

"According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser. ...

Kanin's findings are hardly unique. In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false. ...

According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive. The report notes that these figures mirror an informal National Institute of Justice survey of private laboratories, and suggests that there exists "some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions." (that's 40% for those not counting) ...

That false allegations are a major problem has been confirmed by several prominent prosecutors, including Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.""

The 2% figure feminists often cite is a good example of the Woozle Effect:

https://archive.is/gaqiW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:All bullshit

[metrix007]

You have blinders on in all your posts.

Most people here are simply pointing out that women lie about rape sometimes. And that isn't rape culture, that's just the fucking truth. The FBI has an astonishing number of rape claims that turn out to have been fabricated. Not just unable to prove, but that they found evidence the women were straight up lying.

Every time anyone points out something reasonable you cry rape culture.

People like you are the problem with feminism. You won't be happy until any women who accuses rape is automatically believed and the males automatically convicted.

Re:All bullshit

[metrix007]

He is Australian. They tend not to know much about the rest of the world.

Acquitted

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not an "alleged rapist" anymore, fucktard submitter. He was acquitted.

Re:Acquitted

[Etherwalk]

He's not an "alleged rapist" anymore, fucktard submitter. He was acquitted.

Wrong, on two counts.

First, the person who claims he raped her is still alleging he is a rapist. The state is prohibited from bringing new charges against him, although it clearly could have gotten him on statutory rape charges.

Second, a failure to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not a finding of innocence. A defendant who is found not guilty is not necessarily innocent--he may even likely be guilty. It's just that there is at least some "reasonable" doubt about whether he's guilty.

The victim still alleges he's guilty, and an acquittal has nothing to do with making someone no longer an alleged criminal.

Re: Acquitted

[nofx911]

They couldn't prove statutory rape, since they could not prove he had sex with her. Part of the he said she said, but since she wanted so long to come forward there was no physical evidence they had sex. This is why there was no statutory rape charge.

Re: Acquitted

[nofx911]

Legally no, he is no longer an alleged rapist. As such a newspaper would never print that he is an alleged rapist since they know that they would lose a libel case.

Same reason why OJ was not called an alleged murder in the press after being a quite.

Re:Acquitted

[Anonymous Coward]

found not guilty is by definition innocent, period. That is how a state of justice works

Re:Acquitted

[Etherwalk]

You are wrong.

E.g. https://www.google.com/search?...

Re: Acquitted

[Etherwalk]

Legally no, he is no longer an alleged rapist. As such a newspaper would never print that he is an alleged rapist since they know that they would lose a libel case.

Same reason why OJ was not called an alleged murder in the press after being a quite.

There is no legal definition of "an alleged rapist."

A newspaper doesn't decide what's legal, although they can be risk-averse. Libel is more of an issue because you don't have the guilty conviction, but he would still have to show he was not an alleged rapist in order to win a libel case.

Re: Acquitted

[Etherwalk]

Possibly--I may have overstated the case on the statutory rape; I've only read the secondhand accounts.

Re:Acquitted

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are an alleged rapist, murderer, philanderer, and jaywalker. Welcome to the alleged rapist club.

News at 11

[CrashNBrn]

17-18yo almost has sex with 14-15yo. Faces 6+ years in prison, and must register as a sex offender... as he facilitated the action over a computer.

Re:News at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you hear? You can retroactively revoke consent now. It's all the rage.

Re:News at 11

[Opportunist]

Too bad it doesn't apply to EULAs...

Re:News at 11

[Rei]

Which is, of course, not even remotely true.

Re:News at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just a lie. It can happen, it does happen, and it will happen.

That does not mean it happened in this case, but that has no bearing on the above.

Same for Guns

[Anonymous Coward]

If you sell counterfeit Gucci bags out of your house, and you happen to have a gun in the house, then you have "used a gun in the commission of a crime", and you are now a felon.

Re:Same for Guns

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Hell, if you leave the US with more than $5.00 worth of pennies you can receive up to 5 years in prison. Just for taking the pennies out of the country, no evil intent required, no crime(s) planned...just taking them out of the US is a felony.

Re:Same for Guns

[Etherwalk]

If you sell counterfeit Gucci bags out of your house, and you happen to have a gun in the house, then you have "used a gun in the commission of a crime", and you are now a felon.

The Supreme Court overturned that, for most values of "using a firearm" that don't actually mean "using a firearm." It overturned all 9 circuit courts a few years back when they interpreted "using" a gun in the commission of a crime too broadly. They found it about as ridiculous as you do.

Re:Same for Guns

[Anonymous Coward]

In California, it's a felony for a woman weighing over 200 lbs. to ride a horse wearing shorts.

Re:Same for Guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Who puts shorts on a horse?

Re:Same for Guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Who puts shorts on a horse?

A felon, if it's a 200lb+ woman.

Re:Same for Guns

[Anonymous Coward]

If you sell counterfeit Gucci bags out of your house, and you happen to have a gun in the house, then you have "used a gun in the commission of a crime", and you are now a felon.

The Supreme Court overturned that, for most values of "using a firearm" that don't actually mean "using a firearm." It overturned all 9 circuit courts a few years back when they interpreted "using" a gun in the commission of a crime too broadly. They found it about as ridiculous as you do.

I'd be interested in the citation on that.

Re:Same for Guns

[Bodhammer]

Pictures or it didn't happen...

Re:Same for Guns

[Etherwalk]

If you sell counterfeit Gucci bags out of your house, and you happen to have a gun in the house, then you have "used a gun in the commission of a crime", and you are now a felon.

The Supreme Court overturned that, for most values of "using a firearm" that don't actually mean "using a firearm." It overturned all 9 circuit courts a few years back when they interpreted "using" a gun in the commission of a crime too broadly. They found it about as ridiculous as you do.

I'd be interested in the citation on that.

Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995)

(Although Congress undid SCOTUS's correction to some degree.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

All Americans commit 30 felonies everyday

[Anonymous Coward]

The average American will commit 30 felonies a day without even knowing it.

Re:All Americans commit 30 felonies everyday

[PPH]

"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." - Lavrentiy Beria

It's Rape

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sexual penetration of a child" IS rape, fools. The fact that he wasn't convicted of rape is the real story here.

Re:It's Rape

[Opportunist]

Dude, a 18 year old banged (sorry, ALMOST banged) a 15 year old. It's not like some 60ish geezer locked up an 8 year old girl to sodomize her.

Re:It's Rape

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. People in the jury weren't convinced. But you are.
You didn't hear all sides of the story, you didn't see any evidence but you are ready to condemn.
This is the real story.

Re:It's Rape

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like some 60ish geezer locked up an 8 year old girl to sodomize her.

Nothing at all.

Just saying.

Re:It's Rape

[Anonymous Coward]

But you're not saying anything at all. We would have been just well off, just as well informed, had you not posted at all.

Hundred of felonies each day

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people committ something like 100+ felonies a day.

Re:Hundred of felonies each day

[murdocj]

hell, if you are going to make up a number, lets say most people commit billions and billions of felonies a day.

Re:Hundred of felonies each day

[Anonymous Coward]

I picture Carl Sagan looking up at the sky, eyes filled with wonder...

Is a Cell Phone a Computer?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about a smart phone?
What about a tablet computer?
What about the smart device built into a car?
What about a VOIP telephone?

Re:Is a Cell Phone a Computer?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll change the laws so that instead of "computer" they'll read "electronic device", and someone will need it to be broader so they'll change it to "object whose function is affected by the behavior of electrons". Then someone will get charged with "computer rape" because they undid their own shirt button ("hacked" a device that contains electrons), and only then will they try to figure out how to make the law sane again.

Re:Is a Cell Phone a Computer?

[funwithBSD]

Yes, using technology to commit a crime is now now as bad as using a gun.

Based on the "scary technology == scary technology" transference of properties.

Old prosecution trick

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

This is an old prosecution as old as Al Capone getting thrown in jail because of tax evasion rather than murder. Throw everything at them and hope some of the shit sticks.

Re:Old prosecution trick

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case it may have backfired. The boy denied penetrating the girl, the jury found otherwise. But the girl denied giving him permission, the jury also found otherwise. This computer-based charge may have saved from a full-blown rape conviction because it was a "halfway" sort of charge that may have let the jurors with different opinions come to a compromise

Without it, the jury may have felt they had no choice but to convict him on the more serious charge of rape.

You Insensitive Clod!

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not live in the puritanical whack-o-states of America! Out here is the real world*, where the average Age of Consent is 15 years old, we recognize young adults as being young adults, and do not accept the "you were born a victim because you have a vagina, now kill all masculine men" meme.

*(Does not apply to FemiNazi ruled Sweden or quickly declining Western Europe)

Re:You Insensitive Clod!

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not live in the puritanical whack-o-states of America! Out here is the real world*, where the average Age of Consent is 15

This took place in NH where the age of consent is 16, so I really don't see much of a difference between your sane locale vs. wack-o-states in this regard.

Re:You Insensitive Clod!

[Anonymous Coward]

They actually PROSECUTED THIS CASE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT as crimes against a child. I hope you now understand.

Republicans hate computers

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why they're constantly making more crimes to use them. Constantly. It is impossible to even just use Facebook without committing three felonies. A technology-less future is what the Republicans want for us.

Re:Republicans hate computers

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, dipshit...

This is epic stupid for even slashdot and I'm not even a republican. Please go retroactively douche yourself out of the gene pool.

Re:Republicans hate computers

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats hate computers even more, especially email servers.

Re:Republicans hate computers

[ebvwfbw]

What bullshit. It's Democrats that hate computers, sex. They just say the Republicans are. After all, just look at Clarance Thomas. What a load of crap that was. Woman followed him from job to job and the Democrats cried - sexual harassment - even though even it it were it wasn't illegal at the time. They're the ones up tight, when they want to be. Then afterwards - let's fuck anything living!

Ok, seriously - admit it, it's not a Republican/Democrat thing. It's a bullshit police thing. Yet another way to make us all criminals.

A win for men

[Murdoch5]

Good :-) Believe it or not feminists, it's possible to have sex with man, regret it and it not be rape!

Re:A win for men

[chipschap]

This is not a Politically Correct statement, so obviously you are a woman-hating exerciser of male privilege. As someone above noted, retroactive withdrawal of consent --- even decades later, apparently --- is now the Politically Correct position to support.

Re:A win for men

[Anonymous Coward]

amazing isn't it, it is not only men who can do stupid things regret and just get on with life

Re:A win for men

[Murdoch5]

I can tell if that's a joke or not, but I'll assume it is.

Re:A win for men

[ebvwfbw]

Feminists believe any sex with a man is rape. They have a war on men. There's one running for President right now. Hilary hates men.

Re:A win for men

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I'm both a lesbian and a feminist and I think this is ridiculous. Part of feminism is equality. That means everyone is responsible for their choices. Having sex, regretting it, and then fucking RUINING SOMEONE'S LIFE FOR YOUR REGRET is not taking responsibility for one's choices. Equality cuts both ways. I am as good as any man and I will take as much responsibility for my actions as any man.

Human is human is human. I will be SO happy when this idiot war between the sexes is over and people see each other as PEOPLE, not just sets of genitalia.

Re:A win for men

[chipschap]

It's a joke, son, but unfortunately some people actually think that way.

Re:A win for men

[Murdoch5]

You're exactly right.

Back in the day feminism stood for Women's Right, now they're not even remotely the same concept. Feminism is now the drive to enslave men, stripe there rights, allow them no use of there own bodies and in general suppress them.

On the other hand, women's rights, is a very important movement, because it's attempting to make sure men and women share the EXACT same respect, rights and privilege.

It's sad that feminism is grouped together with women's rights, because they don't remotely stand for the same thing.

Re:A win for men

[Murdoch5]

Feminism is NOT women's rights, just as the MRA is NOT male rights.

Back in the day feminism stood for Women's Right, now they're not even remotely the same concept. Feminism is now the drive to enslave men, stripe there rights, allow them no use of there own bodies and in general suppress them.

On the other hand, women's rights, is a very important movement, because it's attempting to make sure men and women share the EXACT same respect, rights and privilege.

It's sad that feminism is grouped together with women's rights, because they don't remotely stand for the same thing.

Re:A win for men

[ultranova]

It's a joke, son, but unfortunately some people actually think that way.

Do those people by any chance bear an uncanny resemblance to scarecrows?

Re:A win for men

[ebvwfbw]

The thing is, they have it. Being a white guy it's kind of funny to me. Everyone, even white guys think they're being held back or wronged somehow. I'm sure it happens, not nearly as much as people suppose. There are people who thrive on it. In fact, it's their business to feed that. Women are paid 75% of what men are - yea, sure if you use raw numbers. If you use women in that field vs men in a field, not so. In fact, if that's the case laws go clear back to the 1930s so they can sue over it. I get really pissed off when they think they need a new law, they already have it and have had it for decades. Almost 80 years now. They also get away with bloody murder often. A man would have been fired off.... women get to keep their job and continue screwing things up. If they know what they are doing they can go to the top.

There.. now if I can just get my company to stop holding me back, I can get some real stuff done!

Bogus Nonsense

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Does anyone feel safer now that this kid has been prosecuted and faces years in prison, basically for using a computer to contact this girl?

Has this prosecution done any real "good" for anyone, anywhere?

Has anyone been saved, rescued, or protected? Have any crimes been prevented?

"No" to all of the above.

Re:Bogus Nonsense

[murdocj]

Given that the guy committed statutory rape, yeah, this was good. By the way, the meaning of being below the age of consent is that the girl in question COULD NOT CONSENT.

Re:Bogus Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Has this prosecution done any real "good" for anyone, anywhere?

The DA advanced his political career because he was tough on computer crime. The boarding school is better positioned to defend itself against future civil suits because they can point to this case as a case in which they didn't cover up the behavior.

You don't really think the welfare of either of the victims actually matters here, do you?

Re:Bogus Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

DID you actually read the article. No you did not. If you had you would not have made so many stupid statements in a row.

Re:Bogus Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

He was 17 when the act occurred so he could not consent either. They raped each other but only the male got in trouble. Just like drunken sex. If any bit of alcohol means females lose the ability to make decisions for themselves, why doesn't the same apply to males?

And no, it was not good. If you still believe the guy is a rapist and should be behind bars, then he should be there for the raping not because he used a computer to contact someone.

Re:Bogus Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you're as curious as I am how many unprosecuted rapes the GP has committed were statutory.

Re:Bogus Nonsense

[nbauman]

Given that the guy committed statutory rape, yeah, this was good. By the way, the meaning of being below the age of consent is that the girl in question COULD NOT CONSENT.

You are denouncing normal human sexuality. Prosecutors are putting boys in jail for exercising normal human adolescent sexual activity.

26% of females have intercourse by age 15.

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org...

What are you going to do? Put half the teenage boys in jail?

You really ought to think through your COULD NOT CONSENT. It makes no sense.

Re:Bogus Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

... COULD NOT CONSENT.

According to the law, she's always a victim. Just like one can't shoot you according to the law (although self-defense can be claimed in some US states). The difference: Most people don't want to be shot and most people do want to fuck: Declaring her a victim doesn't change that.

By the way, the male was minor and couldn't legally consent either. Please get off the soapbox until you complain how HE was the victim.

Re:Bogus Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

he did not commit statutory rape though, they did not charge him with it.. two teens can provide consent to fuck, its when an adult gets involved that its statutory.

Re:Bogus Nonsense

[sjames]

Actually, he did not. He was within 4 years of her age.

Re:Bogus Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone feel safer now that this kid has been prosecuted and faces years in prison, basically for using a computer to contact this girl?

Has this prosecution done any real "good" for anyone, anywhere?

Has anyone been saved, rescued, or protected? Have any crimes been prevented?

"No" to all of the above.

If there is any justice the woman will be plucked off the street by Hells Angels and put to work on the street. Then she can file rape claims for the remainder of her life.

once again proving that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again proving that rule of law only applies to the "little people."

I remember seeing on CNN that some 19 years old (who was 18 at the time of offense) was convicted as a sexual predator/pedophile for having engaged in intercourse with a 16 years old (who freely admitted in the court that the sexual intercourse was consensual and that she lied to him about her age when he inquired before they engaged in intercourse) Now the guy will have to spend rest of his life as a registered sex offender.

Re: once again proving that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. That's statutory rape. You can't possibly claim you never heard of that before.

Felonies in general need to be tightened.

[Firethorn]

Personally, I think that the term 'felony' has lost too much of it's meaning. Back in the day, it was used to describe a crime where the death penalty could be used.

Today, it's generally used to describe anything that could be punished by a year or more in prison. Not that you are, just that you could me.

Personally, I'd change it up slightly. It wouldn't be a felony UNLESS you are actually sentenced and serve a complete year in prison for it.

I thought about having a fine equivalent - something like $12k, but then thought, no, I don't want to give the courts the incentive to fine people $12k simply to put them in the felony category.

Keep in mind that part of this desire to restrict the felon status is because it comes with a relatively large amount of restrictions on your rights.

On the other hand, I'm not against considering you a felon if you manage to stack up a year of imprisonment non-sequentially. A month here, 2 months there, half a year for X, 3 months for Y, and you're a felon. Though, again, it would have to be for 'non-bullshit' reasons. Bullshit reasons include 'didn't pay court mandated fees because they tossed you in jail long enough to lose your job, then gave your unemployed self 30 days to come up with $3k'.

Should the computer thing be a felony? Probably not. We have plenty of felony level things we can sentence people for in the course of 'sexual misbehavior' without making 'used a computer in the commission of' one of them.

Re:Felonies in general need to be tightened.

[ebvwfbw]

Should have re-read what you typed one more time - there's a typo.

You're right, felonies should mean you did something real bad. They often assign a year or more for essentially nothing. You can get hit with that sexual offender thing for just peeing in the bushes and getting caught. Really? That's BS.

What happens when the legislature has nothing better to do.

Re:Felonies in general need to be tightened.

[dryeo]

Felonies are a Mid-Evil concept that every country (excepting America and Nigeria) in the world got rid of, generally in the 19th century. The idea of having a class of citizens who permanently have their rights infringed perhaps made sense in a feudal society when things like inheritance were important.
Now a days, a Judge sentences you, once the sentence is finished, the person should be able to rejoin society.
Where I live, a Judge has to remove your privilege of owning firearms, and they only do it if you did something stupid with a firearm, not for having a joint. Sex offenders have to be purposely put on the list by a Judge. People pissing in the bushes are not put on the list. Once your sentence is totally finished, employers are generally not allowed to discriminate. (there are exceptions where it makes sense not to hire former criminals).
Personally I find the idea of having a class of people who are officially segregated for life disgusting and not the mark of a free country but rather the opposite.

Re:Felonies in general need to be tightened.

[Anonymous Coward]

Felonies are a Mid-Evil concept

You lost me there. One of us is clearly an idiot.

Anyone else hate the misuse of entitlement?

[cyber-vandal]

If I want to have sex with a woman, it's not because I feel entitled to her body, it's because I want to have sex with her. There's no conscious "engage the patriarchy" moment, it's a purely instinctual thing.

Re:Anyone else hate the misuse of entitlement?

[Anonymous Coward]

and if you wake up and regret that you had sex with the wrong women after a few too many drinks you don't yell rape, you take it as lesson that maybe you should take a bit more slow with the shoots

Re:Anyone else hate the misuse of entitlement?

[nbauman]

If I want to have sex with a woman, it's not because I feel entitled to her body, it's because I want to have sex with her. There's no conscious "engage the patriarchy" moment, it's a purely instinctual thing.

Oh, come on. Don't you want to suppress women? That way we can hire them for less money and they won't complain about cleaning up the bathroom.

Re:Anyone else hate the misuse of entitlement?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want to have sex with a woman, it's not because I feel entitled to her body, it's because I want to have sex with her. There's no conscious "engage the patriarchy" moment, it's a purely instinctual thing.

Oh, come on. Don't you want to suppress women? That way we can hire them for less money and they won't complain about cleaning up the bathroom.

A hooker every night is still cheaper than wife for even a single day.

Old news

[dirtyhippie]

Already saw this on nambla news.

An Xbox One is a computer

[Anonymous Coward]

So is a smart phone....

Greedy lawmakers need to be stopped NOW.

Re:An Xbox One is a computer

[Calydor]

In today's world, does anyone have ANY of their friends or acquaintances whom they have never, EVER, contacted over a computer of some sort? I seriously doubt it.

I guess this means ...

[PPH]

... "Hey baby. Wanna see my hard drive?" is off my pickup line list.

Re:I guess this means ...

[phorm]

Would've been more impressive if it was at least a 5.25" rather than a 2.5" variety anyhow...

Sucker, next time spend a weekend in Europe.

[citizenr]

15 is a legal age in many European countries, for example Poland.

Re:Sucker, next time spend a weekend in Europe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlikely to be caught, but that's still illegal.

Re:Sucker, next time spend a weekend in Europe.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's legal for me to give you a million dollars in any country. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, buddy!

Re:Sucker, next time spend a weekend in Europe.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a US citizen, it is illegal to do things in other countries even if they are legal in those countries if they are illegal in the United States. We are bound by both US law and the law of the country we're visiting. If he traveled to another country to do that it would be an even more severe charge because I'm sure they have some extra charges about crossing a border, and god forbid he used the internet to book his flight they'd probably give him the chair.

Burying the Lede

[Anonymous Coward]

The article buries the lede: sexual penetration of a child is a misdemeanor?!

Feminist outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

For comparison, Molly Shattuck, 48, will report every other weekend for a total of 48 weekends for committing the same crime.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0822/Molly-Shattuck-sentencing-Is-48-weekends-for-rape-too-light-a-sentence

Oh, and she won't be forced out of her house where her children reside like most males are.

I expect feminist outrage demanding equality before the law any moment now.

how are all these people raping?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you rape someone wouldn't your victim just hunt you down and kill you in retaliation?

Legitimacy of 'using computer' offences

[Anonymous Coward]

The original question posed is whether we 'really should be making it a felony to use a computer for non-computer-related crime when there is no underlying felony for conviction'?

I believe that a legitimate objective of the law is to dissuade the commission of crimes by those that would otherwise be disposed. The legitimate end, then, of 'using a computer' crimes would be to address situations where the use of a computer may be favourable to other means.

To use your own example, I believe that it entails substantially more risk to procure a child for sexual offences in a public location (eg coffee shop or school) than in an online chat room. The reduced probability of being caught in a 'using a computer' offence means that to apply an equivalent level of disincentive, then the penalty would need to be higher - so a new crime, with a new penalty. So in general, I think such measures are justifiable.

The caveat here is that the circumstances need to justify them. I must admit I initially thought that they should in relation to sexual offences against minors. Upon further reflection, perhaps not. If you are genuinely desirous of providing more balanced disincentives, then targeting such offences purported by family members would be VASTLY more justifiable, since this is by far the most signifant contributing factor on rates of reporting.

It is also worth considering that rates of recidivism for sexual offences (including against minors) is relatively low. This suggests, albeit very inconclusively, that sexual offenders are (relative to other types of offenders) not so influenced by the associated penalty, and that rehabilitation is actually effective.

Nerd culture == rape culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Nerds are *all* wannabe rapists. Their whole "subculture" (if you can call spending habits a "subculture") is rife with chauvinism, disrespect to women and a sense of entitlement that - strangely - seems to be rooted in the social rejection they experience every day, and with good cause. Nerds fantasize about humiliating and raping women, all the time. Their sexual frustration makes them all the more unhinged and vehement. Unable to satisfy his urges, his violent instincts only contained by his own cowardice, the nerd can only get a release of sort in the ersatz computer "world". This makes it only more urgent to police the internet in order to deny the nerd his last refuge.

Re:Nerd culture == rape culture

[Anonymous Coward]

-- Nerds are *all* wannabe rapists

Are you implying the boarding school is full of elite wanna be rapists? Because that's the culture discussed in the trial.
I think you've got your wires mixed up.

parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

People have children - they bring a life into this World without its consent. Then at some arbitrary age, it is get the fuck out - you need to make your own way now.

What a shitty deal! And when I hear these putzes say idiotic shit like "the gift of life", I just want to do them a favor and take their 'gift' away.

I will never forgive my parents.

douchebag poster

[Anonymous Coward]

so you're in FAVOR of rape as a behavior since it was the underlying YET somehow not a felony crime...

The Patent office showed us that doing X with a

[Anonymous Coward]

computer is a completely new thing. Things like "turning the page of a book with your finger." Totally new.

So if luring a minor with a computer is a new thing, how do we know it's bad? Also the defendant clearly messed up by not filing for a patent!

Clarity

[Etherwalk]

Let's say it all together: Acquittal doesn't mean that the accuser lied. Just like in the vast majority of cases, rape is incredibly hard to prove. If they felt there was evidence that she lied, rather than insufficient evidence to prove "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", then they would be trying her for making false charges - which, computer used or not, is usually a felony.

Regardless, I won't consider justice "blind" until "she consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standard as a robbery defendant's claim "he consented to give me the money" - as an affirmative defense / defense theory.

Rape is easy to prove. If a woman or man is raped get themselves to a hospital for a rape kit. Then file charges and the police can obtain a warrant for DNA sample from the alleged rapist. No match? No charges filed and no record allowed. Any false reports filed should result in a criminal record for the liar.

Actually, NO. You are completely wrong. A huge portion of rape is date rape. In order to prove rape you don't just have to show DNA. There also has to be a lack of consent.

You also have the problem of mixed-messages, where without a clear standard of "what is necessary to show consent" it is *very* common to have two people have sex together where one thinks it's rape and the other doesn't. This is usually because a woman might feel like she already has said no by some protest which seems equivocal to a guy and he doesn't realize it's her saying no. If you aren't *clear*, then the result can very easily be rape according to her but not according to him.