Slashdot Mirror
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?
... 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.
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.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
"...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.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Exactly. Prosecution has been doing this sort of stuff for years. Move along, nothing here to see...
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Not to be mistaken for Quiverfull... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
expunged, too, i'll bet.
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.
It shouldn't be either. Arrows go in quivers, not bows.
Someone's got it confused with "another string to your bow," most likely.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What about a smart phone?
What about a tablet computer?
What about the smart device built into a car?
What about a VOIP telephone?
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.
hell, if you are going to make up a number, lets say most people commit billions and billions of felonies a day.
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.
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.
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.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Bows and arrows should be just as protected under the 2nd Amendment as firearms are.
Unless they're nuclear tipped arrows, of course.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I picture Carl Sagan looking up at the sky, eyes filled with wonder...
"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." - Lavrentiy Beria
Have gnu, will travel.
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?
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.
I don't read AC A human right
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.
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.
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.
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.
Except one of them was legally an adult. You don't just get the benefits of adulthood without any of the responsibility.
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
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
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
I can tell if that's a joke or not, but I'll assume it is.
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.
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
Basically, like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
Already saw this on nambla news.
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
15 is a legal age in many European countries, for example Poland.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
You are wrong.
E.g. https://www.google.com/search?...
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.
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
Possibly--I may have overstated the case on the statutory rape; I've only read the secondhand accounts.
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.
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?
It's a joke, son, but unfortunately some people actually think that way.
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.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 you actually bother to read a thread before responding?
Oh really?
So witness testimony is worthless in your opinion?
Please justify why you think such an opinion is worth consideration.
...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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Do those people by any chance bear an uncanny resemblance to scarecrows?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.)
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!
It's quoted. What do you think the testimony of a witness is?
But a witness is not an accuser, is he/she?
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.
Quite frequently depending upon the testimony. Use that brain instead of a dictionary.
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.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
You are a very confused person.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.