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