Is it "rape" or a May/December romance?

[Seth]

What I want to know is WHY did the girl commit suicide? I have a very strong suspicion that she killed herself BECAUSE her love affair with the teacher came to light and destroyed HIM. Nobody has reported on exactly how the relationship came to light, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if this was an ongoing consensual relationship that was inadvertently revealed and then jumped on by the authorities because of the age of the girl, who then blamed herself (as the instigator of the relationship) for the consequences her lover was certain to face. That's the only reason I can see why the judge would have done what he did, and I'm betting all of that information is in the interview tapes that the authorities are keeping secret.

This appears to be a case of presuming harm to the "child" that never actually occurred in order to maintain the state-mandated fiction that youngsters of 14 are incapable of consenting to sexual activity. We know this is not true because if she'd been screwing another 14 year old, nobody would be going to jail. But because the "rapist" (statutory rapist) was 47 the "ick factor" statute makes the (to me unconstitutional) presumption that he abused his position of trust to force the girl to do something that she would not have otherwise done. This fails to take into consideration the fact that the 14 year old may have known perfectly well what she was doing, desired to do it, and in fact instigated the relationship in order to get what she wanted.

Should the teacher have known better and declined the relationship? Yes, but 20 years in prison for having entirely consensual sex with a 14 year old who is old enough to have sex with a peer without any risk of prosecution does seem to be "cruel and unusual punishment" which is why, I suspect, the judge did what he did.

I don't think this was a case of "rape" at all, it was not a malum in se act, it was purely a malum prohibitum one.

Crime
Montana Appeals Teacher’s 30-Day Prison Sentence for Raping 14-Year-Old Girl
Nov. 30, 2013 10:26pm Dave Urbanski

Story by the Associated Press; curated by Dave Urbanski

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — The Montana attorney general’s office on Friday asked the state Supreme Court to throw out a 30-day sentence given to a teacher who raped a 14-year-old girl, saying the punishment was illegally lenient.

The state formally filed its arguments in the appeal of the highly criticized sentence for Stacey Rambold, who was released from Montana State Prison in September.
Montana Appeals Teachers 30 Day Sentence for Raping 14 Year Old Girl

Stacey Rambold stands in the courtroom Monday after sentencing by Judge G. Todd Baugh. Rambold received 15 years in prison, with all but 31 days suspended, for sexual intercourse without consent. He will also get credit for one day already served. (Credit: Paul Ruhter / Gazette Staff)

District Judge G. Todd Baugh sparked outrage when he commented in August that victim Cherice Morales was “older than her chronological age.” Morales killed herself before the case went to trial.

The judge later apologized and said his comments were based on videotaped interviews with Morales that have not been publicly released.
Montana Appeals Teachers 30 Day Sentence for Raping 14 Year Old Girl

Montana District Judge G. Todd Baugh reads a statement apologizing for remarks he made about a 14-year-old girl raped by a teacher in Billings, Mont., Wednesday Aug. 28, 2013. But Baugh defended the 30-day prison sentence given to the teacher as appropriate. Credit: AP

The state argues the child was not legally capable of consent and that the judge’s sentence was illegal.

The brief argues the minimum legal sentence would have been two years in prison. But prosecutors said they still believe a sentence of 20 years in prison, with 10 years suspended, would be appropriate.

Baugh relied on a different section of the same law cited by prosecutors when he gave the defendant 15 years with all but 31 days suspended and a one-day credit for time served.

Rambold’s attorney, Jay Lansing, has not responded to repeated requests for comment on the case. His office said Wednesday that he had no plans to do so.

The attorney general’s office said Rambold’s sentence should be vacated and remanded for sentencing.

Prosecutors said that “there is no legitimate hypothetical that allows blame to be placed on a 14-year-old student who has been victimized by her 47-year-old teacher.”

Recently, several advocacy groups asked the Supreme Court to be allowed to file supporting arguments in the appeal. They argued they can provide expertise in legal and social advocacy for women’s rights.

The judge’s statements reflected “stereotypical, prejudicial, and generally false beliefs regarding sexual assault,” the groups say.

Rambold has registered as a level 1 sex offender, meaning he’s considered a low risk to reoffend. He will remain on probation through 2028 unless the original sentence is overruled.

[Hermit]

...this was an ongoing consensual relationship...

With which part of the "age of consent" legislation do you have problems of comprehension? A 14 year old may well want to have sex with their teacher, drive a car and vote in an election. I think there are a good number of reasons why they are not allowed to in the latter cases, and why the former case is regarded as statutory rape.

[Blind groper]

The USA 'age of consent' at 18 is crazy. Different nations have different ages, ranging (in the western world) from 13 to 18. 18 is ridiculously high. How many people are naive enough to think that young people will wait to 18 to have sex, because that is the law?

In my country, it is 16, and I think that is probably too high. Lots of kids are bonking merrily well before that.

Admittedly, a 47 year old man having sex with a 14 year old gal is just plain wrong. But not 20 years in prison wrong. Nor 30 days. I would say about 12 months in prison would do it.

[Seth]

...this was an ongoing consensual relationship...

With which part of the "age of consent" legislation do you have problems of comprehension? A 14 year old may well want to have sex with their teacher, drive a car and vote in an election. I think there are a good number of reasons why they are not allowed to in the latter cases, and why the former case is regarded as statutory rape.

Well, that's rather the point, are there good reasons, and are there exceptions to the rule, or should there be?

In this case it's pretty evident that the judge found sufficient mitigating circumstances to find the guy guilty, sentence him and then suspend almost all of it. The guy is still a convicted felon and registered sex offender. Is putting him in prison for 20 years just?

Again, I want to know WHY the girl killed herself. If she killed herself over remorse because she caused the affair and couldn't face the consequences that her lover would have to endure because of her misguided love then the statutory rape law that provides for such draconian penalties with no hope for mitigation is as, or more responsible for her death than the affair is.

If the guy had been facing a lesser penalty, perhaps one that would not deprive the girl of her love forever, because when she turns 18 they can be together again...like Mary Kay Letourneau and her now-husband...perhaps she would not have killed herself.

But we won't know if the cure was worse than the disease unless and until we can find out why the girl killed herself. I simply don't believe that any judge would do what this one did unless there were overwhelming mitigating circumstances involved, which leads me to the belief that the DA intended to crucify this guy and is willing to lie about what actually went down in order to smear him even further in the eyes of the public...and the appeals court.

If there was no actual "rape" and no actual coercive force or abuse of authority and no actual physical or emotional harm to the girl, was the result (a dead girl) really what society wants or needs, or is this more sending of messages at the expense of a young life?

I think this is a valid question to ask, particularly given the fact that the girl was both sexually mature and was authorized to have sex with a man, just not one X number of years older than she, or one engaged in Y profession. As I said, if she'd been screwing a classmate none of this would have happened, and I don't necessarily accept the argument that it was necessary to produce this particular result in order to keep the peace and deter actual rape or sexual abuse.

[JimC]

There is a reasonable argument that penalties in situations like this should be higher for teachers and other people in positions of authority, since they are likely to exert forms of domination and control due to their position. Even if this was not the case in a particular situation, the harsh penalties should still apply "pour encourage les autres"...

[Seth]

There is a reasonable argument that penalties in situations like this should be higher for teachers and other people in positions of authority, since they are likely to exert forms of domination and control due to their position. Even if this was not the case in a particular situation, the harsh penalties should still apply "pour encourage les autres"...

But shouldn't the state have to prove that such domination and control was actually used in order for a defendant to be guilty of the crime?

[Trinity]

I think what's pertinent for me here is that the man was a teacher, in a position of trust and responsibility. It is quite common for young girls and boys to develop infatuations and or sexual feelings for a teacher and it is the teacher's job to give an emphatic "No".
The girl could have ended her life due to bullying/shame. Other kids can be bastards in situations like this. She may have been unable to face going back to school, because of repercussions.

[Seth]

I think what's pertinent for me here is that the man was a teacher, in a position of trust and responsibility. It is quite common for young girls and boys to develop infatuations and or sexual feelings for a teacher and it is the teacher's job to give an emphatic "No".
The girl could have ended her life due to bullying/shame. Other kids can be bastards in situations like this. She may have been unable to face going back to school, because of repercussions.

Yes, that's the danger, but shouldn't the law allow for the exceptions to the rule...like Mary Kay Letourneau and her husband, who by all accounts are very happily in love despite her being in prison for seven years (which is way less than a male would have gotten in exactly the same situation with a 13 year old girl...).

What if it's not an "infatuation?" What if it's true love?

After all, in the not too distant past the age of consent for marriage was as low as 12 for a girl and 13 for a boy.

Yes, the girl could have been ashamed, but I think we ought to know what drove her to suicide before making judgments, which I think is what the judge actually did.

[Trinity]

I'm actually wondering why there isn't full disclosure of all the facts in this case, is it because the girl was a minor?

[Seth]

I'm actually wondering why there isn't full disclosure of all the facts in this case, is it because the girl was a minor?

Was. She was a minor. She's dead now so her privacy is a moot point and justice for the defendant takes precedence. Clearly the information exists in the court record, it's just being kept from the public and I want to know why.

[FBM]

I vaguely recall something on the BBC website a week or two ago in which a prominent female lady person in teh gummit suggested that the age of consent be lowered there to 14, and that statutory rape without violence should be treated differently from violent rape of an underage child. I sort of remember that she made some good points, though I could not commit to her conclusion. As for me, I think we should look to science for an answer, not politics or any anachronistic source of morality.

[pErvinalia]

Didn't read everything. But the law is probably more about protecting minors as a general rule, than being about any specific case. That is, it's considered so important to send a message that it is NOT ok to have a power relationship with a potentially vulnerable young teen, that even if it was fully consensual (although, that's even a grey area the younger a person gets) society can't allow that sort of thing. I know that's going to get your Marxism hackles up, but fuck, what doesn't these days?

[Hermit]

...a prominent female lady person in teh gummit suggested ... that statutory rape without violence should be treated differently from violent rape of an underage child.

Like this? vvvv

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896159-2,00.html

Girl, 10, 'probably agreed' to sex

By Tony Koch and Padraic Murphy
December 10, 2007 12:10am

Nine men who pleaded guilty last month to gang-raping a 10-year-old girl at the Aurukun Aboriginal community on Cape York have escaped a prison term, with the sentencing judge saying the child victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them.
Cairns-based District Court judge Sarah Bradley ordered that the six teenage juveniles not even have a conviction recorded for the 2005 offence, and that they be placed on a 12-month probation order.
Judge Bradley sentenced three men over the age of consent of 16 - aged 17, 18 and 26 - to six months' imprisonment, with the sentence suspended for 12 months.
Because the 28-day appeal period has expired, the sentences cannot be altered.
Judge Bradley said from her Cairns home yesterday that she considered the sentences "appropriate" in the case because they were the penalties asked for by the Crown prosecutor.
"I am not in a position to comment and I refer you to my sentencing remarks," Judge Bradley told The Australian.
Family supporters of the child victim warned that violence and murders could follow the judge's decision not to jail any of the offenders, and they questioned what message the ruling sent to the community.
When sentencing seven co-accused on October 24 at Aurukun, Judge Bradley noted: "The girl involved was not forced and she probably agreed to have sex with all of you."
The four juveniles are aged 14 to 16 years. They and the adults come from some of the most prominent and powerful Aboriginal families on Cape York.
Two more juveniles pleaded guilty on November 6 to raping the child, and were also given probation with no convictions recorded.
The child victim, now aged 12, does not enjoy the elevated family status of her attackers, and has had to be removed from Aurukun and put with foster parents.
News of the non-custodial sentences has added to the violent hatreds that exist in Aurukun between families and tribes and which have played a part in recent brawls involving dozens of assailants, many armed with sticks and spears.
Queensland Attorney-General Kerry Shine said last night hehad called for an urgent meeting this morning with state Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare, who, it is understood, was not told of the submissions made by her prosecutor for non-custodial sentences for the rapists.
Mr Shine said he needed to receive a clear picture of the circumstances surrounding the sentencing, including the prosecutor's submissions.
"I have been made aware of this tragic event this afternoon and have had an opportunity to read the sentencing remarks," Mr Shine said.
"I'm truly horrified by the circumstances of these offences. The circumstances of this case have not previously been brought to my attention, and nor has there been any communication with my office with regard to an appeal.
"Rape, particularly of a 10-year-old girl, by numerous offenders, is to my mind horrific in the extreme.
"It therefore appears to me that what I consider to be a particularly lenient sentence needs explanation."
One of the adult rapists, Raymond Frederick Woolla, 26, is on the Australian National Child Offence Register following a conviction on March 29 last year for unlawful carnal knowledge of a female child - an offence committed after he was charged with the rape of the 10-year-old girl.
Judge Bradley said Woolla was the oldest and should have known a lot better.
"You cannot have sex with anyone under 16," she said.

"However, as I said before, I am not treating anyone any differently in terms of being a ringleader, and in your case, again, I will impose a sentence of imprisonment but it will be wholly suspended so you do not go to jail today.

"But if you get into more trouble in the next year, you could end up in jail." Woolla had been arrested on August 7, 2006, and the judge said the 14 days he spent in custody awaiting his sentence was to count as "imprisonment already served".

When sentencing the juveniles, Justice Bradley said: "All of you have pleaded guilty to having sex with a 10-year-old girl and (one of the juveniles) has pleaded guilty to having sex with another young girl as well.

"All of you have to understand that you cannot have sex with a girl under 16.

"If you do, you are breaking the law, and if you are found out, then you will be brought to court and could end up in jail.

"I accept that the girl involved, with respect to all of these matters, was not forced, and that she probably agreed to have sex with all of you.

"But you were taking advantage of a 10-year-old girl and she needs to be protected, and the girls generally in this community need to be protected.

"This is a very serious matter.

"It is a very shameful matter and I hope that all of you realise that you must not have sex with young girls.

"Anyone under 16 is too young.

"Some of you are still children yourselves.

"Others of you are adults but I am treating you all equally in terms of the behaviour.

"I am not treating any of you as the ringleader or anything likethat."

She asked each prisoner to stand up and said she hoped they would realise it was wrong to have sex with young girls.

Justice Bradley then offered them probation and when each agreed to accept that, she said she would not record a conviction.

To one of the juveniles, she said: "You are still a child. You have pleaded guilty to one offence of rape.

"You have been in a lot of trouble in the past, though, and you still have some community service to do.

"You have not been doing that well. I am prepared to offer you probation but you have got to stick with the rules of probation."

The juvenile agreed and was then placed on 12 months' probation, with no conviction recorded.

[FBM]

No, the thing I saw was British and related to some old fart, now-dead TV celeb whose name I can't come up with right now.

Edit: My memory is fucked. Here's what I was trying to remember: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

[Audley Strange]

She killed herself for the same reason she started a relationship with her teacher, she was an teenager enduring the emotional turmoil that being such entails, which to me puts paid to any idea that somehow 14 years is an acceptable age for sexual consent. Being animals we can't stop sexual activity in younger folks, however being humans we know the costs and ramifications of such in our society and thus should make very clear to both adults and teenagers that the legal age is there for a reason, despite any rationalisations some may make in order to get their jollies.