15-year-old raped in court: Rapist gets probation, teen gets 12 mo

Remove all ads!

I agree. If you're over 21 in NY, it's 3rd degree rape if you have sex with someone who is under 17, but not under 13.

 

That's kind of the point I was making - statutory notwithstanding specifically (maybe that was a bad example), I always assumed that there was just plain rape, not good guy rape or mentor rape or I-might-actually-do-it-myself-sometime-ha-ha rape or anything less than totally reprehensible rape. But as Aldeth points out, the state of NY at least does not appear to think so. Even if we're going to have degrees, wouldn't you think the technically 'least serious' would qualify for, I don't know, a miminum of 7 years in prison or something like that?

 

I would disagree with you here on a technicality. I do not see how a 21 year old and a 17 or even 16 year old having consensual sex is anywhere near as bad as a person forcing themselves, violently, upon another adult or adolescent. The second is emotionally scarring and severely harmful to a person's psyche in nearly every single case. The first does not have to have any negative connotations at all (though it can).

There should definitely be a difference of punishment with varying degrees of 'rape.' Rape has been expounded to include too many different acts while still evoking the same response of "Filthy dirty bastard deserves to rot in prison or die." (Two intoxicated people, one intoxicated person, being one day under the age of 18, being one day over the age of 21, etc.)

If we say that every person proven guilty of rape with knowledge of wrongdoing under the law should be sentenced to three consecutive life sentences, would you agree?

Give the hypothetical 17 year old and 21 year old who have been dating for a little over a year (met when they were 16 and 19) who are entirely happy together. They treat each other with respect and the 17 year old has thought thoroughly about the consequences of sexual intercourse. A parent finds out that sex is occurring and reports it to the police; under NY law this is rape. They knew they were doing something wrong and can't complain too loudly about mild punishment for not waiting a year, but should the 21 year old be sentenced to three consecutive life sentences?

My answer is no. They were foolish yes, but should not be punished to the same degree as those who take advantage of people unable to consent due to physical inability or people who violently force the lack of consent. If we are going to call all of these scenarios rape, we need varying degree of punishment.

To make this very clear, I do not endorse any kind of non-consensual sex, including age related non-consent. I am fully in support of waiting for legal age, not having sex with drunk people who are not in full control of their ability to consent, and so forth. But I do think that statutory rape between anyone over 16/under 22 is far far different than violent forced rape.

 

... or non-violent rape for that matter (where the victim sees his or her best chances for survival in not resisting). Lack of resistance doesn't make it voluntary.

 

I agree with you one hundred percent. A display of violence or force normally must be made in forced rape: grabbing, shoving, pushing, pinning or otherwise. However, in cases where no display of violence is shown, perceived violence is just as violating and forceful as actual abuse. I would have been more accurate if I had said rape with the threat of violence (though one could argue that the act of any unwanted sex is violence in itself).

 

I've been out of contact for a while, so I'm just catching up here, but my mind immediately jumps to a possibility (for the 12 months) I haven't seen mentioned so far. What if the girl wasn't completely innocent in the assault? What if it was a reprisal for something she had done earlier? What if it was gang related, with her being in one of the gangs. Don't think of her as an innocent kid, but as a complete punk who (almost) wound up on the right side of the law for once. Suddenly, her not talking is both understandable and not pitiable. Now, I'll be the first to admit that that is making an assumption or two, but it is a possibility. It would also fit with the extra two years tacked onto her sentence. As has been stated, people can get extra time for nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but they can also get extra time for committing more crimes while in prison.

As for the rape, as has been stated, it may not have been rape, so much as a really stupid decision made by the counselor (maybe the girl though he could put in a good word for her in trial, and he didn't). Again, this is an assumption, and a big one in this case, but it is both fitting with the facts (rape in the third degree) and the sentence.

Mind you, I'm not dismissing the possibility that this was just one horrendous screw-up in terms of the criminal justice system, but I am saying that's not the only possibility. It is possible that things went exactly as they should have.

 

So you admit that the police are corrupt. Thanks.

Which is why that police officer smashes their face into the pavement. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Cop apologists are so funny.

 

Maybe in your mind, but it certainly doesn't "fit" with me. Nevertheless, he pleaded guilty to rape, at least that's how they taught me to read:

Maybe he peaded guilty to "raping her," but he didn't really "rape" her, yet legally he confessed to "rape." That means he filed a false report, or lied to the police. In that case he should have gotten 12 months just like Ashley. Anyone who would suggest something else has an agenda.

Yep, Mordea, you got that right. But isn't it reassuring that we are "a nation of laws instead of men?"

 

He plead guilty to Rape in the Third Degree, if I have my facts correct. Rape in the Third Degree, in this case, covers statutory rape, which a voluntary sex act would be. Again, the facts fit my interpretation of things, though I'm not claiming it's the only possibility.

 

Really? They ALL agreed to his advances? Doesn't make sense to me, unless he is the irresistible force of some kind.

 

T2 is far from being anything even remotely close to a "cop apologist." Read his post again. Nowhere in it does he argue that excessive force from police officers is justified -- he merely acknowledges that it will inevitably happen from time to time and that only a fool would give an officer an excuse. I'd like to think that most officers aren't looking for any excuse to escalate, but I agree with T2 that it's better to be safe than sorry.

 

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

You might be surprised what someone facing prison might do to avoid prison. Then again, now we're getting into the whole 'is rape by deception really rape' argument again.

... you need to put on your glasses and get your ears checked. That's a Mac truck, buddy.

 

So now this has gone to being a conspiracy plot to avoid prison? As long as you don't let the facts of the case disturb your ideas, anything is possible.

That seems to be the point that some of us have been trying to make. Maybe the finer point is just what that "time to time" really means.

As a side bar, I believe the word "respect" was mentioned. Sorry, but I don't have any "respect" for cops that can't obey the laws they are supposed to enforce.

 

Neither do I, but I'm not going to require that an officer prove to me that he isn't one of "those" cops before I give him any respect. That there are bad apples within the police department is inarguable, but there are also bad apples in the postal service, the military, and even our clergy. This doesn't mean that all postal workers "go postal," that all sailors and marines rape Okinawan women, or that all priests are pedophiles. We don't require our servicemen to prove to us that they aren't rapists just because they are in the service and we don't ask priests to prove to us that they aren't pedophiles just because they are priests. Sure, there is corruption in our police department; there is corruption everywhere. That doesn't mean that police are as a rule corrupt anymore than it means that postal workers as a rule shoot up their workplaces when they get stressed out, or that catholic priests as a rule molest children.

 

On first approach, I would think that most people would show respect for the badge. I'm not trying to be didatic like some are being here, but even encountering a bad cop, it is better not to provoke him. But that doesn't mean he is entitled to respect.

 

Chandos, showing a decided lack of respect is generally a bad idea when dealing with anyone in a position of authority. When that person also has pepper spray, a baton, and a handgun simply showing respect (for the badge, the uniform, or the weapons) is usually a smart move. I've never said I automatically respected the person, but the position (being an officer of the law with all that entails) must be respected.

mordea: You just don't get it.

 

I would think, for someone in that position, given a desire for such an encounter and a willingness to engage that desire, figuring out that little detail wouldn't be hard. Hell, it's practically a cliche in modern crime dramas.

Aside from that, care to cite any of these 'facts' you keep mentioning? Maybe a pre-sentencing report, or more details of the case? As I've already shown, all the facts of the case, as far as I know, fit my theory as well as they do the theory that the entire criminal justice system is corrupt and out to screw little girls

 

NOG's theory theoretically (redundancy intentional) is possible. This is not to say that NOG is correct, but I believe that the whole point is that we don't know what happened. Maybe all of the sex was 'consensual,' as NOG is saying and the only crime was that they were underage. The severity of that crime under the law where this man was punished is much less than forcefully or threateningly having sex with an unwilling someone. This man's punishment surely fits NOG's hypothesis, but again, we do not know what happened and so we do not know what severity of charges this man faced. Therefore, we do not know if his punishment was just (under NY law) or unjust.

 

That's just nonsense. But if that's really your opinion, you are entitled to believe whatever nonsense makes you feel better. I suspect you know much better than that, but you stepped right into this steaming pile of dung and you just can't free yourself.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...een_sex_case_judge_blasted.html#ixzz121bbjr5o

We do know what happened and you know it. I hate to comment on what I believe is the real point of this lame excericse in absurd futility, but I'll be honest with you, apologizing for a rapist by blaming the victim is disgusting, at least in my book. If you wish to cotinue bleating on about "how we don't know," suit yourself, but I suggest you read a little closer.

Let me be forward here, no where does any of the information above idicate that the sex was consenual. He pleaded guilty to forced assualt. I hope that you and NOG both understand that I am unmoved by your attempts at vile misdirection. Personally, I find such attemps revolting and more than dishonest.