Deserved Sentence?
 

In Michigan a few years ago a Michigan man had sex with a with a girl under the age of consent (under sixteen) and got her pregnant.

He has to file with the sex offenders registry and is facing forty years in prison. Although she did claim the sex was consensual, the age of consent means that anyone below that age cannot legally give consent.

I know some of the women on this site are pretty militant about these types of issues so I figured you would be happy about this.

Do you guys feel that sex offenders, men that have sex with "under the age of consent" should face serious prison time?

I understand the "age of consent" stuff and the intent behind it, but sometimes I think it gets carried a bit far.

Do I think that the man in your story should go to prison for 40 years? In a word, no (but then, as a criminal defense attorney, I rarely think that ANYBODY should go to prison for 40 years). However, I would need more facts to be able to say what I think his sentence should be. Was the girl 12 and the guy 50? To me, at least, that is different from a girl being 15 and a guy being 18. I think that it is a waste of state resources to be prosecuting 18 year olds who have sex with 15 year olds.

Statutory Rape is that just that, statutory. Its on the statues (laws) being the same thing as rape. But it usully is consenual. The age of consent in my state is 18. In Denmark es vierzehn ist. (14)

Legal sex is 14 . . . In Denmark eh?

Re: Deserved Sentence?
 

Well, I think it's unfortunate that there has to be any such law on the books but it's obviously there for a reason. There has to be some middle ground. A 19 year old sleeping with a 17 year old shouldn't be persecuted, but a 45 year old who does should be. I think the law is too black and white the way it is written and needs to amended, but I also think the law serves a purpose.

Re: Re: Deserved Sentence?
 

I don't understand why anyone would think that a 45 year old man having consensual sex with a 17 year old is evil?

Isn't that showing a lack of tolerance?

In many countries, no that would be perfectly normal -- and even encouraged. But we're talking about the USA. Laws should reflect the culture of the country that they govern. Here in the US, it's a generally accepted thing that a 45 year old should not sleep with someone who is 17, 16, 15, etc.. It is generally accepted that people at this age do not have the experience to make fully enformed decisions about their reproductive life.

In our society pregnancy at these ages can be a very costly mistake for the young woman.

Re: Deserved Sentence?
 

He should face time but not serious time. Anytime a female gives consent for sex it should not be considered as rape. IMO this is more of a moral issue than a legal one.

It depends on how old he is, or how much older than the girl he is. I agree that we prosecute too many 18 year olds for having sex with 15/16/17 year olds. The law needs to be looked at, and maybe put a "years apart" stipulation in. If he is over like 25 he should probably be locked up. No one over the age of 25 needs to be "dating" someone that young (in this case under 16).

"statutory rape" and age differences
 

I've looked at the age-of-consent and other sexual assault laws of several states since I started law school three years ago. It seems to me that these are very difficult lines to draw, and states have come up with different ways of stating the rules and different ways of handling some of the hard questions.

Some states do account for proximity in age in prohibiting what is commonly called "statutory rape." Take Colorado, for example, where different rules amplify or remove punishments for consensual sexual conduct between people of certain ages. For example, it appears on a quick reading of the statutes that in Colorado, statutory rape has not happened if there is consensual sexual activity in which the 'victim' is 15-17 years old and the age difference is less than 10 years, or if the victim is less than 15 years old and the difference is less than 4 years (though in my mind the latter provision opens up what I think are some kinda creepy possibilities -- but other laws directed at child abuse may still apply to those situations, I don't know).

The relevant statutes are all linked off of this page. See Colo. Revised Statutes 18-3-402, 18-3-404, 18-3-405. They may not be up to date. I don't know how other statutes might apply to make the same sort of activity possibly illegal legal, but they might and in some cases surely do.

This is one of the articles dealing with the situation in question . . what do you think?

DADS MADE INTO SEXUAL PREDATORS

by James Novak

On June 24, 1997, Kevin Gillson appeared in the court of Judge Wolfgram in Ozaukee County courthouse to receive his sentencing for the statutory rape of Stephanie Domiani. Kevin, 18, had last month been found guilty of felony sexual assault against Stephanie, 15, in a matter of consensual sex between them. They had been planning to marry. Judge Wolfgram was facing multiple pressures from the community, national and local media, the jury who found Kevin guilty at the trial, and protesters. The judge had given such limited jury instructions that Kevin could only be found guilty. Judge Wolfgram did not inform the jury that they have not only the right, but the duty to pass judgment, not only on the facts of the case, but on the law. A jury has a right to vote their conscience.

After the jury found Kevin guilty based on limited instructions from the judge, they immediately signed a letter to Governor Thompson asking that Kevin be pardoned. Gladys Ebert, one of the jurors said, "We were commanded (by the judge) to find him guilty. We didn’t know that we could have found him not guilty. We did our damage not knowing the penalties." One of the penalties is that Kevin must now register as a sexual predator for child sexual abuse.

The sentencing hearing began by a long unrepentant statement by Sandy Williams, the District Attorney, who brought the case. She insisted on the stereotypical "Stephanie is a victim" while "Kevin is a felonious criminal." She put all responsibility for what had happened on Kevin. As District Attorney, Williams has been on the defensive. Everybody seems to be angry with her from comments by sheriff's deputies about wasting taxpayer money on their overtime pay to common citizens openly stating in the crowd that she lacked the professional judgment to be in her job. The feeling was such that when District Attorney Williams exited the courthouse, the large crowd composed equally of men and women booed her. When Kevin came out, he was cheered. Dave Howard who described himself as a friend of the families of the victims, stated, "There were no victims except those created by the state."

District Attorney Williams insisted that 15-year-old Stephanie was only a child and cannot give consent. If this is true then how is it that Stephanie can have an abortion without parental consent? Let’s see if I understand this correctly. Stephanie at 15 is not old enough to consent to having sex, but is old enough to determine if a fetus shall live or die! District Attorney Williams and the state of Wisconsin lack credibility in their logic.

Sandy Valenvia, Kevin’s aunt, sat next to me in the courthouse during the sentencing hearing. She told me that Kevin is a typical teenage kid. Schools should be teaching the boys that they are legally endangered when they date younger women in high school. Instead they teach safe sex to the youngsters and give them condoms. Why didn’t District Attorney Williams indict the school as a co-conspirator? The crux of the problems is that our society and perhaps nature itself pairs young men with younger women by 2-4 years. This is not a problem when people are in their 20’s or 30’s. As the judge stated, the problem exists when these teenagers are in the same peer group. The population who are entrapped by this legal charade are junior and senior young men who are 18 and dating, as society expects, freshmen and sophomore young women.

How did District Attorney Williams ever get into this fracas which will probably eliminate her from ever holding another politically elected office? Stephanie became pregnant and with the consent of both parents to marry, Kevin and Stephanie were spending many hours planning for their marriage. Given their age there was much to plan, but they were trying as best as they could for their age to work out a plan. At the pre-sentencing trial what came out was that Stephanie and her mother got into an argument, which appeared to Kevin, to have gotten out of hand. He called the police because he feared the fetus would be harmed. The police came and took a report which, eventually, led to Kevin being summoned to face felony sexual assault charges from District Attorney Williams. At the first hearing, District Attorney Williams immediately created havoc in the lives of Kevin and Stephanie by asking the court to issue a no-contact order. Judge Wolfgram lacked the wisdom to anticipate the damage the restraining order would cause, still he granted it. Plans for marriage or care for the future baby came to a halt with the issuance of the no-contact order. Their pastor, Rev. George Jorenby, testified to the court, that after the no-contact order, counseling stopped and no further mutual plans for care of the child could continue. Gillson quit school to get a job so that his wife and child would not be on welfare and so that there would be health benefits for the child.

There has been about 580 cases where young men like Kevin have been prosecuted under this state law with all the cases being settled by the young men copping a plea with probation. But two things changed here. The State of Wisconsin has passed its own Meegan law in which by copping a plea, Kevin must register as a sex predator and sexual child abuser wherever he lives. Kevin did what no other young man has done and entered a plea of not guilty. By doing so, he essentially put the statutory rape law on trial when it involves young people within the same peer group. What District Attorney Williams did not anticipate is that the community would turn on her for failure to use common sense. Kevin decided he is not and would not enter a no-contest, admitting that he is a sexual predator, because he was not and is not. His attorney, Doug Stansbury, cleverly took the case to the media. The power in his tactic is that every parent, mother or father, with a teen male in high school understands that their child is vulnerable to this law which is defective in dealing with those of high school age.

Kevin’s mother testified that she has spoken weekly with Stephanie and that Stephanie did not want to face the media at the sentencing hearing. She stated, "that Stephanie wanted the judge to lift the no-contact order and not order any jail time for Kevin." She also reported "that Stephanie felt that she had been cheated by the state’s actions."

In and outside the courthouse, Nicole San Felippo, who described herself as Stephanie’s best friend, filled in details that the law did not permit to be admitted as evidence at the trial. She said that, "Stephanie had told her that she would tell guys that she was 17 and she had slept with many guys who were over 18 years old." Oh, my god, Port Washington is contaminated with a city full of sexual predators! If the jury had been told this additional information about Stephanie’s sexual habits, and that Kevin was still willing to marry her, they might have begun to judge him St. Kevin. It now appears paternity may become an issue! Due to the no-contact order, Kevin does not know if Stephanie and he will marry. He has agreed to take responsibility for the child, but the events precipitated by this trial have wreaked havoc in many people’s lives.

Kevin was sentenced to two years probation. He must go to counseling and parenting classes as a condition of probation and pay for court costs. Judge Wolfgram encouraged him to return to school to get his high school diploma and ordered that if Kevin did so, his child support order would be 100 hours of community service. This sentence was reasonable, but could have been avoided by the judge dismissing the charges from the start or giving the jury more expanded instructions on their rights and duties. The judge explained that there was nothing he could do about Kevin having to register as a sexual predator and child abuser. He will have to give DNA samples to the police in any community in which he lives. America has not gotten over its neuroticism on sexual matters. While the registration law addresses a problem of recidivism among child abusers, the wrong it creates is worse than the problem to be corrected. Our system of government is based upon conviction and cleansing by punishment. Because of the U.S. Supreme Court Decision of June 22, 1997, released child molesters can now be placed in mental institutions for the rest of their lives. Well, if they are mentally ill, then why are they ever placed in jail? Why are they not given treatment in jail? People in Port Washington are both aghast and amused by Kevin being called a sexual predator. They know this to be just so much nonsense.

When District Attorney Williams came out of the courthouse with seven guards surrounding and protecting her, we know it was she who needed the protection. Kevin Gillson walked out of the courthouse accompanied by his loving family who has stood by him throughout this ordeal. One person in the crowd shouted out at District Attorney Sandy Williams, "You are the predator who has victimized these two young people."

It’s tough to be a responsible dad even when you try!

I'm a feminist, and I don't think these laws necessarily do women any favor.

Part of the reason for these laws is that frequently they are used to prosecute men who have committed non-statutory rape, but for whatever reason it's impossible to prove. So he will be prosecuted for statutory rape.

In my view this is a case of poor judgment by the prosecutor and a great waste of judicial and penal resources. Prosecutors have such vast discretion because we expect them to use it wisely and spend our resources on people who are a threat to the public safety.

Ivy

You just pissed me off. If you were the one raped, you wouldn't say that. If a 40 year old decides to have sex with a 17 year old, he should "face time but not serious time"? Do you have ANY idea how this affects the victim? There's a REASON why the age of consent is 18. What if the girl didn't say yes, but she didn't say no because she was too scared? The man takes that as a yes, because "OBVIOUSLY" not saying no means yes. But the girl didn't want it. Why would she? IT IS RAPE. And it's ILLEGAL. Why the **** would a 40 year old be interested in a 17 year old? Does that seem normal to you?! That man is a pedophile and deserves to be locked up. This affects the victim for the rest of her life, and he should be punished so that he can suffer just like she is suffering. And no, it is not a moral issue. There is nothing moral about this. It's illegal, and that's that.

^^I'm totally in love with your name, but you sound like you have issues. :confused:

Dionysus clearly referred to a girl who gives consent, not one who does not say anything. Your argument blows totally off-base.

Please note that she said "if she gives consent." Consent given = not rape.

I agree that these rape laws do need to be examine because they end up wasting alot of resources that could be used toward prosecuting actual sex offenders.

I think these laws deserve to be there, but they should be reasonable (allowing a certain age range). They should also be taught in public schools and be widely available on government documents, etc.

The reason for this being the fact that young girls (and men) could possibly be intimidated by men (or women) into saying they consented or vice versa.

There has to be a line because at the end of the day young girls (and more recently men) are often preyed on by older members of society. And some of them simply do not have the experience to truly advocate for themselves. It's such a tough issue because it's hard to know what is going on in the mind of a person that young, they may admit consent and then take it back the next day due to insecurities or emotional issues. It's so complicated.

But I definitely think if you're old enough to be in the same school together and interact with each other on a daily basis (within a normal limit, no flunked 21 year olds with 14 year olds!) then you should be allowed. I guess that is a basic start. But beyond that it turns into a mess.

Where to start...

Who says she's a victim? The law, which we are debating in this thread.

Whoa there. You cannot place the blame on someone else here. If a woman DOES NOT SAY NO, then SHE WAS NOT RAPED.

Not saying no definitely doesn't mean no.

She didn't want it THEN or she doesn't want it now that it's fashionable to cry date rape?

Only if she says no is it illegal.

Sorry, but have you looked at a single 17 year old lately? 90%, if not more, have the ability to look like they're in their 20s. Pedophilia (being attracted to underdeveloped children) definitely is not in effect here. As little as the early 1900s, it was normal for people to marry at 16 or 17. It's only recently that we've decided they're too young.

And...it IS a moral issue, because when a young woman does not say no but ALLOWS (yes, allows) a man to have sex with her and then later decides she didn't want to do it, she is ruining the life of a man (young or old) who did nothing wrong.

According to your twisted logic here, every time someone has sexual relations with someone else the man must ask the woman, "Can I get a verbal agreement that you want to have sex?" What if after this happens, the woman later says, "I changed my mind halfway through...I didn't tell him, but I did. He raped me!" That would never work...because how was the man expected to know?


Sorry to make this so long, but the whole 'rape fad' that's been going on lately really pisses me off. I feel like far too many lives have been ruined by the premise that "the woman in the rape case is automatically a victim". This basically says that the man is automatically guilty, like in the article posted on the first page of this thread. I don't think that most date rape is actual rape - I think that a lot of women, due to moral and societal pressure, feel guilty or awkward for having slept with a man and try to get around that by saying, "I didn't really want to do it...he made me!" This really hurts women - and men! - who WERE legitimately raped, because it makes people (yes, like me) question them when they deserve to be believed. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell, because it's almost always he-said she-said. Making a ridiculously large number of sexual interactions into rape only mocks the victims who were raped, and that's terrible. Get real, people - it's not always rape just because she says it is.

Actually, at least in NJ, body language inferring no means no; it does not have to be verbal. This applies to any sexual victimization, not just rape.

Can you cite the law? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I find it hard to discern body language as saying no clearly (minus the obvious fighting, like kicking or biting or punching, of course).

That kind of seems like a cop-out, by the way. Not on your part, but on the woman's part.

I can't personally. I had a contemporary women's class this semester taught by a woman on our campus who runs the Women's Center, runs the confidential hotline on campus and also works with the county rape crisis hotline. She knows what there is to know.

Frottage, for example. A guy comes up behind a girl in a club and starts dancing with her in a way that has non-consensual sexual touching. If she pushes him away or moves away from him, this is seen as a no. It's taken into consideration as this atmosphere has loud music, and verbal conversation is not as clear as physical.

No can really be made clear if that's what you want to get across. I agree that just saying it can be simpler, but body language is still taken into account.

Lol, you guys are debating the rape issue. The victim was under sixteen, i.e. 15 or under, and I am going to make an assumption (don't jump all over me), he was probably way beyond 18 because he got 40 years. He definitely deserved some time... BUT FORTY YEARS... I can go murder someone and get less. I know that rape is traumatizing and effects her for life, but 40 seems severe. That better have been one awesome vagina for that big of a price to pay.

Right. I would agree that that is a clear 'No'. But body language is not always clear...and it's one of the 'gray areas' that can be turned against an innocent person.

This has nothing to do with liberalism. Liberals are the ones who usually make these. Unless they're made by conserveatives. At anyrate, it's not wrong just because you say so.

Not to mention that it puts a woman into a victim mentality when she would be much better off if she would say "he was an asshole, but I was responsible too, I screwed up, I'm going to move on."

Not to mention that it makes ALL male/female interactions a walking on eggshells proposition.

I could talk about this for days, but I won't.

As far as the age of consent...if the girl says it was consensual, believe her. You can't say that you believe someone age 8 when they say their parent abused them, and then turn it around and say that a 16 or 17 year old is lying about consensual sex.

Good point 33girl...rock on! (just kidding)

So, if the underage girl in question is a prostitute, is it still rape? I mean, really, consensual sex is consensual sex. As long as no one is being forced or coerced, then I don't see why it matters. Some 14-yr-olds can make up their minds better than some 30-yr-olds ... :rolleyes:

Just to throw something into the mix: what about the teenagers who grew up in polygimist families, and find that normal? Should that whole mess be thrown out, because they consented?

And just an afterthought: When I was in high school, because of the whole statuatory rape law, we were told continually to avoid relationships with guys in college if we cared for them.

The polygamous cults set up the marriages, that's a pretty proven thing. If you don't get to pick who you're sleeping with that's not consensual no matter what your age is.

Actually - and let's be sure that I'm not in agreement here, I'm just throwing this out - if you look at other polygamist families, like the Green family, each of his wives wanted to marry him. And, they were under 15 at the time.

Arranged marriages can be consensual. Of course this isn't always the case, but if both parties WANT an arranged marriage, then what's the problem?

so I guess I should also say....if you choose not to have the choice, it is a choice. I feel like I'm going to fly up my own butt. :p

At any rate...I just don't think you can compare the cults to the above situation that goes on in normal society. Once the girl turns 18, and the guy is 41, then magically it's fine? I think that's a little silly. Is that normal for most teenagers? No. But I don't doubt that some of them definitely have the upper hand in the relationships...regardless of age.

If you love me, you'll let me go *echo*...go...go. :D

33girl, you rock in stereo. :cool: