Guess the state!

[theweaselking]

Her MySpace says she's 19, divorced, and looking for no-strings sex.

Her 22-year-old lover is going to prison, because she's lying, she's actually 13.

Bonus: He's not the first guy to be fooled. And not the first to go to jail.

Guess the state!

Comments

[glitteringlynx.livejournal.com]

That state is really fucked up, isn't it.

[reyl.livejournal.com]

Anyone who can't tell the difference between an 18 year old and a 13 year old deserves what they get. Sorry.

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

Did you see the photo? She looks nineteen. The fact that the mistake happened twice puts the lie to your claim.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I know some pretty damn immature 18-year-olds, behaviourally, and her *body* looks like it could be 18 in the pictures.

But, then, I've never been happy with statutory rape laws. I understand the *need* for them, but that doesn't mean I have to like the execution.

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

Could the defense not take screenshots of her MySpace page - and her claims of older age - and submit them to prove that he was deceived?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/]

What don't you like about statutory rape laws?

[crazy-alexy.livejournal.com]

My sister is 15, and can pass for 17 if she puts her mind to it.

It's really not difficult if you've got the body for it.

[reyl.livejournal.com]

But seriously, how do this girl's parents even let her USE the internet, or go out at night??

[harper-knight.livejournal.com]

Did you notice that her dad admitted she still stays out late and still hasn't deleted the myspace page (ie. her parents still let her go out late, and haven't made her delete her myspace)? She's put two guys in jail, and her parents don't even attempt to control her.

[reyl.livejournal.com]

I did, and it's horrible. It's sad that these guys lives are messed up from this. It's really sad that this kid's parents can't be bothered to take care of their child. Think of the damage that this is doing to her!

I have trouble understanding that these guys honestly thought she was over 18. Even if she LOOKED 18, no 13 year old is that good of an actress. But still, I think this girl should be in boarding school or something. Since her parents clearly can't (or won't) control her. She needs to be protected from herself.

[geminiknight.livejournal.com]

That's insane...even more insane is that her parent's are more or less just shrugging and not doing a damn thing about it. If ever a kid was in need of a beating...

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

Not the kid.

The PARENTS.

The parents need to be taken out back and beaten with a stout iron rod for not doing their fucking jobs.

[rosethornn.livejournal.com]

This is depressing.

[catlin.livejournal.com]

the guys should sue her parents for allowing her to commit fraud knowingly. It is something in KS that you can end up paying out the nose for... and they can proove the parents knew she was doing it.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Sweet gods of mercy, surely there is enough grounds to take this child into care? A 13 year old is lying about her age, soliciting strangers for sex and getting the imprisoned and her parents are doing nothing to intervene?

[goaltender.livejournal.com]

I don't know what sort of services they have in Florida, but here in Arizona, my experience is that Child Protective Services isn't too interested in citizens...

Besides, she's thirteen and has already established a pattern. I don't think a foster home can help her and it will very, very difficult to find adoptive parents for her. She needs professional help (or the iron rod mentioned above) now.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/]

It's a shitty situation, but he broke the law.

Just because you didn't mean to, doesn't mean you didn't break the law.

13 year olds (obviously) do not have sound judgment and that's why we have statutory rape laws in place.

The judge should do something like take away her internet privileges and order court-mandated counseling so she can understand this cause-and-effect thing, but she shouldn't go to jail because she didn't break a law.

The 22 year old's sentence should be reduced because of the mitigating factors surrounding this case, and I do believe he shouldn't be put on the national sex offender registry, but I'm not okay with establishing a precedent for "Well I didn't know so I shouldn't be charged with statutory rape."

[publius1.livejournal.com]

This analysis of the situation is over-the-top simplistic.

[reyl.livejournal.com]

I don't think the judge can punish the girl, since she is not on trial. However, I think it is entirely realistic to charge the PARENTS with something. Perhaps contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or negligence of some kind. Especially if they knew she was going out for sex, or posting online for the purposes of getting some.

[drjamez.livejournal.com]

If it can be shown that the initiator is underage, the underage should suffer. (If a 5 year old holds a bank up with a gun, that 5 year old is still in trouble... why not with other laws?

If it can be shown that the initiator is legal-aged, then that scumbag gets what he/she deserves.

AGAIN, if the initiator is underaged... and it can be proven as such... so be it. Youth carries with it a certain liability with "intentioned-yet-uninformed" decisioned making ideals. FUCK, folks, if a 14 year old hasn't gotten the "adults can be bad people - vans with "free candy" written on the side aren't always driven by good people" speech... well, really, its both the perv AND the parents' responsibility! Otherwise, we leave the responsibility solely in the hands of those who DAMAGE kids... and that's not right. Parents who cannot or will not teach responsibility to their children are no worse than the molesters out there. (Yes, I said it. Parents need to be PARENTS, for fuck's sake.)

Fuck entrapment. Fuck child molesters, of course, but FUCK ENTRAPMENT in those cases where entrapment is legally provable.

- James -

...who detests child+adult sex, yet also detests areas where a "matured" child somehow uses their advancement in such a case to overcome normal judgment.

[reyl.livejournal.com]

The problem is that then the victim goes on trial. Considering how "she asked for it" is such a pervasive mentality in above-age trials, it's nice that underage victims don't have to deal with that. Even if they were the initiators. The whole point is that the underage don't have the legal ability to consent, even if they can and do initiate.

I would rather here about occasional rare cases like this, where a man was "fooled", than have every child have to prove that they didn't "ask for it".

[http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/]

I just want to point out that most people who abuse children live in the home with the child or are close acquaintances of the child's family. So...it's not vans with "free candy" written on the side that are doing most of the damage.

Wow...

[chrisrw109.livejournal.com]

There are any number of interesting notes on this case:

1) Intent is legally considered the trump of almost everything legally. So if you shoot someone you think is alive, you get attempted murder even if the body was already dead. From that standpoint, this guy really didn't do anything wrong (although... umm... just passed 18? Ask for ID).

2) The *only* reason this guy got caught? Is he had a concern for the 13 year-olds well-being and went to her dad. He doesn't do that? He doesn't get charged.

3) The parents knowing their daughter is a (*insert expletive here*) have made no attempts to rein in her behavior despite the precedent now of her inducing *two* people to commit a crime.

4) Anyone arguing that the girl is innocent or shouldn't be punished is an utter fool. The girl is well aware that what she's doing is wrong... if she wasn't she would not be using false pretenses to get the men in question to sleep with her.

5) This is the ultimate proof that 'statutory rape' laws are dangerous in their absolutism. Age is really a horrible indicator to use to determine someone's maturity level in general, and specifically in these cases we've seen many many many many cases where people have permanently ended up on the Sex Offender Registry list, for life for making what was at *WORST* a mistake, with no ill intent.

And before someone raises the 'But then how do we protect the children, are you saying it's okay for anyone to sleep with anyone' the answer is, no. But you can protect children the same way you protect mentally handicapped adults. You prove that they're not of sound mind to consent to sex, thus making it rape... that is after all the *INTENT* of statutory rape laws to say that, categorically, these people are not capable of consent.

(The ultimate example of this, taken to absolute extremes are the cases of young incredibly intelligent kids who graduate college at 15 or 16. What barometer tests whether they are or are not emotionally and intellectually capable of consent).

6) The fact that the parents didn't get locked up, is a travesty of justice.

Re: Wow...

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Intent is legally considered the trump of almost everything legally.

Almost! See also, the discussion above on the definition of strict liability offenses!

Re: Wow...

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Also:
You prove that they're not of sound mind to consent to sex, thus making it rape... that is after all the *INTENT* of statutory rape laws to say that, categorically, these people are not capable of consent.

The problem with THAT is that you've just put the victim on trial, as the defense throws everything they can to prove that she DID know what she was doing, that she DID consent, and that she's TOTALLY capable of making that decision on her own.

Which, in a case like this, is okay.

In a lot of other cases, not so much.