Owen Labrie, Harsh Penalty for shagging 15 yo, He was 18

[Delta4Embassy]

Both horny teenagers

Sounds like a parental/school oversight issue to me.

I think at a point the law needs to step in, but imposing a life sentence is harsh. Teens having sex is a slap on the wrist issue and should be treated that way. This offends the sense of justice most people have.

Forcible Rape is no joke even if teens are the ones involved. Stat Rape is bullshit. Forcible Rape isn't.

 

[Anathema]

I think at a point the law needs to step in, but imposing a life sentence is harsh. Teens having sex is a slap on the wrist issue and should be treated that way. This offends the sense of justice most people have.

The law needs to step in but it's the families responsibility to twach them properly. If I'd been having sex as a teenager I'd have needed the Law to protect me from my parents: consentual or not.

 

[westwall]

Did the girl say "no".

No she didn't. There sex was mutual. The judge's position was that the girl wasn't mature enough to know what she was consenting to.

Did you actually read the article?

When you call someone stupid you should make sure you understand the proper usage of the English language there bucko. It is "THEIR", not "THERE".

You're excused.

You're comparing a typo to not know what rape is?

You missed this part of your own link didn't you....

And you're the one who claimed I was stupid, then made a fundamental error in the usage of the English language. I was merely pointing out the ironic nature of your post. I am sorry if it bothers you so much.

"Judge Lawrence Smukler said he rejects Labrie’s defense argument that the jury found the teenagers had consensual sex."

I called you a self-righteous ***** as well as stupid for your agreeing withe the absurd comment about it being 'rape, pure and simple'. Nothing?

What the hell do I care what you call me? The judge rejected the claim that it was consensual. That means it wasn't statutory rape. That means it was just plain old rape. The fact that you too are an imbecile who doesn't understand the English language is on you. Not me.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Both horny teenagers

Sounds like a parental/school oversight issue to me.

I think at a point the law needs to step in, but imposing a life sentence is harsh. Teens having sex is a slap on the wrist issue and should be treated that way. This offends the sense of justice most people have.

Forcible Rape is no joke even if teens are the ones involved. Stat Rape is bullshit. Forcible Rape isn't.

Tell West while licking his boot. He's the one saying the boy committed "plain old rape".

 

[Meathead]

No she didn't. There sex was mutual. The judge's position was that the girl wasn't mature enough to know what she was consenting to.

Did you actually read the article?

When you call someone stupid you should make sure you understand the proper usage of the English language there bucko. It is "THEIR", not "THERE".

You're excused.

You're comparing a typo to not know what rape is?

You missed this part of your own link didn't you....

And you're the one who claimed I was stupid, then made a fundamental error in the usage of the English language. I was merely pointing out the ironic nature of your post. I am sorry if it bothers you so much.

"Judge Lawrence Smukler said he rejects Labrie’s defense argument that the jury found the teenagers had consensual sex."

The judge argued statutory rape, not "plain old rape". And the fact that the jury agreed that the sex was mutually agreed to speaks louder than a judge saying he knows better. The jury nullified and judges hate juries that do that. **** em.

"Owen Labrie, a former New Hampshire prep school senior, was found not guilty of raping a 15-year-old freshman, but guilty of lesser charges, including misdemeanor sexual assault. Labrie broke down in tears as the judge read out one of the guilty charges. The jury found Labrie, 19, not guilty on three counts of aggravated rape, guilty of three counts of misdemeanor sex assault, guilty of a Class B felony for using a computer to lure the victim, guilty of endangering a child and not guilty of simple assault"
St Paul’s rape trial: Owen Labrie breaks down as mixed verdict read

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 632-A
SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 632-A:4
632-A:4 Sexual Assault. –
I. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor under any of the following circumstances:
(a) When the actor subjects another person who is 13 years of age or older to sexual contact under any of the circumstances named in RSA 632-A:2.
(b) When the actor subjects another person, other than the actor's legal spouse, who is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age to sexual contact where the age difference between the actor and the other person is 5 years or more.
(c) In the absence of any of the circumstances set forth in RSA 632-A:2, when the actor engages in sexual penetration with a person, other than the actor's legal spouse, who is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age where the age difference between the actor and the other person is 4 years or less.
II. A person found guilty under subparagraph I(c) of this section shall not be required to register as a sexual offender under RSA 651-B.
III. (a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person engages in sexual contact or sexual penetration with another person, or causes the person to engage in sexual contact on himself or herself in the presence of the actor, when the actor is in a position of authority over the person under any of the following circumstances:
(1) When the actor has direct supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim by virtue of the victim being incarcerated in a correctional institution, the secure psychiatric unit, or juvenile detention facility where the actor is employed; or
(2) When the actor is a probation or parole officer or a juvenile probation and parole officer who has direct supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim while the victim is on parole or probation or under juvenile probation.
(b) Consent of the victim under any of the circumstances set forth in this paragraph shall not be considered a defense.
(c) For the purpose of this paragraph, "sexual contact'' means the intentional touching of the person's sexual or intimate parts, including genitalia, anus, breasts, and buttocks, where such contact, or the causing of such contact, can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the person in the position of authority, or the humiliation of the person being touched.
IV. Upon proof that the victim and defendant were intimate partners or family or household members, as those terms are defined in RSA 631:2-b, III, a conviction under this section shall be recorded as "Sexual Assault--Domestic Violence.''

Source. 1975, 302:1. 1985, 228:5. 2003, 226:5; 316:7. 2005, 290:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006. 2008, 334:14, eff. Jan. 1, 2009. 2010, 223:2, eff. Jan. 1, 2011. 2014, 152:8, eff. Jan. 1, 2015.
Section 632-A:4 Sexual Assault.

Trust me. few people are less impressed with the dumbing down and self-righteousness of America, but law is where these things must end. Those are not the basis for laws.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No she didn't. There sex was mutual. The judge's position was that the girl wasn't mature enough to know what she was consenting to.

Did you actually read the article?

When you call someone stupid you should make sure you understand the proper usage of the English language there bucko. It is "THEIR", not "THERE".

You're excused.

You're comparing a typo to not know what rape is?

You missed this part of your own link didn't you....

And you're the one who claimed I was stupid, then made a fundamental error in the usage of the English language. I was merely pointing out the ironic nature of your post. I am sorry if it bothers you so much.

"Judge Lawrence Smukler said he rejects Labrie’s defense argument that the jury found the teenagers had consensual sex."

I called you a self-righteous ***** as well as stupid for your agreeing withe the absurd comment about it being 'rape, pure and simple'. Nothing?

What the hell do I care what you call me? The judge rejected the claim that it was consensual. That means it wasn't statutory rape. That means it was just plain old rape. The fact that you too are an imbecile who doesn't understand the English language is on you. Not me.

His argument was EXACTLY statutory rape, the legal philosophy that underage children are not mentally mature enough to consent to sex with an adult. That's statutory rape, not "plain old rape".

Do you know what forcible rape is and how it differentiates from statutory rape? Sounds like you don't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Both horny teenagers

Sounds like a parental/school oversight issue to me.

I think at a point the law needs to step in, but imposing a life sentence is harsh. Teens having sex is a slap on the wrist issue and should be treated that way. This offends the sense of justice most people have.

Forcible Rape is no joke even if teens are the ones involved. Stat Rape is bullshit. Forcible Rape isn't.

Tell West while licking his boot. He's the one saying the boy committed "plain old rape".

Now we're down to plain old "...guilty of three counts of misdemeanor sex assault, guilty of a Class B felony for using a computer to lure the victim, guilty of endangering a child..."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When you call someone stupid you should make sure you understand the proper usage of the English language there bucko. It is "THEIR", not "THERE".

You're excused.

You're comparing a typo to not know what rape is?

You missed this part of your own link didn't you....

And you're the one who claimed I was stupid, then made a fundamental error in the usage of the English language. I was merely pointing out the ironic nature of your post. I am sorry if it bothers you so much.

"Judge Lawrence Smukler said he rejects Labrie’s defense argument that the jury found the teenagers had consensual sex."

I called you a self-righteous ***** as well as stupid for your agreeing withe the absurd comment about it being 'rape, pure and simple'. Nothing?

What the hell do I care what you call me? The judge rejected the claim that it was consensual. That means it wasn't statutory rape. That means it was just plain old rape. The fact that you too are an imbecile who doesn't understand the English language is on you. Not me.

His argument was EXACTLY statutory rape, the legal philosophy that underage children are not mentally mature enough to consent to sex with an adult. That's statutory rape, not "plain old rape".

Do you know what forcible rape is and how it differentiates from statutory rape? Sounds like you don't.

Both the jury and the judge tossed statutory rape. Give it up.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I think at a point the law needs to step in, but imposing a life sentence is harsh. Teens having sex is a slap on the wrist issue and should be treated that way. This offends the sense of justice most people have.

The law needs to step in but it's the families responsibility to twach them properly. If I'd been having sex as a teenager I'd have needed the Law to protect me from my parents: consentual or not.

Parents trying to protect their children need a partner in society. I have 3 boys and 1 girl, and so that 1 girl is going to get a lot of attention from me to make sure she's safe from predators, but I need the help of the police and the courts as well so that if some 19 year old pervert who can't get it on with guys his own age goes after my daughter, he will be appropriately punished.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Both horny teenagers

Sounds like a parental/school oversight issue to me.

I think at a point the law needs to step in, but imposing a life sentence is harsh. Teens having sex is a slap on the wrist issue and should be treated that way. This offends the sense of justice most people have.

Forcible Rape is no joke even if teens are the ones involved. Stat Rape is bullshit. Forcible Rape isn't.

Tell West while licking his boot. He's the one saying the boy committed "plain old rape".

I'm sure that made me and West both laugh. If he got life, it was never a stat rape charge. No where in the country has life for a 15yo victim. Under 12 yes, 15, no. Not even illegal in most states with close-in-age exemptions. Only reason you could get life is it they charged you with aggravated forcible rape and/or sodomy.

 

[Meathead]

What the hell do I care what you call me? The judge rejected the claim that it was consensual. That means it wasn't statutory rape. That means it was just plain old rape. The fact that you too are an imbecile who doesn't understand the English language is on you. Not me.

I accept that as a rather puny instead of noble way of surrender.

Again, I am not heartened by it. I, too, am an American.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Both horny teenagers

Sounds like a parental/school oversight issue to me.

I think at a point the law needs to step in, but imposing a life sentence is harsh. Teens having sex is a slap on the wrist issue and should be treated that way. This offends the sense of justice most people have.

Forcible Rape is no joke even if teens are the ones involved. Stat Rape is bullshit. Forcible Rape isn't.

Tell West while licking his boot. He's the one saying the boy committed "plain old rape".

I'm sure that made me and West both laugh. If he got life, it was never a stat rape charge. No where in the country has life for a 15yo victim. Under 12 yes, 15, no. Not even illegal in most states with close-in-age exemptions. Only reason you could get life is it they charged you with aggravated forcible rape and/or sodomy.

The life sentence I was referring to is the sex offender registry. I don't feel sorry for real perverts who get this branding, but an 18 and 13 year old? The sex offender registry no longer renders the service of informing the public who among them is dangerous when they include things like this.

 

[Anathema]

Parents trying to protect their children need a partner in society. I have 3 boys and 1 girl, and so that 1 girl is going to get a lot of attention from me to make sure she's safe from predators, but I need the help of the police and the courts as well so that if some 19 year old pervert who can't get it on with guys his own age goes after my daughter, he will be appropriately punished.

May I suggest procuring the services of the following law firm..... Smith, Wesson, Mossberg, Winchester and Colt. They are known to have a significant impact on overzealous youths.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Sounds like a parental/school oversight issue to me.

I think at a point the law needs to step in, but imposing a life sentence is harsh. Teens having sex is a slap on the wrist issue and should be treated that way. This offends the sense of justice most people have.

Forcible Rape is no joke even if teens are the ones involved. Stat Rape is bullshit. Forcible Rape isn't.

Tell West while licking his boot. He's the one saying the boy committed "plain old rape".

I'm sure that made me and West both laugh. If he got life, it was never a stat rape charge. No where in the country has life for a 15yo victim. Under 12 yes, 15, no. Not even illegal in most states with close-in-age exemptions. Only reason you could get life is it they charged you with aggravated forcible rape and/or sodomy.

The life sentence I was referring to is the sex offender registry. I don't feel sorry for real perverts who get this branding, but an 18 and 13 year old? The sex offender registry no longer renders the service of informing the public who among them is dangerous when they include things like this.

Oh. Not especially interested in this case. But thought the vic was 15? Guy broke the law. There ends my interest. Whatever happens to him he brough upon himself. Is noe xcuse, no claiming you didn't know the law. You're 18, it's your responsibility to know the law and no 18 is gonna just have sex with anyone under 18 without some question as to the legality of it.

Had a girl here who said she was 17 and was good to go. I carded her. That's what the older person does. Wnna play, learn the rules of the game.

 

[Meathead]

FFS, do you people believe that someone who has just had his 18th birthday, when your sexual desires are the strongest, should confine themselves to partners between the ages of 16 to 99. I mean how many women are there who would bed an 18 year old other than girls in their mid teens?

Sorry folks, this is seriously stupid stuff. An 18 year old being labelled a sex offender for having sex with another teen is not normal. In fact it is sick!

 

[westwall]

What the hell do I care what you call me? The judge rejected the claim that it was consensual. That means it wasn't statutory rape. That means it was just plain old rape. The fact that you too are an imbecile who doesn't understand the English language is on you. Not me.

I accept that as a rather puny instead of noble way of surrender.

Again, I am not heartened by it. I, too, am an American.

I think your definition of surrender is far different from mine. But, based on you moniker, I can see why. You still haven't addressed the judges ruling which is what I am basing my comments on. So, until you come up with a compelling reason to pay attention to you, I will just keep on keepin on.

 

[westwall]

FFS, do you people believe that someone who has just had his 18th birthday, when your sexual desires are the strongest, should confine themselves to partners between the ages of 16 to 99. I mean how many women are there who would bed an 18 year old other than girls in their mid teens?

Sorry folks, this is seriously stupid stuff. An 18 year old being labelled a sex offender for having sex with another teen is not normal. In fact it is sick!

Were it consensual I could almost agree with you. Almost. However, human beings have this thing called the ability to "reason". I know it's hard for you to understand that fact, but that IS what separates us from simple chimpanzee's.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

FFS, do you people believe that someone who has just had his 18th birthday, when your sexual desires are the strongest, should confine themselves to partners between the ages of 16 to 99. I mean how many women are there who would bed an 18 year old other than girls in their mid teens?

Sorry folks, this is seriously stupid stuff. An 18 year old being labelled a sex offender for having sex with another teen is not normal. In fact it is sick!

It's her age, how he got her involved, and what he did (non-consensual sex) that has marked him for life. This was not a carefree afternooner with the girl next door.

 

[charwin95]

Owen Labrie sentenced to a year in jail for prep school sex assault

With his once promising future at Harvard a shambles, a former New Hampshireprep school senior convicted of having sex with an underage girl as part of an unofficial school tradition was sentenced to a year in jail and probation.

Owen Labrie, now 20, faced a possible 11-year sentence for his conviction on three misdemeanor counts of sex with a 15-year-old and one felony count of using the internet to arrange a secret encounter on the campus of St Paul’s school in Concord, New Hampshire.

Labrie’s conviction for felony use of a computer also requires he register as a sex offender for life for sending the girl a “senior salute”, an old tradition on the bucolic campus where seniors in the waning days of high school ask underclassmen on a date.

Before he was sentenced, Labrie made the sign of the cross on his chest. He stood stock still while hearing he would go to prison. His mother wept.

Judge Lawrence Smukler said he rejects Labrie’s defense argument that the jury found the teenagers had consensual sex.

“This was not consensual. You did not take the time to get to know the victim to know how she reacts to various things,” Smukler said as he announced the sentence. “The very reason it is a crime is a child, someone under the age of consent, is not sufficiently mature to handle a sexual situation with an older person. She was in over her head and that was very clear.”

Prosecutors asked the judge to give Labrie three and a half to seven years in prison and undergo sex offender treatment.

Broke the law. Too bad so sad. Is a stupid law to be sure, but so long as stupid laws are in effect we have to obey them. Start pick and choosing or rationalizing our ignoring them and it's all over.

So when a pot smoker goes to prison for 25 years, you'll say exactly the same thing?

You won't?

One year for rape then get off in 6 months for good behavior. Is that a fair sentence?

 

[westwall]

Sounds like a parental/school oversight issue to me.

I think at a point the law needs to step in, but imposing a life sentence is harsh. Teens having sex is a slap on the wrist issue and should be treated that way. This offends the sense of justice most people have.

Forcible Rape is no joke even if teens are the ones involved. Stat Rape is bullshit. Forcible Rape isn't.

Tell West while licking his boot. He's the one saying the boy committed "plain old rape".

I'm sure that made me and West both laugh. If he got life, it was never a stat rape charge. No where in the country has life for a 15yo victim. Under 12 yes, 15, no. Not even illegal in most states with close-in-age exemptions. Only reason you could get life is it they charged you with aggravated forcible rape and/or sodomy.

The life sentence I was referring to is the sex offender registry. I don't feel sorry for real perverts who get this branding, but an 18 and 13 year old? The sex offender registry no longer renders the service of informing the public who among them is dangerous when they include things like this.

Yes, they do. They are classified in my State as Tier One, Two or Three. Tier Three are the most dangerous and as such are monitored very heavily. This clown, depending on the nature of his crime (I don't have access to all the relevent facts) would be classified as either Tier One or Two.

Just shows you shouldn't let your animal instincts control your actions. Or are you claiming he's not a human being? If that is your assertion you might have a point.