Kaitlyn Hunt: Civil Rights Hero or Sexual Predator?

Pages

I haven't seen anything about the Kaitlyn Hunt story yet, so I figured I open a new thread. If you haven't heard, Kaitlyn is an 18-year-old Florida teen accused of statutory rape of her 14-year-old girlfriend. Some are lauding her as a civil rights hero, willing to face prison for gay teen rights. Others are saying she's facing the same felony charges as many teenage boys who did the same thing.

At this point she's rejected a plea deal and could face 10 years if convicted.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/justic...

I'll say upfront I'm torn on this case. I don't think Hunt should be singled out for harsh treatment because she's a lesbian. On the other hand, she did specifically go against the wishes of the parents of a much younger girl and at one point helped the 14-year-old run away for the weekend. For that I do think she probably deserves a misdemeanor charge.

Learn your bleeding age of consent laws kids.

jdzappa wrote:

I'll say upfront I'm torn on this case. I don't think Hunt should be singled out for harsh treatment because she's a lesbian. On the other hand, she did specifically go against the wishes of the parents of a much younger girl and at one point helped the 14-year-old run away for the weekend. For that I do think she probably deserves a misdemeanor charge.

But is she being singled out for harsh treatment? All indications seem to say that this really has nothing to do with her being a 18-year old girl, just an 18-year old.

The problem is that these laws themselves might be too harsh and damaging, but unless I'm not seeing something critical, the only people making this about her being a lesbian are the people trying to dismiss what happened. Not the prosecution case.

edit: also -

Learn your bleeding age of consent laws kids.

Booooooo.

King, Bloo, I agree with both of you. I haven't seen any studies showing Hunt is facing stiffer terms in that County than 18-year-old boys who did the same thing. And maybe it's a gender thing, but I remember having the whole "jailbait" talk drilled into my head from coaches and my dad.

At any rate, IMHO 14 is wayyyy too early to be having any kind of sex. Like drinking and drugs, I recognize it's going to happen. That doesn't mean parents shouldn't do everything in their power to prevent it.

jdzappa wrote:

King, Bloo, I agree with both of you. I haven't seen any studies showing Hunt is facing stiffer terms in that County than 18-year-old boys who did the same thing.

This is where I stand. Regardless of gender or sexual orientation, the law should be applied consistently. The debate shouldn't be about her sexual orientation, but about the law itself regarding any cases of 18-year-olds and 14-year-olds engaging in sexual activity.

Were they dating before she turned 18?

Demosthenes wrote:

Were they dating before she turned 18?

Yes.

Yeah, this has nothing to do with gender for me. I'd say not necessarily a predator, but most definitely not a civil rights hero.

Demosthenes wrote:

Were they dating before she turned 18?

Yes.

Also, I was under the impression that the other girl was 15 or had just turned 15. I think both sides are playing a little loose with the ages involved.

I'm also not entirely convinced that this would have gone down exactly the same way if Kaitlyn had been a dude. We're now in the era where people know that having anti-gay beliefs can get them in trouble. Saying that it's not about sexuality doesn't make it true.

In any case, these things are stupid no matter which genders are involved. Parents shouldn't be going to the cops because they're scared of their children's genitalia, and attorneys shouldn't be willing to prosecute children who haven't figured out sexual politics just yet.

KingGorilla wrote:

Learn your bleeding age of consent laws kids.

Agreed. I don't care what the genders are involved, if an 18 y/o is diddling my 14 y/o, we'll be talking to the cops or I'll be having a long "talk" with the 18 y/o. My son is 11. If I find out that an 18 y/o girl is hooking up with him in three years, there will be definitely some consequences. It really isn't all that hard a concept to grasp. Four years isn't much when the people are in their 20s, but it is whole helluva lot of time in the teenage years.

Demosthenes wrote:

Were they dating before she turned 18?

From what I've found on Flordia's Romeo & Juliet law, it doesn't provide an exception for that. It will allow her to petition to not have to register as a sex offender, but won't provide her with any defense against what she's been charged with. Florida's law allows an exception for a 16 year old to consent to sexual activity with a person 16-23 years of age, but that doesn't apply to Kaitlyn's situation.

I don't see how she's not guilty of statutory rape, but I see no reason why she shouldn't have a petition to not be considered a sex offender granted.

Farscry wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

King, Bloo, I agree with both of you. I haven't seen any studies showing Hunt is facing stiffer terms in that County than 18-year-old boys who did the same thing.

This is where I stand. Regardless of gender or sexual orientation, the law should be applied consistently. The debate shouldn't be about her sexual orientation, but about the law itself regarding any cases of 18-year-olds and 14-year-olds engaging in sexual activity.

Yes. Whether the law itself is sensible is a good question, whether she should be treated more or less harshly because of sexual orientation is crazy talk. That said I can barely imagine the sh*tstorm that would be generated if this case were about two boys. There's another interesting and depressing discussion about the biases involved in that.

kazooka wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Were they dating before she turned 18?

Yes.

Also, I was under the impression that the other girl was 15 or had just turned 15. I think both sides are playing a little loose with the ages involved.

I'm also not entirely convinced that this would have gone down exactly the same way if Kaitlyn had been a dude. We're now in the era where people know that having anti-gay beliefs can get them in trouble. Saying that it's not about sexuality doesn't make it true.

In any case, these things are stupid no matter which genders are involved. Parents shouldn't be going to the cops because they're scared of their children's genitalia, and attorneys shouldn't be willing to prosecute children who haven't figured out sexual politics just yet.

To me, this sounds like a "hey, why aren't there Romeo and Juliet statutes in place here, then?"

If they were already dating, this seems to be a non-issue that legal authorities should not have gotten involved in but escalated either due to parents concerns with age (unfortunate) or concerns about their daughter's sexuality (that they may not want to deal with, and may be trying to rationalize as the fault of the older girl).

Ya know that Patrick Stewart is marring a 35 year old woman?

I think the grander issue is; we have laws in a lot of states that are designed to punish older adults who prey on children, that in fact punishing children. Mary Kay Laterno is a despicable woman. But in these instances mostly you are punishing young men and women, teenagers for doing what they are designed by nature to do as bubbling pots of hormones. You are, in essence punishing someone the same way we punish addicts. And it will royally f*ck up their lives, later on. This girl will likely carry a sex offender label-goodbye college, goodbye jobs, goodbye home ownership.

But on the flip side, we also have a lot of arbitrary age based laws-driving, drinking, smoking. We readily accept that for 3 years, adults capable of voting are not allowed to order a beer. We do not have a lot of sympathy when a kid is nabbed using a fake ID, or driving under the influence. Expecting rudimentary self control from even a 13 or 14 year old is not outlandish. The law says that you cannot have sex until 16, or 18. So control yourself.

No, the laws say that you cannot consent to sex until 16. Which translates in conversations with 18 y/os is that you don't date kids younger than 16.

It isn't abitrary to me. A four year age difference during those years is a huge disparity in emotional maturity. An 18 y/o should be able handle the emotional weight of sex. A 14 y/o most likely cannot. I have no problem at all prosecuting these predators. And to me, that is what they are. They are adults (albeit young adults) who are having sex with children. Legally it doesn't get much more black and white. Thanks to decades of laws like this in existance (and prosecutions), every 18 y/o should be aware of the consequences of dating young teens. If you play with fire, you shouldn't cry because you got burned.

Florida is really arbitrary.

The age of consent is 18 in Florida. But there is an exemption that an adult as old as 24 may engage in sexual activity with a 16 year old.

And it gets better, this does not apply is the PARENTS consent to the teen getting married, or if the teen has been emancipated.

Let how gross that is just wash over you. A 16 year old cannot have sex, but if their parents let them be married out, then it is kosher.

Demosthenes wrote:
kazooka wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Were they dating before she turned 18?

Yes.

Also, I was under the impression that the other girl was 15 or had just turned 15. I think both sides are playing a little loose with the ages involved.

I'm also not entirely convinced that this would have gone down exactly the same way if Kaitlyn had been a dude. We're now in the era where people know that having anti-gay beliefs can get them in trouble. Saying that it's not about sexuality doesn't make it true.

In any case, these things are stupid no matter which genders are involved. Parents shouldn't be going to the cops because they're scared of their children's genitalia, and attorneys shouldn't be willing to prosecute children who haven't figured out sexual politics just yet.

To me, this sounds like a "hey, why aren't there Romeo and Juliet statutes in place here, then?"

If they were already dating, this seems to be a non-issue that legal authorities should not have gotten involved in but escalated either due to parents concerns with age (unfortunate) or concerns about their daughter's sexuality (that they may not want to deal with, and may be trying to rationalize as the fault of the older girl).

KingGorilla wrote:

Ya know that Patrick Stewart is marring a 35 year old woman?

I think the grander issue is; we have laws in a lot of states that are designed to punish older adults who prey on children, that in fact punishing children. Mary Kay Laterno is a despicable woman. But in these instances mostly you are punishing young men and women, teenagers for doing what they are designed by nature to do as bubbling pots of hormones. You are, in essence punishing someone the same way we punish addicts. And it will royally f*ck up their lives, later on. This girl will likely carry a sex offender label-goodbye college, goodbye jobs, goodbye home ownership.

But on the flip side, we also have a lot of arbitrary age based laws-driving, drinking, smoking. We readily accept that for 3 years, adults capable of voting are not allowed to order a beer. We do not have a lot of sympathy when a kid is nabbed using a fake ID, or driving under the influence. Expecting rudimentary self control from even a 13 or 14 year old is not outlandish. The law says that you cannot have sex until 16, or 18. So control yourself.

I refer you to this.
There is a Romeo & Juliet law in place, but this case doesn't qualify for the complete exemption since the younger girl wasn't at least 16. It does qualify for allowing Kaitlyn to petition to not be considered a sex offender, and based on the specifics of the case, I can't see any logical reason for her petition to not be successful.

Sadly, criminal courts are not dictated by logic. For the same reason it is almost unheard of for a sitting governor (not a lame duck) to pardon or commute sentences, it is really rare for elected judges to appear "soft." "Sexual predators" are an area where leniency is about unheard of.

I would be interested to see if the Florida Bar has any info on the success rate of these petitions.

KingGorilla wrote:

Sadly, criminal courts are not dictated by logic. For the same reason it is almost unheard of for a sitting governor (not a lame duck) to pardon or commute sentences, it is really rare for elected judges to appear "soft." "Sexual predators" are an area where leniency is about unheard of.

I would be interested to see if the Florida Bar has any info on the success rate of these petitions.

Yeah, I could see "Pardoned a sex offender, for shaaaaaaaaame!" working really well in the next judicial election... why do we elect judges and law enforcement officials again?

Because the judges appointed for life at the federal level are there to save us sometimes.

I think it fits in well, especially with those states that allow ballots to change the state constitution.

KingGorilla wrote:

Florida is really arbitrary.

The age of consent is 18 in Florida. But there is an exemption that an adult as old as 24 may engage in sexual activity with a 16 year old.

And it gets better, this does not apply is the PARENTS consent to the teen getting married, or if the teen has been emancipated.

Let how gross that is just wash over you. A 16 year old cannot have sex, but if their parents let them be married out, then it is kosher.

You're reading the law wrong. It prevents anyone age 24 or older from having sex with a 16 year old. It allows an age gap where a 16 or 17 year old can consent to have sex with someone aged 16-23. link

The so called Romeo and Juliet law in Florida is purely about sex offender registration at the judge's discretion, not guilt or innocence, or immunity from prosecution. So a person might still be guilty of a sexual crime, just not have to register. When whoopdie-god-damn-doo when there is a background check on the person. Under Florida's law, by virtue of being 18, this girl committed a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Right in the Senate's own pamphlet, they refer to those eligible as "offenders."

KingGorilla wrote:

I think the grander issue is; we have laws in a lot of states that are designed to punish older adults who prey on children, that [are] in fact punishing children.

I've got preteen kids with cell phones. And I've already seen one targeted-to-parents presentation about the unfortunate intersection of chid pornography laws and what it means for teens with digital cameras.

Katy wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I think the grander issue is; we have laws in a lot of states that are designed to punish older adults who prey on children, that [are] in fact punishing children.

I've got preteen kids with cell phones. And I've already seen one targeted-to-parents presentation about the unfortunate intersection of chid pornography laws and what it means for teens with digital cameras.

Yup. I learned about that while my wife was watching Glee, didn't think that could be possible, and saw cases posted online of "how ridiculously stupid is this?"

KingGorilla wrote:

The so called Romeo and Juliet law in Florida is purely about sex offender registration at the judge's discretion, not guilt or innocence, or immunity from prosecution. So a person might still be guilty of a sexual crime, just not have to register. When whoopdie-god-damn-doo when there is a background check on the person. Under Florida's law, by virtue of being 18, this girl committed a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Right in the Senate's own pamphlet, they refer to those eligible as "offenders."

I never said otherwise as far as Kaitlyn was concerned. What I did say was that your example of the 16 year old who can't have sex unless her parents married her off was wrong. Kaitlyn's isn't facing a felony charge because of how old she is, but because of how young the younger girl was. If the younger girl was 16 it would have been perfectly legal.

She's also facing a felony charge because of how old she is. It was perfectly fine the day before she turned 18, if I understand it right (I'm not sure). The next day, it became illegal because she apparently gained a special mental tier of ability on that day that makes it unfair, whereas it was not just the day before.

No the next day it became illegal (and a felony) because she became a legal adult with adult responsibilities and rights. If you don't think she was aware that she became a legal adult on her birthday then you are fooling yourself.

I'm a little floored at the lack of outrage here. I don't care what Kaitlyn's age is. The girlfriend, who has no legal way to consent to sex, who is only 14 years old (or a young 15) was dating an adult. Her emotional immaturity compared to an 18 y/o leaves her ripe to being susceptible to or coerced to do things that are against her best interest. Yes 14 y/os have sex. But at least we can punish adults (which is what Kaitlyn is) from preying on them.

LarryC wrote:

She's also facing a felony charge because of how old she is. It was perfectly fine the day before she turned 18, if I understand it right (I'm not sure). The next day, it became illegal because she apparently gained a special mental tier of ability on that day that makes it unfair, whereas it was not just the day before.

From what I've found, the only difference that one birthday would make is whether she's charged with a felony of the second degree or third degree.

Florida statute[/url]]2. An offender 18 years of age or older who commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age
commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(d) An offender less than 18 years of age who commits lewd or lascivious molestation against a victim 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Full disclosure: I find the entire thing fairly ludicrous. It may not be from where you are. I was put to work and expected in some ways to earn my keep from age 8. You grow up fast when you work for a living before you hit puberty.

Stengah:

That's even weirder. I read that and I was immediately thinking: so two 15 year olds engaging in mutually consented sex would both be felons and liable to prosecution and jail?!? Sounds crazy to me. That's legally enforceable abstinence is what it is.

Is there any truth to the thing I read that the parents of the victim (for want of a better word) deliberately waited until Kaitlyn was 18 and then got the law involved? They knew about the whole thing for some time before then. Apparently they didn't like the fact that their girl was into other girls, and this was their way of punishing the girl they thought responsible for this. It seems rather underhanded, if perfectly legal, if that's how it went down.

Nevin73 wrote:

No the next day it became illegal (and a felony) because she became a legal adult with adult responsibilities and rights. If you don't think she was aware that she became a legal adult on her birthday then you are fooling yourself.

I'm a little floored at the lack of outrage here. I don't care what Kaitlyn's age is. The girlfriend, who has no legal way to consent to sex, who is only 14 years old (or a young 15) was dating an adult. Her emotional immaturity compared to an 18 y/o leaves her ripe to being susceptible to or coerced to do things that are against her best interest. Yes 14 y/os have sex. But at least we can punish adults (which is what Kaitlyn is) from preying on them.

I'm a little floored at your outrage. We're talking about a high school senior dating a high school freshman. Not really a great situation, but hardly the crime against humanity you seem to think it is.

Pages