March 11, 2005

• Okay! Well, I think we have a winner in the "Saddest Fucking Thing in the World of the Day" contest we've been running. Johnny, tell him what he's won.
• Are they gonna be cellmates? Oh. Never mind.
• I think the situations are vastly different.
• You're right. One was a child, the other was a full grown adult, but society almost always gives women a pass when they do Bad Things.
• Update on Mary Kay Letourneau.
• but society almost always gives women a pass when they do Bad Things. Tell that to all the women in prison--or specifically the women serving life sentences in prison for killing men who habitually beat the crap out of them and threatened their lives. I do think that statutory rape and assault are in two different categories, but I think what this case really is about is punishing children as adults. I find the practice completely abhorrent and I don't see how sending a 12 year old to prison for the rest of his life is going to accomplish anything.
• should we monkeys pitch in for a nice wedding gift for the happy couple?
• I don't see how sending a 12 year old to prison for the rest of his life is going to accomplish anything "Life" in Britain usually means about 15 years.
• what kimberly said. the article regarding the sentence for the 12 year old boy in britain talks at length about the necessity of holding him until such time as he is no longer a threat. yet what mention is there of treatment for this person? what discussion of rehabilitation or therapy? not to mention social reforms to help prevent the "creation" of such damaged individuals in the first place. 7.5 years is not a "pass" and not all "bad things" are equal
• >killing men who habitually beat the crap out of them Women raping young boys is H-O-T-T hot. Lucky kid getting the ride of a lifetime, every boys wet dream! Killing abusive men is scary. It shows women being empowered and being more than sex objects. Bad! Very bad!
• nonbinary: Way to take comments out of context to imply implications no one was actually making.
• No kidding, Medusa. The article makes it sounds as if this kid's life has been nothing but sexual abuse. All the jail time in the world will do nothing to "correct" him if that isn't addressed.
• Gender isn't really the issue here. The kid attacked his teacher, while Letourneau (albeit stupidly) had a relationship with her victim. There's a difference on the violence continuum. However, I agree that just locking the kid up without intensive treatment is probably counter-productive.
• Interesting how, upon reading the article, that the boy would be eligible for release (not likely, but still eligible) in 21 months.

  The judge told the boy he must serve at least 21 months detention but that it was likely he would serve much longer.

  Do we just read the headlines nowadays?
• Yes, most people do. That's how lots opf newspapers manage to sell so well despite continually having headlines that bear no relation to the articles they describe (which in turn have a shaky relationship with the truth). I'm not sure if these are the same sort of people who confuse two totally different crimes, punished under two very different penal codes, simply because they have the same word in them.
• I think you're right, flashboy... I think we'd all be better served if a) people would RTFA, and b) they would stop conflating two or more different things simply because it's semantically entertaining to do so. Unless it's quidnunc saying something funny.
• what Chimaera said. The quality of some of the posts in this thread doesn't really do any favours to Mofi ...
• Exclusive sexual favours for Mofi, however, greatly appreciated. Calling out Mofi Any Gender Sexpot Brigade; drop pants and let's dance!
• i dunno... i think i'm still with ramix on this one. there's no way this is fair and yes i think the situations are comparable. also, what kimberly said.
• drop pants and let's dance! Way ahead of ya, baby!
• Where's tempest? Has he been practicing those pelvic thrusts?
• I think you all are being rather flippant here. Do you really think this kind of shit is funny? How sad.
• The fact that the term "rape" is used in both cases does not make them similar. In the first case, the boy sexually attacked his teacher, someone who ought to represent authority of some kind. It would be ideal to treat him so that he can at least control his violent tendencies, but the law is interested more in neutralizing threats to society and handing down proper punishment for crimes than for assuring the mental health of individuals. The legal tradition, in England as in the US (please correct me if I'm wrong) is premised on the ability of citizens to behave morally; whether someone is unwilling or unable to do so makes no effective difference with respect to the threat they pose, though it may affect their actual culpability, which is a different issue. In the second case, the teacher and student cultivated an emotional and sexual relationship which did not involve a violent attack, was not limited to one event, and was (by all accounts) consentual to both parties. It is utterly unlike the other case.
• Or, I shouldn't have been universal. Some of you seem to think this is funny. Yuk.
• yo clockzero, I think I agree.
• Why is everyone assuming that the boy won't be getting treatment for his problems? Just because the news story doesn't mention it doesn't mean it isn't happening. In the meantime, he needs to be separated from society so he won't reoffend. And cynnbad, although it's a serious topic, this post doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Ramix made an implied judgement on the relative sentences of two completely unrelated crimes, and as of yet hasn't backed it up with a comment or explanation. Everyone agrees that rape is bad, so what's to discuss?
• word, C-bad
• Fine, you rule this is irrelevant, Mr. Rocket. There is a subtext that the crime depends on the perps. Yes, rape is rape, but what is a sexual offense?
• That's nigh the saddest/creepiest thing I've heard today. This kid was clearly abused..."By 1995, when this boy could not yet have been four, he was being mistreated and indeed encouraged to engage in misuse of alcohol and cigarettes"? Fuck whoever fucked him up, and (as much as I hate to say this about someone who I assume has been sexually abused or at least exposed to it as well) fuck him too. (angriness may be due to drunkness/general depressedness)
• Yes, I saw that. The kid was apparently horribly a messup. And fuck everyone involved; it still doesn't affect the outcome. There is always a double standard.
• So what should we do instead of being flippant? Stand around solemnly staring at our shoes? If I reacted like that to every crime that took place half a world away I'd be a basket case.
• Well, first of all, I don't know where you are, and next of all, I guess it's not a huge deal. Except if you have ugly shoes, that's a problem.
• Kimberly: My comment was perhaps far less about the actual cases cited, and, much more about the "situation" in general. For a bit of background on where my mind is I'm including a quote from a friend's personal journal. She's an attorney who spent most of her career doing pro bono work for people who would otherwise get screwed by The System. Her most recent case concerned a male Chicago cop who was stalking female citizen. This quote came a couple of days after the case came to a close. so my co-counsel spoke to one of the jurors. she said they believed our client, but felt that she should've been clearer with the officer that she wasn't interested. it's 2005. when are we going to stop blaming the victim? the juror said, if that happened to her, she would've moved. well, that's all well and good if you can afford to move, but why should it be our client's responsibility to stop the behavior? why shouldn't it be the officer's responsibilty to stop the behavior? or the police board? it's HIS responsibility to NOT break into her home, NOT expose himself, NOT sexually assault her, NOT keep calling when she tells him she's not interested. it's not her responsibilty to secure her locks, be loud enough, make sure he gets it. when our client first complained, the female intake person at OPS chastised her for not locking her doors better. she was appalled that my client would have not locked her doors better. why wasn't she appalled that the officer fucking broke into a citizen's home and assaulted her?! ugh. the juror said that she thought our legal team was fantastic. About two weeks after this case she quit her firm and is now wondering what to do. Not just considering a move to another firm to continue her work at, but considering if being a socially conscious lawyer is even worth it. She made about one fifth of what she could have if she practiced "normal" law, and had dedicated many years of her life to helping the unhelpable and trying to save them from public defenders. This is now in question. Not just from this case, but from a long string of injustice. The one I cited is simply the camel's straw. My comment was more about the big picture, about the gender politics and the comments made by yourself and mmmuttly. Like the rapists who get off, literally and figuratively, because a jury thought the victim dressed too provocatively and not because the perp was a sick individual. Or the dichotomy I see even within my own social sphere, where teens are taught by their parents that girls who have sex are doing something bad and might "get in trouble," i.e., pregnant, while the boys simply get told to use a condom to avoid "getting the girl in trouble." Or that women get to play the virgin/whore role and men get to play the stallion/user. There's many issues here, interrelated in various ways, all different, but with many common threads.
• Fuck whoever fucked him up What I'd like to know of the Brit Boy is where the parents/caretakers are in all this? What's their statute of limitations over there and why wasn't someone doing something back when this kid was, oh let's say...five years old? Why did it take a serious criminal act for something to happen?
• ...every crime that took place half a world away I'd be a basket case. I hate local news programs. The inane banter and myopic viewpoint drive me insane. Especially when I have to interact with people, typically coworkers, who think the world is ending because one local person got killed. Sure I feel sorry for all the people involved, but it's still just one person. What freaks me out are the big tragedies, and what I counter with when told that I'm coldly indifferent to the prevailing office groupthink, is that there are far greater horrors in the world than one person being off'ed in a botched hold-up or whatever. Most frequently I'll cite the Sierra Leone and the large one handed population there and perhaps even give my thirty second synopsis of the evils of the Diamond trade. The crime I mentioned in my larger, earlier post of the stalker cop only became personal to me from talking to my friend, the attorney in the case. It's a shame that the stalked woman had to suffer, and perhaps greater tragedy that she got no justice in court, but the only tangible impact for me is seeing a friend lose faith in fighting the good fight and quitting her job.
• rocket88: Ramix made an implied judgement on the relative sentences of two completely unrelated crimes, and as of yet hasn't backed it up with a comment or explanation I was looking at it from the sentencing standpoint...bearing in mind that yes, one was a violent attack and the second statutory rape. The cases are not similar but in the eyes of the law, they amount to the same crime. How is it fair to incarcerate a 12 year old boy for life...one that we all agree that was subject to sexual abuse all his life, and one it can be argued that is too young to take full responsibility for his crime, and let MKT go after 7 yrs, someone who repeatedly perpetuated a crime, even after being sentenced the first time? It's a 12 year old for crying out loud! a 12 year old that has been subject to abuse all his life. Yes he did a bad thing...but isn't it fair to say that had he not been exposed to that much violence and abuse growing up, he most probably wouldnt have turned out the way he did? I'm all for punishing crime, but i also take mitigating circumstances into account. As far as MKT is concerned, i gave her the benefit of the doubt the first time, and figured everyone makes mistakes sometimes...BUT after being sentenced the first time, she went ahead and slept with the underage boy again...and got pregnant! Her sentence should have been much longer as far as i'm concerned!
• Her sentence should have been much longer as far as i'm concerned! Ramix, why? Because she had a relationship which is considered abnormal by society? A few hundred years ago, people were regularly getting married at age 12 (not that I'm saying it's right to do so, but that societal norms, and standards of adulthood are not absolute, they do shift). While it is true that both crimes are similiar in the "eyes of the law", I approve of the fact that they are treated differently. Otherwise the law would just be a blunt weapon, trying to fit all sorts of crimes into the same pigeonhole. But I also agree that 7.5 years without treatment for the boy is too much - if that is really the case. It might not be. It might even be beneficial, since it will keep him away from the abusive environment that has turned him into what he is, and also give him access to proper treatment and care (hopefully). The boy that MKT "abused" still loves her, and is trying to see her again - and he is now 21 years old. While the idea of an adult falling in love with a child may seem "icky" to us, I think we may have to consider that not all such relationships are based on power and abuse. These two people might really be in love. What I feel MKT is guilty of most is impatience. She really should have tried to wait till he was 18 at least to continue the relationship.
• They're apparently getting married on April 17th. They have two children together, aged seven and eight, and Vili Fualaau, now aged 22, proposed to Mary Kay Letourneau, 43, last fall. These people love each other. Should she have kept it in her pants? Yes. Absolutely. But she's done her time. And so has he. The average time served for forcible rape in the US when Mary Kay Letourneau was sentenced was 5.4 years. Mary Kay Letourneau did seven and a half. In other words, she served a longer-than-average sentence as compared to her overwhelmingly male American counterparts. Where, then, is she getting off lightly for being female?
• The cases are not similar but in the eyes of the law, they amount to the same crime. No, they don't, because it's not even the same bloody law that's doing the sentencing in the two cases. There is no crime of "statutory rape" in British law. If you wanted to make a comparison, you should at least have chosen ones that fell under the same judicial code. How is it fair to incarcerate a 12 year old boy for life... This boy will not be incarcerated for life. It might have been better if you'd actually taken the time to find out what "life" means in the British penal system. It wouldn't have been too hard, because as chimaera pointed out, the article itself states that he'll be eligible for release in 21 months (although it is unlikely that he will be released then). A life sentence is one that allows for the possibility of lifelong incarceration, not one that demands it. A tariff is normally placed on the sentence, stating the minimum amount of time that must be served. The form of incarceration and any requirement for treatment will also be specified at this stage. This is especially true of juvenile offenders, where the sentence is usually less about punishment and more about rehabilitation. The age of legal responsibility in Britain is 10 years of age, so he was significantly older than that at the time of his crime. In this case, the boy will (without a shadow of a doubt) recieve treatment and counselling for his problems and the abuse he himself has suffered, and will be helped to see how his actions have hurt and affected others. If, as he matures, he demonstrates remorse, if his behaviour is good, and experts judge he is no longer a threat to society, he could well be out before his eighteenth, or maybe even sixteenth, birthday. If, however, he does not show improvement, if he still poses a threat - and it's not impossible that the abuse he suffered may have caused him long-standing damage, deeply embedding sociopathic tendencies - then the sentence will allow the penal system to keep him safely incarcerated for as long as is necessary, in either an adult prison or a secure psychiatric facility. It balances the requirements of rehabilitation and the requirements of protection. It's a perfectly reasonable and flexible response to a child who is currently dangerous, yet who may change radically as he grows older and recieves help... but equally well, may not. To paraphrase the words of a wise, wise man, please spend a few minutes looking over the article before becoming an "outraged citizen of the world."
• Word, flashboy.
• Never mind.
• Mfpb, not trying to be antagonistic here, but when you say "never mind", do you mean that the points made against the two crimes being the same are wrong, but you don't want to argue about it? Here's what I think are different: 1. Consensual in one case; definitely non-consensual in the other. 2. No violence occured in one case; violence probable in the other. 3. "Victim" still in love as an adult with his "rapist" in one case; victim is likely still receiving counselling for the trauma in the other. The only similiarity I can see here is that both cases are considered rape offences and both offenders are given jail time.
• Moneyjane, Her original sentence was much shorter. This from the USA Today article: When Letourneau was arrested in 1997, she was already pregnant with Fualaau's daughter. A judge sentenced her to six months in jail for second-degree child rape, and ordered her to stay away from Fualaau. The longer charge was for repeating the offence. A month after Letourneau was released, she was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car, a violation of her parole. She was sent to prison for seven and a half years...
• Alnedra, no. I'm sorry, that was vague and stupid. I was "never minding" my earlier statements equating them. What you and others have said since has somewhat changed my mind.

• Where, then, is she getting off lightly for being female?

  Because if the genders had been reversed, you couldn't move for the "I hope that pedophile gets arse raped in prison" sentiment.
• Here's a few recent examples of the Mary Kay Letourneau-type from British law. Note that they're found guilty of the basic offense of sex with an underage person, but also the additional offense (quite recently introduced, if memory serves) of abusing a position of trust - namely, a law that allows teachers, care workers, etc, to be sentenced more severely for having sex with an underage person in their care. Two men, two women, btw. - Teacher admits sex with boy pupil - Teacher jailed for sex with girls - Teacher jailed for lesbian affair - Teacher jailed for sex with pupil
• The longer charge was for repeating the offence. You are correct, and I was aware of this - however, the continuation of the crime was an aspect of the unusual consensual nature of this particular crime as compared to most other forcible rape charges. For having consensual sex with Vili Fualaau on two known occasions, Mary Kay Letourneau did seven and a half years, as compared to the average forcible rape offender that did 5.4 years. I can well imagine that many of those rapes involved multiple sex acts. I think what Mary Kay Letourneau did was wrong. No question there - but I do not agree with the idea she got off with a light sentence. In fact, looking at the issues of consent vs no consent; violent vs non-violent in comparing the rape of Vili Fualaau to other rape cases, she may have been treated a bit harshly.
• Since everybody just wants to argue, I'll be flippant and draw some venom away from others. It's a public service I offer due to my thick skin. First off, anyone named Mary Kay anything ought to be imprisoned for life just for having such a revolting name. Secondly, let's lynch the USATabloid reporter for continuing the sad, stupid meme of letting the readers know Ms. Letourneau "... sang in the choir and recorded books-on-tape for the blind while in prison....". Quite frankly, I don't care if she ate pollution and sweated out bibles: she's a creepy paedophile who happened to have her love interest fall into her snare. Even if her crime were far more benign, doing what's known as 'good deeds' only counts if no-one's looking, not if you're doing them to look good at a parole hearing.
• Yes, there is that position of trust thing. Also, a possible habitual aggravator in her case. I wonder what her kids think about her?
• a possible habitual aggravator in her case That's the thing - will she go for other kids or was this a fucked-up one-off with Fualaau? And she was in a position of trust, which is why her ass deserved to be carted off to jail. What changes, if anything, if these two marry and hang in there for at least whatever the length is these days of an average marriage - now that Fualaau's an adult - and if Mary Kay Letourneau never again goes after another kid?
• Also, Fualaau is, I believe, of Samoan background, which may mean his cultural beliefs make what happened between himself and Letourneau something different than what we, culturally, believe it to be. I know dick-all about Samoan culture, but thought it interesting that though we've gone over the age disparity and the genders of Fualaau and Letourneau, any discussion of cultural differences and what role, if any, they may have played has not been touched on at all.
• I cannot imagine what their marriage would be like. I maintain sympathy for all the kids involved in this case. I don't know how the cultural thing plays out; wasn't there a band called the Angry Samoans? May have been just local. Maybe there's some psychological thing here. Who knows? Perhaps next she'll be knocked up by the Algerian paperboy.
• Fualaau, age 22, Letourneau, age 43 If Letourneau were a 43yo male, and Fualaau were 22yo trophy wife, would the tone of this discussion have quite as much horror attached? I think not. Setting aside the rape, I do believe that much of the objection comes from the fact that fact that the female is the older partner here. There are some southern states that would have hardly blinked an eye at a ~37 yo male "sparkin'" with a ~14 yo girl. Letourneau must be Fertile Myrtle or Fualaau is hella prolific. That said, male or female, any teacher that abuses a position of trust deserves jail time, IMHO. Too bad true love couldn't keep its pants on long enough for everyone to achieve the age of consent. I don't think what she did was right, but apparently, whatever "hurt" was done to Fualaau wasn't enough that he wants to run from her. The boy is 12yo and knows how to rape and hurt women. I find that damn scary, and I don't really feel deep down that "we" are going to reform him, either through 7.5 years of counseling or jail time. I'm afraid we've got another psycho on our hands. What a waste of a life. Damn to the deepest reaches of hell the parents of a child that could abuse him/her.
• Doesn't anyone care that he STOLE A CAR! That's a property crime and it affects us all in insurance rates

• If Letourneau were a 43yo male, and Fualaau were 22yo trophy wife, would the tone of this discussion have quite as much horror attached? I think not.

  You obviously live in the parallel universe where middle-aged men marrying younger women are not a staple of ridicule.
• You obviously live in the parallel universe where middle-aged men marrying younger women are not a staple of ridicule. I guess that parallel universe is called Los Angeles, because it happens all the time out here.
• This isn't about a 43 year old woman screwing a 22 year old man. It's about a 34 year old woman screwing a 12 year old boy. And if the genders were reversed there would be more outrage, not less.
• You obviously live in the parallel universe where middle-aged men marrying younger women are not a staple of ridicule. Why would those men care if they're ridiculed, even if they are? They have the money and the house and the career and the new wife. Why pay further attention? They're doing fine. They're doing great.