Cop gets 20-day sentence for sex with girl, 15

[afterhours]

Hearsay, and irrelevant. Would you be okay with your 15 year old daughter drinking and having sex with a 39 year old off-duty police officer? I thought not.

I would not be ok with myself as a parent. I would certainly not care much about how much jail the cop got.

 

[afterhours]

Not at all.


I've always been troubled by the Strict Liability aspect of "Statutory Rape" to me there seems precious little justice in a set of case facts where the girl is say a month shy of her 16th birthday, the guy she is having a sexual encounter with is say a month past his 22st birthday. She told him and testifies to the same at trial as do five of the most trustworthy of witnesses that she told him she was 17, and had a extremely realistic fake ID as to the same and everyone the police can find assume she's at least 20. The girl is perfectly willing to say she has a reputation longer than your arm, and absolutely none of this matters because she was younger than 16 and he was more than five years older than she.

And all of the above assumes a Canadian type progressive "Statutory Rape" law this can really get bad when 18 is 18 and you can actually charge both 17 year-olds in a consensual relationship with "Statutory Rape."

Under s. 150.1, there is a "due diligence defence" aka taking "all reasonable steps" .[3] The test is whether the steps ones that “a reasonable person would take in the circumstances” to ascertain a complainant’s age.[4]
Factors to consider include:[5]
knowledge of the complainant
physical appearance
age and appearance of the complainant's associates
age differential between the accused and the complainant
demeanour of the complainant
the time and location of the alleged sexual assault
any other relevant times or places
It is generally understood that less familiar the parties are the more steps that are required to confirm there is consent to sexual activity.[6]
The bigger the age difference between the parties the greater the expectation that the accused would make more inquiries.[7] This can mean that a simple visual observation is insufficient.[8]
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Consent#Mistaken_Belief_of_Age

 

[versitile1]

I would not be ok with myself as a parent. I would certainly not care much about how much jail the cop got.

Don't you think a longer sentence would better serve as a deterrent to adults in similar situations?

 

[afterhours]

Don't you think a longer sentence would better serve as a deterrent to adults in similar situations?

No. And as a taxpayer I would not want to be paying for jailing a guy whose life is ruined anyway.

 

[versitile1]

No. And as a taxpayer I would not want to be paying for jailing a guy whose life is ruined anyway.

So you would be okay with the cop only getting probation, or being cleared of all charges? If so, you're not looking at it from the perspective of a parent, then.

 

[afterhours]

I am quite OK with him having been sentenced as he was (presumably upon considering all the circumstances including reasonableness of prospect of conviction, his loss of family with 4 kids, suicide attempt etc) to a short sharp jail term, sex offender registry and probation.

 

[red]

This wasn't your good student daughter sitting in your living room. This is your runaway daughter who is sexually very promiscuous, looks older than she is, and is in repeated trouble with the law.


Someone how I don't think even on TERB most people really want a daughter is is a "Little Loleta" and this girl very much seems to have been such.

counsellor. really. lolita?

she can't consent. it doesn't matter what her past is. she is 15 and he is 39 and certainly aware of the law. he raped a child. thats what he did. he got her drunk and raped her. he is no better than the roman polanski or any other rapist/pedophile.

 

[afterhours]

counsellor. really. lolita?

she can't consent. it doesn't matter what her past is. she is 15 and he is 39 and certainly aware of the law. he raped a child. thats what he did. he got her drunk and raped her. he is no better than the roman polanski or any other rapist/pedophile.

you understand that before 2008 it would not have been a crime in Canada at all, right?

 

[red]

you understand that before 2008 it would not have been a crime in Canada at all, right?

if thats true, then thats unfortunate. unfortunate and irrelevant.

 

[Dorian Grey]

This is your runaway daughter who is sexually very promiscuous, looks older than she is, and is in repeated trouble with the law.

So you're saying that her life circumstances and lack of intellectual and emotional maturity make it ok for her to be viewed as prey and taken advantage of by someone who not only should know better solely based on his age and life experience, but who has also been formally trained to deal with such situations? Wow.

Kind of like saying it's ok to kill a hobo, 'cause y'know, he's a hobo, and as such a human being with little to no societal value which makes it ok - in fact, he probably deserves it for being a hobo in the first place. This girl's statutory rape has some pretty interesting philosophical ties to those underpinning the 'slutwalk'...strange no one has picked up on this so far.

 

[canada-man]

slutwalk is a joke and is losing supporters

 

[Aardvark154]

if thats true, then thats unfortunate. unfortunate and irrelevant.

What's with all the Irrelevant?

First this is TERB not court and second what on earth is irrelevant about this hasn't been the way we've seem it for very long at all?

 

[Aardvark154]

Dorian, you know quite well that wasn't what I said at all.

 

[Aardvark154]

Afterhours, as I'm sure you know, the defence available under § 150.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada is quite unique to Canada. In most jurisdictions Strict Liability is strict liability there is no real defence other than I didn't do it. It becomes was she younger than 16: yes or no. "And's," "ifs" and "but's" are utterly irrelevant.

 

[IM469]

You agree that 15 year old girls should be protected from the same thing and that the sex of the minor counts. That is how you are a hypocrite. My opinion is that it doesn't 15 is 15. Period. That is my opinion.

I have seen an overwhelming support from males on this board which you appear to chose to ignore. It is a female opinion without the most critical support - first hand experience. There are books that will support any position that has been debunked by science so I tend to favour experience - something that you can only guess at.

And I don't agree or disagree about 15 year old girls because I have no clue about their emotional maturity at 15, 17 or even 21 - so I will value your opinion on that. It's bad - then okay - I believe you. So much for hypocrisy. I know what I lived through - but you only read about it and make general unfounded assumptions (opinions) that female & male are the same. Then based on your own erroneous assumptions - people who maintain girls and boys are different - must be hypocrites. I'm trying to make it easy - there is a fundamental flaw in your logic. If I accept the frailty of a 15-18 year old female to sexual experiences are different from mine (males) based on your female experiences - then why do you insist one giving males the same frailties ?

 

[IM469]

this thread is making me want to leave this board..smh

Did it every occur to you that if you are not interested in a thread - there is no obligation to click on it and read all the posts anyway ? Just curious - do you walk by movies you don't want to see but buy a ticket and sit through it anyways ?

There are a lot of threads in the lounge - I just pick the ones I'm interested in. It is an idea that could help you - or you could just quit and look for a board with only the threads you like reading.

 

[IM469]

Would you feel the same way if it were your 15 year old daughter drinking and having sex with a 39 year old off-duty cop?

I might open myself up for a broad side from my literary female nemesis on this topic but I will answer this honestly as my daughter successfully passed through this period. I would be pissed.

Before the 'hypocrite' cannons are set off let me explain that we raised our daughter with open communication and gradually let the leash loose as she progressed into her teens. We prepared her to make her own decisions and all the aspects from consequences to protection were discussed. She couldn't blame ignorance for a mistake. I even one day told tipped my hand from my youth and the tremendous urges that motivate guys. I told her that older guys who couldn't get girls their age would go for younger ones hoping that they were easy. We could not choose her boyfriends and there is no way we could prevent her meeting bad apples - we tried our best to prepare her. By the time she was 15, we had curfews but generally she was on her own.

If she dating a 39 year old guy - I'd be disappointed and try to reason with her but this is different. This is a 39 year old who used liquor to have a one night fling - and that it was a cop would really piss me off. If there was a bad outcome or remorse from my daughter - I'm guessing that sobering up from a night with what turns out to be a married man looking for a fuck would be it.

BTW: She has passed through this stage unscarred and even let my ex-wife know who the first guy was (she was almost 18 then).

 

[afterhours]

Afterhours, as I'm sure you know, the defence available under § 150.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada is quite unique to Canada. In most jurisdictions Strict Liability is strict liability there is no real defence other than I didn't do it. It becomes was she younger than 16: yes or no. "And's," "ifs" and "but's" are utterly irrelevant.

I admittedly know little about law outside of Canada, but I am surprised that "honest but mistaken belief" is not a defence in any decent jurisdiction.
In Canada we don't have strict liability criminal offences whatsoever. Usually it's full mens rea, with very rare exceptions (criminal negligence etc).

 

[Aardvark154]

For those interested

Below is Pennsylvania's Statutory Rape Law:

§ 3122.1. Statutory sexual assault.

(a) Felony of the second degree.--Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant to whom the person is not married who is under the age of 16 years and that person is either:
(1) four years older but less than eight years older than the complainant; or
(2) eight years older but less than 11 years older than the complainant.
(b) Felony of the first degree.--A person commits a felony of the first degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant under the age of 16 years and that person is 11 or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other.


Massachusetts' New* Statutory Rape Law is:



M.G.L. Ch. 265, Sec. 23-23B

“Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under 16 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction. A prosecution commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.”

* The age used to be 18 until about two years ago.

As you can see no mens rea at all is required. That she showed you 25 ID's may perhaps count for something at sentencing but at trial was she of age or wasn't she period amen.

 

[chuckparker]

Wow, just saw this. Used to work with this guy almost 18 years ago. He was working the bars with us downtown while he was a jail guard at metro west detention centre. Then he was a cop in peel for less than 2 years got fired for handcuffing a guy in a wharehouse over night. Surprised anyone would hire hime after that.

He was a 6'2" super muscular good looking black guy. The chicks used to go nuts over this diddler.