GUILTY FL - Kaitlyn Hunt for statutory rape of 14yo girl, Vero Beach, 2013

[JeannaT]

Most kids these days aren't getting any sex-education at all. I'm only a few years older than KH and I talk to kids my age and younger all the time. Do you know how many times I have said "Dude, don't have sex with a drunk girl, she can't legally consent and that is rape." Only to hear back "NUH HUHHH!!!"

They don't know a damn thing about consent and the things they do know about age-difference are rumours and half-truths.

That's not really technically true, and hopefully that idiocy will change soon.

Drunk men can CERTAINLY consent to sex, and very often do, why are girls and women treated like delicate little cupcakes who can't make decisions for their own selves? This is complete lunacy.

The world has gone mad. At some point, we're going to have to revert to the old days when women weren't allowed go out after dark without chaperones, because frankly, they were then and are now considered too silly and delicate to make up their own minds whether they want to drink and have sex. Women who want to drink and have sex, should be able to do it. Legally. Without ruining some man's life. (Or, in this case, some other woman's life). Obviously, no one should be legally allowed to slip drugs into those drinks, that's sabotage and is not related to personal decisions and choice.

It's just not fair.

 

[EmmaliLucia]

That's not really technically true, and hopefully that idiocy will change soon.

Drunk men can CERTAINLY consent to sex, and very often do, why are girls and women treated like delicate little cupcakes who can't make decisions for their own selves? This is complete lunacy.

The world has gone mad. At some point, we're going to have to revert to the old days when women weren't allowed go out after dark without chaperones, because frankly, they were then and are now considered too silly and delicate to make up their own minds whether they want to drink and have sex. Women who want to drink and have sex, should be able to do it. Legally. Without ruining some man's life. (Or, in this case, some other woman's life). Obviously, no one should be legally allowed to slip drugs into those drinks, that's sabotage and is not related to personal decisions and choice.

It's just not fair.

There's no gender in those consent laws.

Men can't consent when they're drunk either. It's just that men are far less likely to report a rape than women are, and just like there's "*advertiser censored*-shaming" and "Victim-blaming" for female-bodied persons who have the audacity to report their rapes. There's perceived to be a LOT more dismissive attitude towards men who have the audacity to report their rapes.

I find that law totally fair. If when you are drunk I convince you to give me your wallet, is that not theft?

 

[jjenny]

There's no gender in those consent laws.

Men can't consent when they're drunk either. It's just that men are far less likely to report a rape than women are, and just like there's "*advertiser censored*-shaming" and "Victim-blaming" for female-bodied persons who have the audacity to report their rapes. There's perceived to be a LOT more dismissive attitude towards men who have the audacity to report their rapes.

I find that law totally fair. If when you are drunk I convince you to give me your wallet, is that not theft?

Please post a link to this law you keep talking about.

 

[JeannaT]

There's no gender in those consent laws.

Men can't consent when they're drunk either. It's just that men are far less likely to report a rape than women are, and just like there's "*advertiser censored*-shaming" and "Victim-blaming" for female-bodied persons who have the audacity to report their rapes. There's perceived to be a LOT more dismissive attitude towards men who have the audacity to report their rapes.

I find that law totally fair. If when you are drunk I convince you to give me your wallet, is that not theft?

NO, THAT'S NOT THEFT. That's why charity auctions (and other business venues that try to get people to buy things they normally wouldn't) ply customers with alcohol.

Have you never been to a charity gala auction, when EVERYONE knows the high bidders are drunk, and the alcohol is still flowing, and when they spend their money, that contract is binding. Sorry, you got yourself drunk, you spent $300 on something worth about $50, thanks for your money, goodnight.

Can you IMAGINE someone in Vegas, after being served free drinks by the Casino, demanding their gambling money back? NO WAY.

Sorry, you drank, we got you drunk, we took advantage of you being drunk and took your money, that at the time you gave freely.

Funny, it's the exact same thing and I'm surprised you hadn't noticed in life that businesses can get you drunk on purpose, and get you to part with your money when they know you wouldn't have done that sober.

Next time, keep your wits about you and don't get yourself so drunk you do stuff you regret later.

 

[Ilianna Mari]

You're not confused. This girl is guilty and properly charged. She might be counting on gay rage to save her.

 

[Gardenlady]

What on earth is "gay rage"?

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Most kids these days aren't getting any sex-education at all. I'm only a few years older than KH and I talk to kids my age and younger all the time. Do you know how many times I have said "Dude, don't have sex with a drunk girl, she can't legally consent and that is rape." Only to hear back "NUH HUHHH!!!"

They don't know a damn thing about consent and the things they do know about age-difference are rumours and half-truths.

I have some good friends that go to the schools (the ones that will allow them to come in) and educate on these topics daily. I know it's not available in all areas though. It's very important to talk to your children.

 

[jjenny]

I have some good friends that go to the schools (the ones that will allow them to come in) and educate on these topics daily. I know it's not available in all areas though. It's very important to talk to your children.

What exactly are the parents for?

 

[LaborDayRN]

You're not confused. This girl is guilty and properly charged. She might be counting on gay rage to save her.

BBM Could you clarify that?

 

[Gardenlady]

What exactly are the parents for?

Many parents don't fully educate their children about sex and all the issues surrounding it. The kids shouldn't b made to suffer because of the parents' negligence to do so.

More information is always better. I am hugely in favor of comprehensive, sex-positive, sex Ed beginning well before the teen years.

 

[EmmaliLucia]

Please post a link to this law you keep talking about.

Sure thing.

In Florida:

Under First Degree Felony Factors:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6685126_florida-rape-laws.html

Florida rape laws stipulate that sexual battery or rape is considered to be a first-degree felony under certain circumstances. These factors may include when the victim is physically unable to resist, if the offender threatens the victim with force or violence, if prior to the sexual battery or rape the offender administers a narcotic or other substance that incapacitates the victim, or if the victim is considered to be “mentally incapacitated,” under Florida law.

On a different website advertising for defence attorneys:

“Mentally incapacitated” means temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling a person’s own conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance administered with or without his or her consent.

This law is more or less the same in every state. Being drunk is considered being mentally incapacitated.

This is why the Steubenville rapes were, in fact, rapes. Because guess what? She didn't explicitly say no, she was too busy being incapacitated, and yes, she was obviously more incapacitated than what most people consider the cut-off of the incapacitated/sober line to be.




BUT this is totally off subject, because neither of them were drunk (At least I'm hoping they weren't). My saying that you can't consent when you're drunk comes from several personal experiences. This thread is focused more on Statutory rape, and the fact that absolutely no one is denying that this is statutory rape.

 

[believe09]

The parents of Kaitlyn's victim educated Kaitlyn, even if by some chance she didnt know she shouldnt start a sexual relationship with a 14 year old. Kaitlyn was told and was given two chances.

People may not like statutory rape laws, but they are the reality in this case and many others. Kaitlyn knew, was told to stop and she persisted. She made her choice. Her victim was not old enough to be allowed to choose.

Kaitlyn should take the deal. She is receiving bad advice and it is very unfortunate. I think it is worth looking at the role social media is taking here and shaming the victim's family with some kind of trumped up "gay rage." IMO, anyway. I think it is trumped up. These parents are protecting their minor child and Kaitlyn had a chance to step back.

I think there should be some kind of punishment in this case. I dont know what it should be. I am trying to figure out, however, why no one believes that there could be a bigger picture here with Kaitlyn. I think about all of the cases we review on here and all the pondering we do regarding predatory behavior and when it starts. It interests me that no one has really gone there.

 

[believe09]

I'm not sure how it is in other states, but on our sex offender registry, we can see exactly what crime the conviction was for. When I see rape of a minor under 13, there's no mistaking that for a Romeo/Juliet situation. :furious:

Devils advocate-what if we are talking a 16 year old and a 12 year old? A 13 year old and a 17 year old?

Why arent the older kids dating peers? Why isnt that strange to anyone? It's kind of strange to me.

That age gap is about manipulation, consciously or unconsciously.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

The parents of Kaitlyn's victim educated Kaitlyn, even if by some chance she didnt know she shouldnt start a sexual relationship with a 14 year old. Kaitlyn was told and was given two chances.

People may not like statutory rape laws, but they are the reality in this case and many others. Kaitlyn knew, was told to stop and she persisted. She made her choice. Her victim was not old enough to be allowed to choose.

Kaitlyn should take the deal. She is receiving bad advice and it is very unfortunate. I think it is worth looking at the role social media is taking here and shaming the victim's family with some kind of trumped up "gay rage." IMO, anyway. I think it is trumped up. These parents are protecting their minor child and Kaitlyn had a chance to step back.

I think there should be some kind of punishment in this case. I dont know what it should be. I am trying to figure out, however, why no one believes that there could be a bigger picture here with Kaitlyn. I think about all of the cases we review on here and all the pondering we do regarding predatory behavior and when it starts. It interests me that no one has really gone there.

I think there is some predatory behavior indicated on what information we have so far. (I have to say I didn't see the police reports.) I think Gitana ?? brought it up and I agree with her analysis.

I would be very upset as I mentioned in a previous post if a 18 yr old was continuing to pursue my young daughter even after being asked to stop and also picking her up while sneaking out of the house.

 

[Gardenlady]

Devils advocate-what if we are talking a 16 year old and a 12 year old? A 13 year old and a 17 year old?

Why arent the older kids dating peers? Why isnt that strange to anyone? It's kind of strange to me.

That age gap is about manipulation, consciously or unconsciously.

Most 12 year olds are neither physically nor mentally mature. Most 14 year olds are physically mature, but not mentally (though more so than the 12 year old).

To me, 12 being both physically and mentally immature, is definitely too young for consent, and too young for a r&j exception, except possibly to within a year (12 yr old with 13 yr old).

13 could be either physically mature or immature, and isn't much more emotionally mature the the 12 year old. I'd say here, too young for consent, but would allow for a r&j exception to within a year, possibly 2 (13 yr old with a 14 or 15 year old).

14 year olds are mostly physically mature. It is the age of consent in many places. I would say here, conditional consent with a partner up to 3/4years older, 4 if they are schoolmates.

In none of these cases, if the relationship is consensual, and falls within the close age range, do I think we should be looking at criminal charges. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of criminalizing consensual sex acts between peers.

 

[believe09]

Most 12 year olds are neither physically nor mentally mature. Most 14 year olds are physically mature, but not mentally (though more so than the 12 year old).

To me, 12 being both physically and mentally immature, is definitely too young for consent, and too young for a r&j exception, except possibly to within a year (12 yr old with 13 yr old).

13 could be either physically mature or immature, and isn't much more emotionally mature the the 12 year old. I'd say here, too young for consent, but would allow for a r&j exception to within a year, possibly 2 (13 yr old with a 14 or 15 year old).

14 year olds are mostly physically mature. It is the age of consent in many places. I would say here, conditional consent with a partner up to 3/4years older, 4 if they are schoolmates.

In none of these cases, if the relationship is consensual, and falls within the close age range, do I think we should be looking at criminal charges. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of criminalizing consensual sex acts between peers.

I respect your opinion and I appreciate your thoughts. Where you and I differ, I think, is what is considered a peer. I dont think a Freshman is a peer of a Senior. I also think that a 4 year age gap when you are talking about a young teen and a later teen is too big. Huge divide there socially, physically....you name it.

Since we are dealing with the law as it stands, Kaitlyn is guilty. I dont know what punishment is appropriate, but I think she will receive more than she can possibly handle if she rolls the dice.

If the law was going to be re written with a new line in the sand, I think it is going to be a struggle to figure out where that line should move to. You and I differ on what it should be...I dont know what kind of resource would help to sort it out.

If you are a Senior, you are on your way to college, finding a job, hammering out a life....why would you date a freshman instead of a peer?

 

[Frogzilla]

This is my last post here and I will be kinder than my previous one. This thread could do so much better to understand the issues instead of trying to distort the so called facts. As an example, there are so many posts talking about how the older girl was warned to stay away, which there is no solid proof of. To top it off, that would be hard considering they were schoolmates who shared classes and several after school activities. Also, how would you feel as a juror when the parents of the younger girl have stated through the prosecutor that they don't believe there should be any jail time involved and the prosecutor is going for 15 years? For being three months over an arbitrary number of 18 years old, she deserves 15 years? What about the impact on the younger girl when she gets a taste of a trial during depositions? These are the kind of of issues that are relevant, not trying to attack and undermine other people's opinions because you may not agree with them. I wish everyone involved in this situation and others like it the best.

 

[Gardenlady]

I respect your opinion and I appreciate your thoughts. Where you and I differ, I think, is what is considered a peer. I dont think a Freshman is a peer of a Senior. I also think that a 4 year age gap when you are talking about a young teen and a later teen is too big. Huge divide there socially, physically....you name it.

Since we are dealing with the law as it stands, Kaitlyn is guilty. I dont know what punishment is appropriate, but I think she will receive more than she can possibly handle if she rolls the dice.

If the law was going to be re written with a new line in the sand, I think it is going to be a struggle to figure out where that line should move to. You and I differ on what it should be...I dont know what kind of resource would help to sort it out.

If you are a Senior, you are on your way to college, finding a job, hammering out a life....why would you date a freshman instead of a peer?

Well, I'd say usually an 18 year old and 14/15 year old aren't usually peers, but if they are schoolmates and teammates, as the case is here, it gets a bit fuzzier.

It's definitely not ideal, and it's not a situation I'd want any of my kids to be in - again, my problem is mostly to do with the idea of it being handled as a crime with a criminal record and punishment in jail if it is within a reasonable age range and is otherwise consensual.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

I knew from the beginning this was going to be a very controversial subject. I am not following the discussion anywhere else but here at this point.

I would hope we can all be nice to one another and post according to WS's rules.

 

[TheDuchess]

I think the unfortunate thing about this whole case is the fact that homosexuality has been brought into it. It reminds me of other cases where race is made a factor simply because the 2 persons in the case happen to be of different races. In this case, we just so happen to have a case of alleged statutory rape of a 14 year old by an 18 year old of the same sex.

This really isn't a good case, in my opinion, for the gay rights movement to take on. The gay community has worked long and hard to be seen as being normal people like everyone else. They have worked hard to overcome stereotypes of those who try to argue that homosexuals are perverted, shouldn't be around children, etc... To "take on" a case like this sends the wrong message and truly muddies the waters.

This case SHOULD be treated like any other case of statutory rape. It doesn't matter if the parties are same sex or opposite sex. The question surrounds age. And it also focuses on the letter of the law. The law was written specifically to take out any mitigating factors, in particular whether or not the 14 year old "consented." That is exactly why it is called "statutory rape." It doesn't matter that Mary Kay LeTornou and her student ended up getting married and lived happily ever after-what she did was rape. Doesn't matter the kid loved her, enjoyed the sex or even father children with her. The law is the law is the law.

Now-should the sentence imposed consider these other mitigating factors? Sure. Does the 14 year old and her family want a stiff sentence imposed? Do they feel the 14 year old suffered long term emotional damage due to the situation? Were the 18 year old's motives pure and true? Certainly, all of these things come into play. Do I think she should be on a sex offender registry the rest of her life? NO! As a matter of fact, I don't believe any statutory rape person should be. (As a parent-I want to know about the scuzzy old man jumping out of the bushes preying on little girls much more than two teenagers who had an inappropriate relationship.)

But at the end of the day, this is the law. And it isn't an arbitrary number. It is a specific number, whether any of us like it or not-and that can't change, because you have to pick a number. . Just like the legal age to drive at 16, the voting age at 18 and the drinking age at 21. You cannot get your driver's license at 15, even if you are a really good driver. You can't vote at 17, even if you really love politics and care about your country. And you can't go into a bar and drink even the day before your 21st birthday-even though it is so close. The law has to draw a line somewhere.

Finally, as far as her not knowing the law-I have a BIG problem with that. I know of NO 18 year olds who do not understand the significance of turning 18. Every single person turning 18 knows that they are now an "adult" and have adult rights and also adult responsibilities. So to say that she really wasn't aware that it would be a problem does not hold up.

So, in my opinion, she has no case. She broke the law. It is what it is. And she's not being persecuted because she is gay. She's not being persecuted because the parents just don't like her. She broke the law and now must answer to the charges. She's going the wrong way by fighting this, and could very likely get herself in a lot more hot water than when she started. If she is a first offender, it is very likely she will get a slap on the wrist and won't have to file as a RSO. If she keeps playing this game saying the law is "unfair" it won't end well for her at all.

JMO