UK - Prince Andrew accused of underage sexual relationship, 1999 - 2002

[investikater]

I believe in the US it is state set laws, for the age of consent, but I may be wrong. Legally, in most countries the age of adulthood is 18.

I'm not sure about in the relevant time periods in the past?

But as the law currently stands;

The age of sexual consent:

In New York is 17
(unless over 15 and under 21)
(for over 11 and under 18 it is still illegal but a misdemeanor not a felony offence)

In Florida it is 18
(unless over 16 and under 24).

In England it is 16.

The age of full legal culpability for ones actions is fairly universally 18 years old.

The minimum age of prosecution tends to be about 10 years old.

 

[investikater]

I'm not sure about in the relevant time periods in the past?

But as the law currently stands;

The age of sexual consent:

In New York is 17
(unless over 15 and under 21)
(for over 11 and under 18 it is still illegal but a misdemeanor not a felony offence)

In Florida it is 18
(unless over 16 and under 24).

In England it is 16.

The age of full legal culpability for ones actions is fairly universally 18 years old.

The minimum age of prosecution tends to be about 10 years old.

CA alleges VRG at 17 recruited and groomed her in Florida when she was 14.

Assuming the law hasn't changed since;

At that time:
VRG would have been old enough to consent to sex with someone up to 24,
and CA would not have been old enough to consent to sex with anyone.

CA would not have been able to consent to sex with VRG for example.

VRG by her own admission continued to recruit minors when she was 18 and 19 years old.

 

[investikater]

NPR 20011: Neurologically, childhood ends at roughly 25, when the human brain is fully matured. Laws do not reflect the science.

Uni Rochester Med: (bbm)

It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet.

The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.

In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

In teens' brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not always at the same rate. That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.

This is correct. Well technically the science finds a range between about 22 and 25. Females tend to be younger than males.

(Note: I wouldn't say that "childhood" neurologically ends at 25.)

In Australia people under 25 are considered "young" and there are rules and some laws that apply only to them. For example some laws about driving.
There is often an 18-25 age group in various areas of life.

I often make this argument myself - that people under 25 should be treated differently across the legal system.

But that doesn't mean a 17 year old should be treated the same as a 14 year old for example.

And it doesn't mean that a person under 25 should have no accountability whatsoever.

I think sexual consent laws should probably exist between age gaps under and over 25.
But many people would disagree and consider that a violation of personal freedom.
And they don't in fact exist. That is not the law.

 

[mickey2942]

Queen 'won't pay for Prince Andrew's legal move - Duke's Swiss chalet for sale'

Looks like PA is selling assets. Sounds like a settlement might be coming soon.

 

[tayaway]

This is correct. Well technically the science finds a range between about 22 and 25. Females tend to be younger than males.

In Australia people under 25 are considered "young" and there are rules and some laws that apply only to them. For example some laws about driving.
There is often an 18-25 age group in various areas of life.

I often make this argument myself - that people under 25 should be treated differently across the legal system.

But that doesn't mean a 17 year old should be treated the same as a 14 year old for example.

And it doesn't mean that a person under 25 should have no accountability whatsoever.

I think sexual consent laws should probably exist between age gaps under and over 25.
But many people would disagree and consider that a violation of personal freedom.
And they don't in fact exist. That is not the law.

Agreed. Yes, I think a few of us WSers have done a decent job of showing that there is a spectrum of maturity, from 14 to 17 to late 20s and to 40s etc. Legal systems need to change in order to accommodate the scientific reality. It's great to hear that Australia is taking that approach.

It is not disputed that VRG was trafficked by JE. The imbalance of this power dynamic is astronomical - yet it is ignored by the victim blamers. Throwing a few bucks her way and flying her overseas for shopping or a night out with a famous prince doesn't make her JE/GM's equal. It only serves to further indebt her to them.

We do not know what transpired b/t VRG and PA. We do know that 17 year old VRG was scientifically, socially, and legally, in some American states at the time, not a mature adult.

 

[investikater]

Queen 'won't pay for Prince Andrew's legal move - Duke's Swiss chalet for sale'

Looks like PA is selling assets. Sounds like a settlement might be coming soon.

But this is supposed to not be about money to VRG?

Prince Andrew settlement with accuser ‘could cost more than $5m’

However, Virginia Roberts Giuffre is unlikely to accept a financial settlement because she wants to send a message that anyone accused of preying on young girls will face the full force of the law.

Taking money from the Duke, who she claims sexually abused her on three separate occasions, would not “advance that message”, The Telegraph understands.

 

[investikater]

Agreed. Yes, I think a few of us WSers have done a decent job of showing that there is a spectrum of maturity, from 14 to 17 to late 20s and to 40s etc. Legal systems need to change in order to accommodate the scientific reality. It's great to hear that Australia is taking that approach.

That is another point I also agree with - chronological age is not a universal indicator of maturity.

There are people who are develpmentally delayed. Possibly there are people who mature early.
There are always outliers.

The problem is to make laws you have to draw some kind of line.
And people are always going to fall through the cracks on either side of that line.

There is no accurate objective test you can give everyone to determine their individual specific maturity in various areas on a case by case basis.
Maybe in the future?

It's also worth noting that pedos and ephebos often groom minors by telling them that they are special because they are so mature for their age.
If we tried to subjectively determine each individual's maturity they would try to use that as an excuse.

It is not disputed that VRG was trafficked by JE. The imbalance of this power dynamic is astronomical - yet it is ignored by the victim blamers. Throwing a few bucks her way and flying her overseas for shopping or a night out with a famous prince doesn't make her JE/GM's equal. It only serves to further indebt her to them.

i've seen people try to dispute it.

We do not know what transpired b/t VRG and PA We do know that 17 year old VRG was scientifically, socially, and legally, in some American states at the time, not a mature adult.

but legally she was able to consent to sex in the place where it allegedly happened

where did she depart from on that trip?

 

[Vern]

except we dont know that the "spoilt prince" did anything wrong ofc yet

Bingo.

 

[Vern]

Agreed. Yes, I think a few of us WSers have done a decent job of showing that there is a spectrum of maturity, from 14 to 17 to late 20s and to 40s etc. Legal systems need to change in order to accommodate the scientific reality. It's great to hear that Australia is taking that approach.

It is not disputed that VRG was trafficked by JE. The imbalance of this power dynamic is astronomical - yet it is ignored by the victim blamers. Throwing a few bucks her way and flying her overseas for shopping or a night out with a famous prince doesn't make her JE/GM's equal. It only serves to further indebt her to them.

We do not know what transpired b/t VRG and PA. We do know that 17 year old VRG was scientifically, socially, and legally, in some American states at the time, not a mature adult.

"Victim blaming". Not for me, just a "he is innocent until proven guilty" as is his right. What we do know is that the alleged transgression occurred in England, where the alleged victim was actually considered to be of legal age to consent (as she would also have been in many US states).


VG is now a proven victim of JE and GM.
Right now, she remains an "alleged victim" of PA. The two are NOT the same.

Pointing out that "alleged" does not yet equal "proven" is also not the equivalent of victim blaming IMO.

 

[Dotta]

So...
Why hasn't this case been resolved by now?
If there is nothing for PA to worry about, why didn't he talk to authorities but had to be hunted down?
Why all this circus and this WS thread?
And...
Most importantly - why the public outcry?

 

[Dotta]

Prince Andrew's expensive team of advisers including solicitor nicknamed 'Good News Gary' | Daily Mail Online

 

[tayaway]

"Victim blaming". Not for me, just a "he is innocent until proven guilty" as is his right. What we do know is that the alleged transgression occurred in England, where the alleged victim was actually considered to be of legal age to consent (as she would also have been in many US states). SBM

VRG's lawsuit covers 3 alleged assaults, not just the 1 in the UK (consent 16). The other 2 being NYC (consent 17) and Little St. James in the Virgin Islands (consent 18).

"Victim blaming". SBM

VG is now a proven victim of JE and GM.
Right now, she remains an "alleged victim" of PA. The two are NOT the same. SBM

Denying the power dynamics b/t VRG/JE is victim blaming. Treating her as a mature adult is victim blaming. Denying that she is capable of maturing from an emotional 17 year old into a mature woman who sees what she experienced differently is victim blaming. This is what I was referring to, and it was clear in my post.

VG is now a proven victim of JE and GM.
Right now, she remains an "alleged victim" of PA. The two are NOT the same.

Pointing out that "alleged" does not yet equal "proven" is also not the equivalent of victim blaming IMO.

???

 

[Vern]

So...
Why hasn't this case been resolved by now?
If there is nothing for PA to worry about, why didn't he talk to authorities but had to be hunted down?
Why all this circus and this WS thread?
And...
Most importantly - why the public outcry?

Both innocent and guilty persons have been known to exercise their right to remain silent.

There's public outcry form both sides of the fence on this one.

So, that leaves us sitting squarely in the middle once again - pondering allegations at this point in time with nothing proven yet.

 

[Vern]

RSBM ...

???

PA has not been proven, either civilly or criminally, to be an abuser of VG at this point in time.

Ergo "alleged".

Or has he and I somehow missed it?

 

[Dotta]

Both innocent and guilty persons have been known to exercise their right to remain silent.

There's public outcry form both sides of the fence on this one.

So, that leaves us sitting squarely in the middle once again - pondering allegations at this point in time with nothing proven yet.

Let's just see what the Judge has to say.
That is why we have Courts of Law.

 

[Vern]

Let's just see what the Judge has to say.
That is why we have Courts of Law.

I absolutely agree.

And any judge worth their salt and courts of law will tell you that individuals are "presumed innocent until proven guilty" as a right. Therefore, until that happens, these are allegations, not yet facts.

The fact that that presumption of innocence is a right is why people can sue for slander, defamation etc when things are stated or printed as being "facts" when they are merely "allegations". Ergo why newspapers, reporters etc like to use the word "alleged perpetrator" etc etc etc.

 

[Dotta]

I absolutely agree.

And any judge worth their salt will tell you that individuals are "innocent until proven guilty". Therefore, until that happens, these are allegations, not yet facts.

But until then we can discuss this matter here on WS to our hearts' delight, no?

 

[Vern]

But then we can discuss this matter here on WS to our hearts' delight, no?

We can; I'd just appreciate it not being insinuated that I am a "victim blamer" because I also happen to believe in the alleged perpetrators rights being upheld until/unless the allegations are proven otherwise.

Doesn't that seem fair?

 

[Dotta]

We can; I'd just appreciate it not being insinuated that I am a "victim blamer" because I also happen to believe in the alleged perpetrators rights being upheld until/unless the allegations are proven otherwise.

Doesn't that seem fair?

Correction!
I didn't call you that!

 

[Vern]

Correction!
I didn't call you that!

I did not state that you did.

That was for the collective "we"s discussing this matter here on WS ... who are stating such during these discussions.