Sure, the school and their parents failed them. I see it as a failure of education rather than supervision. There’s no prison in the world that’s managed to eradicate sex, so I don’t expect high schools to.
“I’m just saying that she didn’t just meet someone in a public place and that unexpected sexual activity took place.”
SHE WAS SHOVED INTO A CLOSET. After being invited to go out on a roof. Premeditated, pretty much - the guy had a key not only to the roof, which at least was an open area, but to a closet?
I’m not sure how else to explain that, other than that I am in a 25-year relationship with someone I routinely have consensual sex with, and if he took me on a roof but THEN shoved me into a closet and had sex with me while I was resisting, THAT is rape!!! (and I am older than dirt, so the statutory part does not apply)
As for if she shaved or not (mentioned by a poster), HOW do you know she “shaved in preparation”? Did she testify that, or was that based on a nurse’s report? You do know some women shave as a matter of course for hygiene reasons?
Or that, just maybe, a 15 year old can change her mind about having sex with someone she barely knew, and say NO? Or is that “not fair” to the extent that clearly the “18 year old boy” was innocent?
It really bugs me that some on this thread seems to be so diametrically opposite to the other “campus rape” thread, where victim blaming, or even commenting that some behavior might be risky attracts a lot of negative attention. Aren’t we talking about the same issue? Or are we making allowances for whether she, legally a child in terms of not having the ability to consent to sex, “got what was coming to her”.
Two things struck me from that article:
“It’s like debating whether Trayvon Martin consented to being killed.”
and, paraphrasing a few lines - she had his semen in her underwear yet he said he wore a condom? Not sure how that could work out…
I CANNOT agree to the following statement, posted above:
“Can I just say that I feel sorry for both of these young people and wish for both their sakes that this encounter never happened?”
HE WAS AN ADULT. She was NOT. HE purposefully brought a key to a locked “closet” or “secluded attic” or what have you. Do you honestly think if it were true consensual sex with no ill intentions, he would have had to put her in a locked room? Seriously?
And “wrongdoing”? Isn’t this rape? Why are so many people supporting him as “making a youthful mistake”?
Yuck. And pathetic.
If that “boy” were my son, I’d have to be held back from beating his behind, and cutting off any financial responsibility for him. It is like drunk driving and maiming or killing someone - do the parents of the victim say “oh, well, it was a mistake”?
SPS does not really care about the fate of Owen Labrie, seeing as he has no resources and no connections. SPS needs to distance itself from what he did (misdemeanor, yes - but “sex offender felon” NO in my book). SPS needs to salvage its own reputation and safeguard the support of its wealthy alumni.
@Hanna, at a boarding school, I see education and supervision going hand in hand. I have no problem “supervising” teenagers in my home. Missing keys, and repainting walls, etc. are supervisory measures.
I’m glad you brought up the shaving thing, because until today I hadn’t heard that. The first thing I thought was, How do we know she didn’t shave because she was going swimming? Lots of people shave before putting on a bathing suit.
^^ Was it established that he shoved her into the closet/attic?
@rhandco, not sure what you have read about this case. I don’t recall any evidence of shoving in a closet. By the girl’s own testimony, the encounter was consensual until the “pivotal moment” when she (laughing nervously) said “no.” Also, i believe she conceded that she shaved her pubic area just before the encounter.
Also, I don’t think anyone here has argued Labrie was innocent. What is being debated now is whether he should carry a lifetime title of sex offender, and all this entails per midwestdad3’s post.
If the solicitation felony conviction sticks, that should send chills down the spine of every parent of an 18-year-old high school senior boy.
Sex between 18 year old and 15 year old high school students is very, very common, and electronic invitations to potential encounters are even more common.
That’s a totally different ballgame from non-consensual sex. And I trust the jury’s verdict that the state did not prove its case on the non-consensual felony charges.
Re: the shaving, the girl told (or emailed or something) a friend saying she might let Labrie finger her. This indicates to me that her decision to shave had more to do with that than with swimming, etc.
Shaving your pubic hair does not equal consent to anything. Neither does wearing sexy clothes or putting on makeup.
I’ve been speaking to a friend who has been visiting nude beaches lately. Some men are a problem there and see nudity as consent to be stared at, or more. They get kicked out.
@greenwitch, the jury, who heard all of the evidence (none of us were there) clearly believed that the girl did consent to the encounter, otherwise they would have found felony rape. The reason labrie was convicted was because the girl was 15. If she were 16, he would have walked. So, her consent was established with regard to her relations with this 18 year old.
As I read the NH statute and thinking as a lawyer, I would appeal based on the intent of the legislature, as evidenced in the direct wording of the statute, that this crime as written is intended to be something entirely different. The statute says, in part: “No person shall knowingly utilize a computer on-line service, internet service, or local bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child or another person believed by the person to be a child, to commit any of the following …” I’d argue as a defense attorney that the defendant did not “knowingly” use an “on-line service”, etc. because the intent of those words is to criminalize the use of publicly accessible websites for the express purpose of an adult luring a child. Though as we know child is defined as under 16, I’d argue the wording means a specific form of crime, not a general criminalizing of direct communications between people who know each other from other circumstances. Luring a child for seduction is an offense very specifically condemned and feared by society while it’s difficult to believe the legislature intended to make conversations between people who know each other outside of “on-line services”, etc. into felonies. This is why they explicitly list “on-line services, internet service, or local bulletin board”; they were aiming to combat the fear of adult strangers luring kids. I would even argue the elements of the crime is entirely not met because any communications sent within the school were not on an “internet service” but rather on an computer network. I think the defense has a good shot, especially if there is legislative history.
As to registering, the guy will have to deal with this in any situation so I’m not sure it makes any difference in the long run. He’ll always be “that guy”.
Actually, they did not necessarily clearly believe that she consented; they just did not believe (beyond a reasonable doubt) that she did NOT consent.
@prospect1 - it’s really not about this case. Shaving does not equal consent. It only implies a sort of optimistic preparation, which could change at any time for any of a hundred or so reasons ( one of which might be razor burn). I find it offensive that any woman who shaves cannot therefore be raped. It’s the “trampy clothes” defense all over again.
@greenwitch, I think you are completely mischaracterizing what @prospect1 wrote. No one said “any woman who shaves cannot be raped,” or anything even faintly close to it. Prospect1 was simply questioning what rhandco actually knew about the case, since she seems to have invented this scenario in her mind where the girl was “shoved int a closet,” something the girl herself didn’t even imply.
No one is saying that, @greenwitch. The jury looked at hundreds of pieces of information in this case. That was only one of hundreds. There were 17 witnesses over 2 weeks, for heavens sakes.
Thank you greenwitch, that is my point.
And it is disturbing - a freshman, 15 years old, and all people worry about what HER intentions were?
And feel sorry for him, and his “life being ruined”?
This was not like going back to someone’s dorm. I will try to find the link about the closet (updated to “secluded attic”, visited after the roof, on the article recently linked to). The point in that article was that the key to that closet on the roof was passed around just for the “senior game”. Premeditated so she could not leave.
And NFN, consenting to “fingering” is not consenting to “penetrative sex”. And consenting to petting above the waist is not consenting to “penetrative sex”.
As an aside, I do not think the sex offender registry works as intended. There are multiple studies that show it pretty much does nothing except make people paranoid and does prevent some sex crimes (people are more wary to commit sex crimes, but recidivism is not affected by being on the registry or not).
rhandco, I really think you need to read more detail about the case before you continue to maintain that she was “shoved into a closet” and so forth.
Very true. I haven’t seen anyone here disagreeing with you.
Rhandco, no one here has condoned what Labrie did. Not one poster. And as woman and a mother of two boys, I agree with you. When someone says no, she means no. And consenting to one sexual act is not an invitation to proceed to others.
But as consolation writes, you have facts of the case wrong. Facts, not an opinion. He didn’t shove her in the closet. And although it took a key to get into the maintenance room, it seems it didn’t take a key to get out. He alone had the key (it was never stated anywhere that she had a key in her possession), and left before the accuser (an act that makes him & their encounter even more creepy, as someone else pointed out up thread). She left after he did, indicating that the door only locked from the outside. I’m not claiming any of this to uphold what he did, or to imply his innocence, but to state simply that this was not, as you say, “premeditated so that she could not leave.”
Changing direction slightly - I read that sentencing will be in October. I have read the felony count carries 3.5-7 years - but another source stated that in NH - the judge has complete latitude - and could give no jail time. Which is it?
From NBC: