I am reading a lot of misconceptions about this case and the verdicts, not surprising given how crappy the press coverage is (godaweful is mostly like it).
For one thing, Labry was not convicted of felony statutory rape, he was convicted of misdemeanor sexual assault because he was 18 and she was 15 (like many states, the age difference is a factor, since it was less than 5 years and they were in school together, he was not convicted of statutory rape, which would be a felony).
The felony conviction was for using the computer to entice a minor, which I have to agree, is kind of dubious, it was intended for an adult seducing children i.e where there would be statutory rape, where this was not, on appeal that may get thrown out, because I wonder if it is even applicable. It is the computer charge that gets him on the sex registry, not the sexual assault, and if so if that gets heaved he likely would be removed. More importantly, he can appeal to be taken off the list.
I read what several legal analysts have said, based on the verdict, several wondered if this was a case of the jury coming to a compromise verdict, that they neither believed totally the state, that this was rape, or the defense, that Labrie was not guilty of anything but bad taste or whatnot, and came to this as a compromise. I don’t understand the computer charge, maybe that was the Juries way of saying they thought the boy was guilty of something serious enough to get him on the registry, I don’t know.
The hard part about cases like this is it comes down to he said she said, and whether in fact she in fact said no and he understood it. He didn’t help himself, if he bragged about having sex with her after the fact the way he supposedly did, it made him look like an arrogant jerk, since he claimed he never had sex. If he had had sex with her and had left semen (which if he used a condom, obviously would not have left evidence) it might have been different, but given the haziness about what happened, that may have influenced the jury, too.
As far as the girl, I am disgusted when people talk about her conduct as if somehow that ‘proved’ that she wasn’t raped, that it was consensual. Whether a girl shaved her privates or not, whether she wore a miniskirt and heels or not, matters not whit, that is the equivalent to what piece of dung defense lawyers used to do, arguing that the victim was ‘asking’ for sex, because she was on a street at night, or wearing sexy clothing, or if she met some guy, they got together, but then she changed her mind, and he forced her, since she went someplace with him, she was ‘asking for it’. Worse, it reeks to me of something worse, the thing that is so disgusting among certain religious/cultural groups, that the young women must have ‘tempted him’ or ‘wanted it’.Claiming she was responsible because it was clear she ‘wanted’ to have sex, since she agreed to meet him there, took off her top, whatever, is absolute, utter BS, because the moment someone says no, wants to back out, all that matters not one bit. People have this idea that rape is something done by some stranger on a dark street, when rape is about non consensuality, period, and whether the boy was some sort of great athlete and did well at an elite prep school, or was a high school dropout, doesn’t matter, and whether the girl was a virgin or took on the whole football team doesn’t matter, either, it is about what happened that night at that time, and the rest is irrelevent. Fortunately, courts have reigned in the scumbag defense attorneys who would bring up the victims sex life or what she was wearing in court, but it unfortunately still is a defense some are doing in this case (not necessarily on here, what I read elsewhere).
I also am tired of hearing how the boy’s life is ruined. He wasn’t 14, the kid was 18 years old, an age when he can sign a contract, when he can serve in the military and do things like help run an aircraft carrier, and when he certainly should know the difference between right and wrong. What is even more pathetic is this kid apparently wanted to go to Harvard to study theology, with an eye towards becoming a minister, yet he didn’t think having sex with a 15 year old girl, to score, to fulfill some prep school inane tradition was morally wrong? I don’t know what religion he grew up with, but none of them think that having sex with a young woman simply to be able to boast is morally right, and thank god this clown will never be a minister,he has some serious screws loose. From one account I read, the girl in question was the sister of a classmate of his. I don’t know if the classmate is a brother or sister, but if something like that happened to a sister of a classmate of mine, you can bet that there would be serious retribution on the perp when it came out.
Given what I have read I don’t think the boy was totally innocent but I am not certain he was guilty of felony rape either, but I do think he took advantage of a young girl who from what i have read, didn’t exactly seem like she was on board with having sex, and that he may have used his upper class status and age to influence what happened. I don’t think this is statutory rape, but I also know how seniors are viewed by freshman, especially a kid that was popular (I found it pretty pathetic that in court they dressed the kid like he was a Jonah hill type geek, with his hair all curled up and glasses) and I can understand how the jury came up with what they did. other than the computer thing. I think the kid had immense arrogance along with being thrilled with his conquest, and he forgot the girl in the process. I don’t think he should be on a sex offenders list forever or maybe not at all, but unfortunately, the rules are a bit idiotic, people are on the list because they had sex in a public place (like the case in florida recently, or as has happened at a local nude beach in the NYC area, a couple can be busted and get a felony conviction for petting, and end up on the list.
I also am going to pose another question, for those who seem to want to defend the boy as a misguided lad and for others: Suppose the boy, instead of being the captain of the soccer team and a straight A student at a prep school and headed for Harvard, had been an 18 year old boy in high school who was a poor kid, or a kid from the wrong side of the tracks at a public high school that ‘bagged’ a freshman? Would people be defending the boy, saying he was guilty of being a teenager, or would they assume guilt? Or as in a case that ended up with a 17 year old black kid being charged and convicted with felony statutory rape for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend (who did not charge him with rape),would you defend him the same way (and yes, that was a real case, it was a major thing in the news several years back, about the misapplication of statutory rape, especially given that the parents brought the charges because they didn’t like their daughter was with a black kid in the first place). Are you defending him because as someone said, he had such a promising future because he was at a prep school and was going to harvard, or are you defending him because you really believe that in a case like this it is a stupid kid with another stupid kid? I think the fact that the boy was at a top prep school, was an honor student and athlete, and was supposed to go to harvard is swaying people, from reading the comments on news websites a lot of people were saying he was just a stupid lad who had what he thought was a bit of fun; yet on those same news sites, when people questioned the case with the 17 year old black kid and his 15 year old white girlfriend, most of the people were raging that he was guilty of rape and should be charged, hence my thoughts.
