Ok, I read the report - it is not my takeaway that Labrie had sex with a 12-year-old (!) Not sure how anybody can really interpret those messages – one way or another – without more context.
The prosecutors do not themselves conclude that Labrie had sex with a 12-year-old; believe me, they would highlight that conclusion if they had drawn it.
The judge, who has seen everything, stated on the record that Labrie was neither the saint he claimed to be, NOR the devil painted by the prosecution. Surely if he had concluded that Labrie had sex with a 12-year-old (YIKES!), he would not have imposed the light sentence of one year in jail, and suspended the felony prison time.
I think there are some overactive imaginations here regarding sex with a 12 year old!! I say that kiddingly, please don’t take offense. This is not a laughing matter. However, I do not myself draw that conclusion from those few lines of FB text.
Interestingly, I do see that some of the really vulgar things he said are actually quotes from a book of poetry written by the comedian Bo Burnham; I know this because I have seen the book and I recall some of that exact language (which is shocking, yes, but I guess somebody considers it"art"). Labrie must be a Burnham fan.
Regarding the girl’s mom hitting the media circuit, it’s a free country, and she is free to tell her daughter’s story. If it helps the girl to heal, good for her. From all accounts, the girl has been damaged; she was only 15 years old and, as the judge noted, in way over her head. Labrie absolutely should have known this.
Remember, the judge and jury who saw all of the evidence and heard all the testimony, live and in person, came to these conclusions. Of course, we are all free to arrive at our own opinions from the snippets we have seen, but nobody seems to dispute that the girl has suffered, and given her very young age, I personally believe it.
I didn’t read the report and conclude that he had sex with a 12 year old either. What I did read is an 18 year old male commenting on a 12 year old’s prepubescent bum which disgusts me and is definitely not “divine”.
Edit: Here’s an article which references the Burnham poem @prospect1 references, as well as some other points we’ve discussed.
http://www.vice.com/read/does-a-teens-sex-crime-deserve-extra-punishment-if-he-used-the-internet-to-commit-it-130
@momofthreeboys this is a girl who did exactly what you have consistently said women should do in cases of rape. She reported it. Her case wound it’s way through our judicial system with all the due process, protections and checks and balances you speak of in other threads. Now you are finding fault with this result and her family as well?
I am grateful that the family is willing to go public with such a private matter and help bring awareness to sexual assault. Perhaps their experience will convince oder women to report. I cannot even imagine the nightmare they have been through. Certainly it would have been far easier to decline those interviews, go home and try to get some semblance of their old life back. What they are doing takes a lot of courage and your insinuations seem mean spirited to me.
Note that the jail sentence is for the sexual assault. He’s not going to jail for the felony of using the Internet to entice her. He’s going to jail for assaulting her.
Yes she did what she is supposed to do after the fact - never said she didn’t. Also never said that Labrie didn’t deserve to go to trial. Never said the jury was wrong…never said anything of the sort. For the third time I will say again that I think the judge came to the best decision he could. I can’t support a mother stumping the media circuit, I don’t like that for the young lady.
@cardinalfang, indeed. The judge had the option to send Labrie to prison for quite a lengthy time for the felony use of the internet conviction. He opted not to do so; instead, he suspended that sentence, and sentenced Labrie to serve a jail term only for the misdemeanors. I trust the judge was in the best position to determine what the young man’s prison sentence should be, having seen and heard EVERYTHING.
If he, for one minute, thought this kid had sex with a 12-year-old, I think the book would have been thrown.
@momofthreeboys, I wouldn’t do it either; I do agree with you on that. OTOH, if my daughter really wanted me to do it, I would do it.
^^^^^
Exactly. If your 15 year old daughter has the strength and courage to get through a public trial with all the publicity that this trial has gotten, how can a parent then say we won’t talk about it publicly? Almost like they would be sending a message that they were ashamed.
I don’t see how any of us is in a position to know whether what the mother is doing is benefiting or harming her daughter. The girl is already notorious in her area for being the accuser. That horse is out of the barn.
prospect1, I disagree with your opinion in #1106. Labrie has not been charged with any actions he may have taken with regard to any other young woman–let alone having been found guilty. Therefore I am pretty sure that whatever the judge may have thought, he could not take those thoughts into account in the sentencing. People with legal experience can confirm or refute this. But I think your concluding sentence in #1106 is not correct.
Watching Dateline now. Hope others tune in.
@quantmech, I stand by my conclusion. If the judge was not free to take into consideration the matters disclosed in the sentencing report, then what’s the point of putting that information in there?
This judge saw the full, unreacted version of the report’s exhibits. Moreover, the judge probably heard pretrial motions and arguments regarding all sorts of other incriminating evidence, for the purpose of deciding what was allowed to be heard by the jury and what was to be kept out. If there was any, ANY, indication that Labrie had sex with a 12-year-old, the judge would have formed an opinion of Labrie that would have not permitted him, in good conscience, to go so lightly on the sentence.
I’m not alleging anything, prospect1. I just observe that aside from the one set of charges that were tried and led to a guilty verdict, the defendant must be presumed innocent. Therefore, it seems to me that a judge is not permitted to take into consideration opinions about anything of which a defendant has not been found guilty, in terms of sentencing. Lawyers on here: Is that right?
@quantmech, the defendant was convicted of, and facing sentencing for, misdemeanor sex; i.e., sex with a person too many years younger than him. It seems fair game to consider all of the circumstances of this crime, including the defendant’s attitude toward it, when determining the sentence.
In any event, I trust that the criminal lawyers who actually do practice in New Hampshire (i.e., the prosecutor in this case, as well as Carney) are quite familiar with the types of things a judge may consider in determining a sentence. The prosecutor was quite candid with the court when piping up about a defense motion that she knew she had no ground to fight; she is not the type to overstep her bounds and advocate something inappropriate just to benefit her case.
Here, she included FB texts. I opine that the judge was free to consider the substance of those texts in all their glory and draw whatever conclusions he wanted to draw from them, or they would not have been included in the prosecutor’s report. Therefore, I must also opine that he did not believe they revealed that Labrie had sex with a 12-year-old, or his sentence would have reflected that belief.
prospect1, Labrie must be presumed innocent of anything he has not been convicted of. I am not defending his conduct in any way, just pointing out that this is a matter of law. In sentencing, I am pretty sure that the judge must consider him to be innocent of anything he has not been convicted of–however, I would appreciate it if someone with legal training could offer an opinion on this.
What did you think, bookworm?
Meh. Dateline was just a tame recount of what we all have been reading. I think it seemed to be the “poor Owen” show.
They mentioned again that he lost his “full ride” to Harvard.
I didn’t think it was that sympathetic to him, though it certainly could have been a lot worse.