My point is just that I think the nurse should have asked more questions. Maybe she did, but the testimony certainly sounded as if she didn’t.
“The sex could not have been consensual by law.” If it takes place between 2 people 15 or younger, I don’t believe that is considered nonconsensual but I don’t know all the ins and outs of the law. Anyone? I do credit the nurse for asking the question but it would have been better if the nurse had asked more questions, yes. I would imagine there is a fine line to balance in that role between asking questions/telling students they shouldn’t have sex and providing an opening and welcoming place where students feel comfortable coming for treatment and help without feeling judged.
@jonri, Your points are valid, however. For clarity’s sake, I’m pretty sure it was the Dean of Students that testified not the Rector. Regardless, its a senior administrative role at the school, and when he did hear about “senior salute” (which is not a tradition of older boys pursuing underage girls as professed by the press as I’ve mentioned in this thread previously) it should have been a clarion call to address relationships and respect openly with the community. (Which they actually WERE in the process of doing prior to this crime.) Although, I will give the school the benefit of the doubt that they reported to the police because it was their legal duty to do so, not just for CYA. The RA should have told an adult in authority as should the other students who heard about it - that is disturbing to me. I can’t fathom an adult in the community knowing and not reporting. Obviously, some procedures needed changing.
I don’t know if the school higher independent investigators as the job of investigating would fall to the police, who seem to have done a very thorough job. I do know they have brought in independent experts to assess the school’s culture and policies to make needed changes.
I agree with @prospect1: “A perfect storm of unfortunate circumstances” “this case will add to the conversation about what we as parents and schools need to do to supervise, educate, nurture and prepare our young men and women for real life.” There is no doubt that many, many other schools are looking closely at their cultures and policies because this could have happened at other places as well.
Sorry, that should be “I don’t know if the school hired independent investigators”
@doschicos, has this information appeared in the media, or do you know that SPS has hired consultants from your contacts there? I’m curious … what have the members of the board of trustees been doing while all of this has been going on?
The Board has been having various open forums across the country with alumni to offer opportunities for discussion.
As far as the school addressing issues/modifying policies, there have been communications since Labrie’s arrest to parents and alums. I haven’t kept everything but here’s some links providing some info available on the school’s website:
http://www.sps.edu/podium/default.aspx?t=204&nid=797733 See Q#6
http://www.sps.edu/healthycommunity
https://www.sps.edu/podium/push/default.aspx?s=36&i=70637
https://www.sps.edu/podium/push/default.aspx?s=36&i=100673
https://www.sps.edu/podium/push/default.aspx?s=36&i=105118&u=0
1002: Oh, my God.
Just saw this New Yorker article come up on my FB feed. Haven’t read it yet but I read the comments on the New Yorker FB post and boy, it seems like this article touched a nerve. If you can, take a look at the New Yorker FB page before reading the article.
-can’t see the comments.
You have to go to The New Yorker’s Facebook page and scroll down to the article with comments.
That New Yorker piece is utterly reprehensible. I hope that the author will eventually come to understand that, and retract it.
What a strange article. “New definition of rape”? Labrie was sentenced to a year in jail based on an old definition of rape, namely sex with someone too young to consent.
The author, Jeannie Suk is a professor at Harvard Law School. So she must be right.
Just kidding.
What’s reprehensible about the article?
Disclosure: Jeannie Suk is my law school classmate.
I’m not seeing how it is either “reprehensible” or “strange.” IMO the author does a good job summarizing the issues that this case raises.
I do think the author invited criticism by using the word “scapegoat” in the second to last paragraph. It’s not how I would have characterized the defendant. Nevertheless, I have a hard time seeing how anyone can find fault with the conclusions of her final parapraph, but I have not yet read the FB comments.
Well for starters, this is crap:
No, meaning that the jury didn’t think that it was PROVED that there was no consent.
What we’re talking about here is (1) statutory rape, or whatever they called the crime he was actually convicted of, which is not a new crime and (2) possibly getting away with rape because the victim can’t prove non-consent, which is also nothing new.
Once he was convicted of the crime of having sex with an underaged child, then the judge was very properly allowed to consider the circumstances of the crime. That’s not a new understanding. Judges have always been expected to consider the circumstances of the crime when making sentencing decisions.
Re the New Yorker piece: I don’t agree with every word in the article, and don’t agree entirely with how she characterized this case, but I think she makes some compelling points in an even-handed, well-reasoned way. It is quite disturbing to me that well-reasoned views such as these can cause people to use terms such as “reprehensible” rather than using them as a starting point for discussion. I’m very concerned that the prevailing atmosphere has made it very difficult for those with slightly less than hard-line views to express their opinions freely without being subjected to a hailstorm of hateful epithets.
By the way, I think Labrie’s actions – especially as shown by his texts – were utterly disgusting and that he really does seem like a predator. But that doesn’t mean that any analysis of the legal standards that have been applied to his case should be dismissed as reprehensible.
I wouldn’t use the word “reprehensible,” but I do think the author wanted to make a point about other cases, and tried to use this case as an example even though it didn’t apply. Labrie was convicted of having sex with an underage girl, and that’s what he’s going to jail for. It’s nothing to do with any “new definition of rape,” or murky consent.
Her point is that the SENTENCE seemed to be influenced by the definitions of consent that have been newly introduced into criminal and civil law. The author based this point on her analysis of the judge’s reasoning in the sentencing phase. Her analysis is interesting and on point, but I actually disagree with her conclusion in this context (although I agree with some of her general points).
I think it was appropriate and admirable that the judge considered where on the continuum the girl’s actual consent fell in imposing the statutory rape sentence. I think he did this while still respecting the jury’s verdict that the prosecution did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she communicated her lack of consent clearly enough. I think a more harsh sentence was warranted here than in statutory rape case involving an 18 year old and 15 year old involved in a relationship, who deeply loved each other, and mutually and passionately decided to have sex with each other. That’s still statutory rape under New Hampshire law, but a much lighter sentence would be warranted and registration as a sex offender would be absurd. I think the judge sensibly and sensitively analyzed the sentencing factors in this case, and IF his explicit analysis of consent is anything new in statutory rape cases, I suspect that the only thing new about it is clarity with which he articulated the factors that he condidered in imposing the sentence.
It’s this paragraph that I find most off-point and offensive. She begins with the question “what makes sex rape?” and ends here somehow. In the St. Paul’s case you can NOT walk away from the fact that he was 18 and she was 15. That was part of his predation. It was not simply a murky issue of consent (and it was that, too!) Equating the punishments we assign to forcing sex on a minor is not “plenty of criminal liability available”, as if it were a silly after thought. Her argument is flawed.
The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is hard to meet, with regard to the issue of consent. Our criminal law is based on the idea of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I see no reasonable way to get around that–it is as it should be, in my opinion.
In my opinion, however, if one is going to write publicly about this case, one should also apply the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” as to whether the young woman consented to the specific actions, or not. Obviously, there is no legal requirement for this. In personal conduct, I think one ought to consider the impact of one’s words, especially printed words. One ought to be especially careful about the impact of one’s words on minors.
I do find this article reprehensible. I do hope that Suk will eventually retract it.