I’m not following your point, QuantMech, and still don’t understand what you find reprehensible about the article. Would be interested in understanding your point, if you care to expand upon it.
By the way, I’m not sure that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard that applies to a judge’s findings during the sentencing phase. Maybe some of the criminal lawyers could clarify.
nottelling, please consider the impact of the article on the young woman who was involved. I think her parents are not likely to be able to shield her from it, in the long run, even if they can do so right now. Then consider that the author of the article is a Professor at Harvard Law School, and she is illustrating her point using a case involving a girl who was 15 at the time, and is almost certainly still a minor now.
This case makes a poor vehicle for the argument that Suk is making, for reasons that Cardinal Fang has already pointed out.
I do not know anyone connected with this case.
Nottelling, if a person is found “not guilty” of a crime, I do not believe that the judge can entertain any thought to the contrary, in sentencing on some other action. Again, I think this is as it should be. I am posting about the considerations that should, in my opinion, apply to people who later write about the case.
QuantMech, yes I realize that a judge cannit substitute his or her own judgment that the charges have been proved beyond a reasobable doubt when the jury finds otherwise.
However, there are other factual findings that a judge must make in the sentencing phase. These are for the judge, not the jury, to make (in most instances; there may be exceptions in capital cases). I cannot remember from law school whether the standard that the judge applies in making those findings in the sentencing phase is beyond a reasonable doubt or some lesser standard. I was asking the criminal lawyers who post to clarify. And, by the way, if a lesser standard applies, there is nothing inconsistent with a judge’s saying the prosecution did not prove a fact beyond a reasonable doubt but did prove that very same fact under (say) a preponderance of the evidence standard.
ETA: i can think of one context where this is clearly NOT the case and is not a correct statement of the law (at least in California). A defendant can be acquitted of criminal charges for an alleged crime, but still be punished by the judge at the end of the trial for a probation violation if the alleged conduct violates the terms of an earlier probation. So the jury finds that the guy didnt commit the crime is therefore not guilty of new criminal charges, but the judge, applying a different standard of proof, finds the guy did commit the acts in question (based on the exact same evidence presented to the jury) and therefore finds a probation violation and sentences the guy to jail. This happens all the time.
I’m not qualified to argue the legal points, and I am not doing that. I’m saying that when one writes an article for a wide circulation, popular-press magazine such as The New Yorker, one ought to consider very carefully the impact of one’s words on a minor about whom one is writing (even if she is kept anonymous). There is no legal requirement to do so, of course.
This is a public matter with important implications for future cases, criminal and disciplinary. I think we need to talk about the hard questions it raises. I don’t think we can have that conversation if we can’t say anything that might be unpleasant for a victim to read.
Reprehensible, to me, would be naming the victim or deliberately trying to bring attention to her and her family. That’s not what I see here.
This sentence is difficult: “But the jury acquitted him of these charges, meaning that it did not regard the acts as lacking consent.”
I’m not a lawyer, but according to the internet, juries in New Hampshire must be unanimous to convict on a felony charge. Thus, the jury acquitting him of these charges means they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. One could say that they agreed that the accusation had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (Which, given that the victim and defendant recounted different stories under oath, is probably the only verdict they could have reached.)
That’s very different from saying “(the jury) did not regard the acts as lacking consent.” (The Scottish verdict, “not proven” makes sense.)
I think Suk’s article is disgusting and utterly irresponsible. She’s entitled to her opinion, yes. I’m entitled to the opinion that her opinion is vile.
In order to prove felony sexual assault in NH, the prosecutor has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that 1. there was penetration. (Based on the other conviction, the jury found this.) 2. She did not consent. 3. Labrie knew or should have known that she did not consent.
First, if a jury finds there is a reasonable doubt as to whether sex was consensual, it doesn’t mean they found there was in fact consent. Suk’s article, as others have said, equates the two. She’s a law professor; she should know better. Carney kept saying over and over at the sentencing that the jury found the sex was consensual. IMO, that’s why the judge expressed his opinion that it wasn’t.
Second, in this particular case, the victim admitted that she “froze,” that she was immobilized; that she said no, but she didn’t kick him or bite him, that she laughed nervously. IMO, the jury could have believed that there was penetration, that she did NOT consent, but that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether she effectively conveyed that lack of consent to Labrie.
So, it’s POSSIBLE that Suk and Carney are right and the jury found there was consensual sex, but iMO that’s EXTREMELY unlikely. It’s more likely that the jury found that there was REASONABLE DOUBT on the issue of consent. But, IMO, it is also possible that the jury found there was penetration, she did NOT consent, but there is a reasonable doubt as to whether she effectively conveyed her lack of consent to Labrie. Given her own testimony–particularly the statements she made to the police which Carney read to the jury–there is a reasonable doubt that Labrie really knew she wasn’t just consenting very reluctantly but wasn’t consenting at all. Again, I personally think he PROBABLY knew full well that she wasn’t consenting but, based on the victim’s statements to police, it was reasonable for a jury to find reasonable doubt. I’m NOT sayig that WAS the jury’s reasoning–obviously, I don’t know. I’m just saying it may be #3 above, not #2, which was the sticking point for the jury.
For Suk to say this is just teenage sex which we don’t like is disgusting, IMO.
I find it extremely odd that a professor at Harvard Law School would be writing such an article given the fact that Owen was accepted to Harvard. I don’t agree with her at all and have to wonder if she is trying to make it seem like what he did wasn’t so bad because after all he was going to be going to Harvard.
Hanna, re #1186, it is mind boggling to me to imagine that there are no cases involving adults that Suk could find to raise the issue that she pinned on this case. It also seems wrong that she would pick a case where statutory rape was found by the jury, to argue about a “new definition of rape.”
I do not take offense at Suk’s article even as I don’t agree with some of the opinions she expressed.
We have to keep in mind that some of the piece expresses opinions, not fact (legal or otherwise).
I am 100% in favor of, and welcoming of, all opinions expressed on this issue and on this particular case.
These are issues we need to talk about, not suppress with claims of disgust or shock, or worse. Not talking about these things openly and frankly is what leads to these sorts of things happening to teenagers in the first place. You need to rip off the bandaid, examine the mess, air it out, scrub it out, and only then can healing take place. Labrie’s victim bravely came forward and aired this out. I see nothing wrong with continuing the discussion even if it means referencing the particular circumstances of this case. If we don’t, then her efforts to speak out were for naught.
There is room for opinion on some of the finer points of “what is rape?” It is indeed being redefined…and it should be! Many states have wildly differing standards of what constitutes rape. 15 and 18? Some places that’s ok, some places it’s not. In some particular circumstances it’s ok, and some it’s not. Some states have formally adopted a “yes means yes” standard, others have not. There is not currently a uniform standard for what constitutes rape in this country; the laws are not uniform; they are confusing even to us adults as we debate the finer points of consent/burden of proof/etc. Can you imagine how confusing this is to teenagers “in the moment?”
My personal opinion? She did not consent, but it was not clearly communicated. I believe LABRIE knew 15 was illegal for him at 18 in that state, but that’s not to say another 18 year old high school senior in a different place/community would have known that. I agree with the jury’s verdict and the judge’s sentence. I am not so sure about the sex offender for life bit.
But these are my PERSONAL opinions. They mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. There is room for you to disagree with me. If you do, please do so civilly!
What there isn’t room for, in my opinion, is dismissing the opinions of others on this subject as being abhorrent or some other extreme label. I think this is a discussion that needs to be had, with all the gore that comes with it.
Whether one agrees (partially, totally), or disagrees (partially, totally) with Jeannie Suk, she is a respected, tenured Harvard Law professor who is an expert in this field and who writes on the topic frequently. This is an important case. One can expect much more to be written about it–in the law reviews, the legal press, the general media and the tabloids.
Important cases get discussed, whether it’s Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey), the Central Park jogger (Trisha Meili), Jyoti Singh Pandey or Anita Hill. Because she is a minor, one hopes that the victim’s name will be kept out of the discussion unless or until she herself decides to make it part of the discussion. But these issues are too important to leave them undiscussed. Rather than a retraction, it would be better IMO if other experts would write reasoned responses to Suk’s views.
I actually thought her article was a pretty good op-ed piece. And you cannot deny that we are in an age where we are grappling with the definition of rape and redefining it. The media is doing this by using a word that had/has pretty clear meaning to most of society and changing it every so slightly. I did no find the op-ed piece reprehensible and see that for the most part she is cognizant of the changing definitions of rape and the potential implications for both men and women. Because she a law school professor and in an area which has become the focus and impetus for redefining the term rape it seems obvious to me why she might have chosen to write this piece.
I think it is reprehensible to write in a widely circulated magazine about a case where the jury found statutory rape as if it involves a “new definition of rape.” Statutory rape has been on the books for a long time.
I think it was a poor choice for the article, to focus on a case involving a minor. I can’t imagine that Suk considered the impact on the victim of having this case used in the context of discussing “a new definition of rape.” If Suk had done so, I think she would have selected a different case. It is not as if there are no others out there.
I’m not dismissing Suk’s opinion, I am vehemently objecting to her article.
There is not a question about statutory rape.
@quantmech, but this is the case of the moment that many are discussing. It was featured on a nationally viewed television show. In that sense, it’s the perfect case to get people’s attention and fuel the discussion. And it is a worthy discussion to have, don’t you agree?
If Suk had mentioned some case nobody had heard of or was interested in, then her article would not get much readership and the discussion would not be as fruitful.
The involvement of teenagers in this case is the very thing that makes this case so discussion-worthy. It is a cautionary tale for all of our youth. They absolutely need to know about this case; about what happened; about how it happened; about why it happened; about how it could have been prevented; about how they, themselves can try to avoid it from happening to them. Sweeping this case under the rug and talking about cases involving adults only is not going to have the same impact on teenagers.
@quantmech, but there is indeed a question about statutory rape in the minds of many teenagers, because the standards are statutory on a state by state basis. There is not a uniform standard. In this particular case, of course, Labrie knew the standard and violated it. But…as a cautionary tale for other teenagers across the country, a case like this could prompt them to examine the laws of their own states. Don’t you find that to be an important discussion point with our teenagers?
Again, one of the things which Suk did which I find reprehensible is this language which Cardinal Fang quoted:
Again, it MIGHT mean this, but we don’t KNOW it means that. Suk’s opinion has great weight. When she says the jury found the sex was consensual–and that’s what the quoted language means to me–many people will think the jury did find that–and it did NOT. The judge, who unlike yours truly OR Suk, was present for the trial, concluded that there was NO consent.
And, Suk says this case is about teenage sex we don’t like–and that THIS case is changing the definition of rape. As QM said, it doesn’t. The judge made a point of saying that THIS case is NOT about teenage consensual sex. He said he’d seen many cases in which it’s parents who object to the sex and, indeed, has seen cases in which the victim and perpetrator marry after a conviction. THOSE are cases of teenage sex we don’t like. THIS case is different. In this case, one of the teenagers, a/k/a the victim, didn’t like the sex. SHE said “I was raped.” That’s not what society thinks; that’s the viewpoint of the victim.
This wasn’t a teen romance. This was an adult scheduling 45 minutes to have sex with someone he knew was underage in order to score points in a contest. Is there anyone with any morals whatsoever who does NOT dislike that kind of teenage sex?
Nope, not true. The jury has to ne unanimous on a verdict either way – to convict OR to acquit. The jury was unanimous here. If they were not unanimous on a particular charge, that would be a hung jury and the prosecution would be permitted to retry those charges if they chose to do so. So, there WAS a unanimous jury here.