What I understand from all this is that Labrie was convicted of stat rape and not violent rape.
Does that not really matter to anyone here? I mean I am not defending the kid, but everyone deserves to have the chance to find love. Maybe he makes her happy, and she seems his age;)
^ Not with someone who is jumping bail as a regular part of their relationship.
Wonder how he will justify the violation? Will his attorney do a mea culpa and say she didn’t explain it to him clearly enough? He has to come up with something. I am just scratching my head as what that could be that might convince a judge to give him a second chance.
Seems like Labrie has another new lawyer. She can’t be happy with this turn of events as evidenced by her comments in this article:
"Labrie was not wearing an electronic monitoring device, his attorney Jaye Rancourt said Tuesday. She believes Labrie had been checking in with Merrimack County pretrial services via phone calls on a daily basis.
Rancourt said she’s never had prosecutors try to revoke bail after a client spoke to a reporter—and has never had a reporter approach a client in this way. Before his encounter with Zalkind, Labrie had given just one interview to Newsweek that was published in December.
She said that Labrie believed the conversation with Zalkind was off-the-record, and that it was “disappointing that [Zalkind would] tweet and publish it.”
Zalkind maintains that she identified herself as a reporter to Labrie and that there was no discussion of taking the conversation off the record.
Still, Rancourt said, “shame on him. He should know better than to talk to anybody.”"
Interesting that Rancourt (Labrie’s lawyer) would say that on the record to a reporter! I also love the fact that she tried to shame Zalkind for her tweets and article.
Regarding Labrie chatting up Zalkind on the train - I still maintain that he thought his sweet talking would help his case, just as he tried to sweet talk his way out of being convicted.
““shame on him. He should know better than to talk to anybody.””
What about he fact he supposedly broke probation rules at least 8 times… He should go to jail.
Oh, for doG’s sake. This is not a person who needs to be in jail in order to protect society. We have enough people incarcerated already.
Maybe the GF is a blithering idiot. Or maybe she knows him better than people on this board.
The judge thinks Labrie should serve a year in jail. The judge knows more than we know.
There are also judges who think that people should serve 10 years in jail for having consensual sex with a teen when they were a teen, or should be listed on a sex offender registry for life for “Romeo and Juliet” sex, or for pantsing someone on a playground or “playing doctor” when they were 9 or 10:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/when-kids-are-accused-of-sex-crimes
The judge in the Labrie case heard the Labrie case.
He was given the rules to follow just like everyone else that is on probation. People don’t get to pick and choose which rules to follow. They are supposed to follow all of them. Otherwise there is no point to have rules at all.
I want to tell you guys that this is wrong because it was a rape. Well, this rape case seems to also be the girl’s fault as well. Not because she was underaged. Who is it to say someone is an adult and someone isn’t. Both of them were bad. The girl is horrible for accepting such invite in the first place.
Do people honestly say she is a victim? She is just as guilty as the guy.
Also the reason these kind of cases occur is because we place men and women extremely close to each other. We try to make them become friends or something. Which is stupid cause a guy and a girl can’t be friends. But when they happen to become friends, these scenario easily take place.
There are some people who have sex willingly while being underaged. It is because they love each other…so is it justified for them to have sex? This case is the exact same situation as the example I used. Both are just as guilty. Not because it was underaged, but because they decided to touch and kiss before marriage. In my eyes, kissing and touching is as bad as raping.
So men lower your gaze! In this society today, it is considered normal. If you calculate the number of rape cases in america, there has been MUCH more rape cases now than then. People say that we have changed and we can live with it, but people are the same as before and we need to bring back the rules that have been placed to the country. America was also a lot more religious before… but this 21st century really changed america… to the worse.
^^ Thank God you don’t get to decide these things.
The USA is not a theocracy. Oh, yes, things were so much better back when we could own other people, and children were property. And the REPORTING of more rapes, doesn’t mean the OCCURRENCES have increased.
BTW, I’ve had lots of friends of the opposite sex in my life; none of them EVER assaulted me.
Good grief.
So much about this conviction is troubling. People use “computers” in communication all the time; people are on their computer, tablet, or phone pretty much around the clock. It should not be a separate crime to do so, any more than it should be a crime to use sound waves transmitted through the air. This is the only felony that Labrie is accused of, and it is an outrage. Add to this the fact that the jury found that Labrie did not commit a sexual assault, and the computer charge requires an assault. Without an assault this conviction should not stand.
The reason bail is granted in a case like this is because the judge believes there is a significant chance of success on appeal, and that it is wrong to punish someone if they are not guilty. So why place onerous restrictions on someone who is out on bail? There is no fear of him jumping bail. He is going to visit his girlfriend.
As for the misdemeanor charges, I find three convictions for one sexual encounter to be as stupid as the computer conviction.
A lot of this discussion illustrates the adage that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who has been accused of a crime.
The computer felony charge in this case was, IMHO, grossly unjust. That doesn’t mean that his behavior was acceptable.
But it does mean that he shouldn’t be on a sex offender database, and he shouldn’t be subject to penalties and strictures designed for predatory felons.
“There are some people who have sex willingly while being underaged. It is because they love each other…so is it justified for them to have sex? This case is the exact same situation as the example I used. Both are just as guilty. Not because it was underaged, but because they decided to touch and kiss before marriage. In my eyes, kissing and touching is as bad as raping.”
This is pretty appalling. I hope you are either trying to get strong responses or maybe you are just very young.
The difference is: the former is sex; the latter is violence.
In the USA, we generally don’t think it’s our business what other people’s sex lives look like, unless someone’s rights are being violated. I fail to see any moral imperative for things to be otherwise in society.
"So men lower your gaze! In this society today, it is considered normal. If you calculate the number of rape cases in america, there has been MUCH more rape cases now than then. People say that we have changed and we can live with it, but people are the same as before and we need to bring back the rules that have been placed to the country. America was also a lot more religious before… but this 21st century really changed america… to the worse. "
As @LucieTheLakie noted, an increase in reporting does not mean an increase in incidence of rape. Just because a couple is married (or a person enslaves another) doesn’t mean that the sex is automatically consensual, but the law held that way unfortunately, tragically, for too many years.
I should note that in all countries where sexuality is legislated as @Derivativeofx seems to imply it should be, there are gross human rights violations, governmental violence, and things we would all call “cruel and unusual” (e.g. Honor killings, Stonings of raped women, etc.)
The problem with LaBrie isn’t about kids getting carried away or being immature bozos. The problem is that he is a proven predator with some kind of narcissistic or other issue that means he does not view other people (particularly women) as though they are full humans like himself. As a teacher, sometimes we have boys who are worried that being sexually interested means they are predators - it does not mean this. Most boys are good guys who, if a girl cried and said, “no, I don’t want that” would get turned OFF not turned ON.
I am concerned that predatory sexual-violence behavior can get white-washed when men are concerned that normal sexuality would be decried. But that’s not at all what’s going on here.
@MichiganGeorgia wrote: “He was given the rules to follow just like everyone else that is on probation. People don’t get to pick and choose which rules to follow. They are supposed to follow all of them. Otherwise there is no point to have rules at all.”
There are plenty of kids who run in Labrie’s circle who have been told for years that the rules don’t apply to them.
He’s already been convicted. This is not the same as somebody who is out on bail before an initial conviction. If he didn’t like the terms of the bail, he could have asked his lawyer to seek to have them modified.
@DoyleB That’s probably true but Ignorance is not a legal defense.