General Question

RareDenver's avatar

A teenager who pretended to be a boy for three-and-a-half years to get another girl into bed has been jailed for three years. Has the court gone too far here?

Asked by RareDenver (13092 points ) March 23rd, 2013

Is it just me or is 3 years prison time and lifetime on the sex offenders register totally out of order here. The girl didn’t exactly deal with her gender issues in the best possible way but wouldn’t a more suitable outcome have been to offer her the support she needs with some sort of counselling or therapy.

News story here

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

63 Answers

whitenoise's avatar

This is absolutely ridiculous.
(From first impression, without knowing facts, only reading the article.)

Kids are kids and have a lot of finding out to do. They make mistakes. Especially in countries where talking about sex, gender and orientation are taboo anyway.

IMO… to become registered as a sex offender, one should be an adult, or there should be very special circumstances to deem otherwise.

(This is not the case, I know… In the US, for example, nine year olds even got registered for sex crimes in Delaware)

cookieman's avatar

I read the story. Prison is clearly the wrong way to go for the older girl. She needs, IMHO counseling and support from people who care about her.

I’m also not convinced that the younger girl did not, at least, suspect she was a girl.

hearkat's avatar

I don’t know any details beyond the question… based on that you are saying that one individual invested more than three years of their life in order to coerce another person into having sex? That person has an illness and needs more than jail time, and I’m not opposed to sex offender registry.

RareDenver's avatar

@hearkat they only actually met a handful of times but had been in touch on the internet for three and half years, doesn’t take a huge amount of effort to be something you are not on the internet, ever seen Catfish?

RareDenver's avatar

Should we jail everybody who has lied to get sex “Of course I love you!” – “No, I’m not married”

livelaughlove21's avatar

This is so crazy, and absolutely rudiculous. What she did was morally wrong, yes, but fraud and sexual assault? 3 years in prison and life on the registry for a 17-year-old who’s gender confused? As if this sort of thing doesn’t happen all the time. Yes, trans people should tell their partners before engaging in sexual activity, but they don’t always do that. It’s not right, but it’s certainly not a crime.

I think the article puts a biased spin on it as well. She “pretended to be a boy” in order to “get her into bed.” Is that the truth? Is that the only reason? If so, and it went on for three years, it’s probably more of a mental illness than criminal behavior. If she’s gender confused, which the article states she is, then perhaps she had feelings for this girl, and didn’t tell her the truth in the fear of losing her. Maybe she’ll eventually live full-time as a male. The word “pretending” really bothers me here.

The victim is technically still a virgin, no? If a virgin uses sex toys or has oral sex, that does not take her virginity. So what “damage” was done to this girl other than feeling betrayed and tricked? Can we all file criminal charges when we sleep with someone who was conning us? Someone who we thought we knew but turns out to be someone else? Negative. So, why here? I chalk it up to bad judgment. There’s no reason she should get prison time for this.

Response moderated (Spam)
marinelife's avatar

Well, if she had just lived her life as a boy, I don’t think it would have been an issue. The idea of her crime was attempting to prey sexually on another girl.

I guess the question is what were their respective ages?

Did the sex act actually take place?

RareDenver's avatar

@marinelife they were 17 and 16 at the time (legal age of consent here is 16 so no problem there) and yes the 16 year old believed she had lost her viginity to a boy.

XOIIO's avatar

@RareDenver Or the biggest one of all, “I do”

Pandora's avatar

Wow! I agree that that it is in excess but I read some of the comments below the story. It seems what she was really charged with was fraud but by her pleading sexual assault she would receive a lighter sentence. It probably has more to do with the fact that she defrauded the young girl by way of the internet, starting when she was about 12 or 13.

I first wondered why on earth would the girl not realize in 3 years time but its hard to convince a young teen of most things once they believe in it. The law was probably set up to protect victims of fraud on line. Especially young children who may be victimized by pedophiles on line.

I do not believe 3 years is not a necessary punishment but I do agree that there is some jail time that is necessary. If the child was 16 or under at the time when she had sex than it is still a sex crime. The other girl is 17 years old.

marinelife's avatar

@RareDenver The I think a crime did occur. She used deception to get the other girl to have sex with her,

RareDenver's avatar

@marinelife and no one has ever used deception to get sex. Can someone whose partner was cheating on them take them to court for getting sex by deception? Don’t think that case would get very far.

Pandora's avatar

@RareDenver This is true but any fraud online, especially involving a minor that would possibly lead to sex, should be punished.

RareDenver's avatar

@Pandora and when they are both minors? And I’m not saying she shouldn’t get punished but 3 years prison and lifetime on the sex offenders registry? A suspended sentence maybe but this is completely over the top.

Luiveton's avatar

Everyone’s considering the case from Justine’s view—let’s, for a second, consider it from the victim’s view. As a result of this, she has serious trust issues now. She’s probably scarred for life. Obviously, she’s also to blame because you don’t simply allow a stranger whom you met online to have sex with you, let alone meet you, but the girl is probably traumatized right now. Obviously (with all due respect) it wouldn’t have been as big a problem had she been bisexual or homosexual, but from the way the article is written, I’m assuming she’s hetero. So no, the fact that a person has gender issues or is probably confused about their sexuality should not give them permission to go to people who are clearly straight and abuse them.
I don’t even agree with the whole concept of dating sites for that matter.
You might think jail is too harsh, but not from the victim’s perspective. I’m sorry but if you or your daughter, for example, were under similar circumstances—you would’ve expected the same, if not more, to happen. If that had happened to me I’d be furious, I’d want to murder her myself for abusing me as such.

She needs both, jail and some therapy. And what the victim needs, is a good slap for even thinking of using an online dating site to meet someone. I don’t care what the law says about legal age of consent etc, 16 is 16. She still has a lot to learn, and it’s her mother’s duty to make sure this never happens again.

The case here isn’t merely sex by deception, it’s the fact that a girl who has gender issues basically tricked a person with a different orientation. That is downright selfish in my opinion. Having said that, any type of fraud should be taken seriously. Not just this.
If we don’t start taking all types of (internet) fraud seriously the outcome will not be good.

RareDenver's avatar

@Luiveton I feel for the young girl that was deceived, I really do and I hope she also gets some sort of emotional support to help her deal with how this situation has affected her. But if this was a boy that had lied to get sex we wouldn’t be reading about it. Teenagers will go to great lengths to have sex. I know, I was a teenager at one time. This is the basic premise of just about every high school comedy that has ever been made. This sentence is a result of, not sure what the right term would be, homophobia not quite right, trans-gender discrimination maybe?

Luiveton's avatar

@RareDenver Yeah I get where you’re coming from, that the issue here is that had it been a boy, he wouldn’t have been treated as harshly.

It’s not really homophobia per se (it would’ve been if both parties were homo), I get what you mean but the thing is it would be just as bad (and should be treated as such) if a straight guy, for example, tricked a homosexual girl in order to have sex with her, or if a straight girl tricked a homo-guy. It’s simply not fair to the victims because they are simply not interested in said gender. That’s what I’m trying to say.
I definitely agree with what you’re trying to say, which is why judges should start treating all cases of fraud equally! The victim shouldn’t have been on a website like that in the first place, regardless of what the law says, she’s still young.

In a way, I feel like both, the victim and Justine have to be punished.

RareDenver's avatar

This is how messed up sentencing can be. A guy only gets three and a half years for killing an autistic gay teenager by setting light to his genitals and I apologise for linking to the Daily Fail

Luiveton's avatar

@RareDenver Okay he deserves to be slaughtered, literally. Homophobic society.

livelaughlove21's avatar

@Luiveton So because she was the cause of someone’s trust issues or supposed emotional trauma, she deserves prison time? Puh…I know a lot of people that deserve prison time, if that’s the case.

I feel bad for her, but prison isn’t the answer. Perhaps the answer is instilling in our kids that having sex with someone you barely know from the Internet probably isn’t the smartest idea, and there are consequences, like gasp trust issues.

And, I’m sorry, but the victim’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with a criminal case.

chyna's avatar

@Luiveton Why would the victim need to be punished?? That’s ludicrous.

Pandora's avatar

@RareDenver And that is why our drinking age is set at 21. Underdeveloped stupid brain meets alcohol. I couldn’t read beyond the initial explanation of what happened because it made me sick to my stomach but my daughter read the article and said it sounded like it was more of an accident than a hate crime. I’ll take her word at it. She is very much for gay rights and will go on a whole day raging about violence against gays if she reads about a hate crime against gay people.

Honestly, I myself have never given thought to the idea that suntanning oil would light up. I think if the teen even thought that would happen he would’ve ran away from the lighter.
If anything, this may have been more about taking advantage of the fact he was autistic.
There was probably a history of taking advantage of the young man.

bookish1's avatar

@RareDenver : The word is transphobia. Cissexism often works too.
I’m not even going to read this article. I need to be able to work today.

But everyone knows that trans people are inherently deceptive and it’s always their fault when people don’t automatically know by looking at them, what tiny infant genitals they were born with.~

To those who said “if that was a boy we wouldn’t be hearing about this story…,” I think you are dead wrong. If it were a “boy pretending to be a girl” she would be super fucked. Trans women receive the least justice, mercy, understanding, etc., from the criminal justice system out of almost any group.

Is the issue here about age of consent? If not, is everyone who uses deception to get laid, regardless of the emotional consequences, going to face jail time now? Cause I could work on a list for the police…

Pandora's avatar

@bookish, Good point. The article doesn’t say at what age they had sex. If the victim was 15 and the perp was over 16, than it is still statutory rape. And even thought the law protects minor she can still be considered a pedophile strolling for minors on the internet.

RareDenver's avatar

@Pandora the younger girl was 16 when they had sex

RareDenver's avatar

@bookish1 I didn’t necessarily mean if it were a boy pretending to be a girl, I just meant a boy that had lied about himself, maybe I should have been a bit more clear on that.

hearkat's avatar

@RareDenver: As I said, I was responding based on your question only, so your phrasing “pretended to be a boy for three and a half years” with no mention of it being on the internet have me the impression that they had gone to great lengths to disguise themselves as a male.

Even so, continuing the ruse online for so long, and in person whenever they met, shows a level of determination that goes beyond making a mistake in adolescence. I think the average teen would be more fickle and not continue for that long. Besides, I feel that someone who shows lack of compassion or empathy (which coercion and deceit of one person for >3 years clearly demonstrates) when they are young themselves, means that they are not likely to develop it as an adult. So I would be concerned that this person is a high risk for harming others in the future.

Do the victim and her family feel that justice was served? What if it were your daughter that was manipulated in such a way?

RareDenver's avatar

@hearkat sorry about the phrasing of the question, I was being lazy and just copy and pasted the headline

RareDenver's avatar

@hearkat I’m not denying that wrong was done I just think this particular ‘justice’ is way too harsh for this situation.

filmfann's avatar

Hey! @reqwoioixcvwoi made me think he was a really jelly, but it turned out to be just spam!
How many years should he get?

Bill1939's avatar

I hope I am not taking this off-topic. The issue seems larger than the perpetration of sexual fraud, or the excessive, if not inappropriate, sentencing for what may not be correctly considered a criminal act (except as defined by law).

In theory, laws are created to empower authority to punish acts deemed against society’s good. This would include killing, stealing, and sometimes adultery; law in the U.S. condemns bearing false witness to authority, ignores six of the other eight Biblical Commandments and supports coveting (our economy depends upon coveting). In practice, laws are created to impose the majority’s mores (or those of a powerful minority) upon the rest of society.

In a perfect society, there would be an ample supply of qualified psychologists to help individuals come to understand their sexuality and appreciated their identity. However, there are not even enough qualified teachers to school our children properly, much less sufficient psychologists at every school. Yet, instead of funding the education of future professionals, funds financing existing professionals are fading. Even if psychologists existed in abundance today, given society’s resistance to accepting the existence of (meaning allowing the survival of) anyone outside their cultural norm, how much help can we expect for the individual?

Over the centuries, freedom for individuals has gradually been increasing. In America, however, it was not until 1920 that women received the right to vote, and the ERA amendment introduced and passed by both houses of Congress in 1923, was never ratified. Still, fifty years ago few could have imagined how much attitudes would change or that the civil war would rise again on the political front.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.
“… this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

It is not the courts that are responsible for the use of punishment to control individual behavior, but the legislatures that write the laws, and they have been proven irresponsible.

RareDenver's avatar

@Bill1939 this is a case that went through the legal system of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland courts

Symbeline's avatar

Three years in jail? Man that’s way too severe a gig. Obviously, if that girl took three years to dupe and con someone, she’s a liar, and selfish, but given the amount of time and dedication she used to do this, she also needs help. Well, anyone who thinks three years in jail is too harsh, as I do, will probably get one upped by the almost fact, that while incarcerated, she probably will get counseling.

I just don’t agree with this. When you’re a teen, life is confusing and chaotic. Issues like sexual orientation and transgender are also still taboo with many people, and this right here situation doesn’t help said cause, and sends a pretty shitty message across. Fuck that judge. I really don’t think that looking up what’s legal or not and then associating the proper sentence in accordance to the crime paints the idea of ’‘justice’’ that our systems go by. I mean, that girl was probably all fucked up for most of her life, now she goes to jail, and when she comes out, will she be the better for it? I kinda doubt it. I also find it extremely unfair and disgusting that she’s put on the spotlight this way. I thought that minors weren’t even supposed to have their name and pictures publicly posted like this. Why is she an exception? This could have easily made the news without divulging her name and picture. (although as far as laws for this are concerned, it may be different, depending on where you live, and the magnitude of the crime)

I’m not being unsympathetic to the victim. It if it were me, that would utterly piss me off. Although as @cookieman states, I find it hard to imagine that during all this time, the victim didn’t at least suspect that ’‘Scott’’ was a girl. And will the victim get help and counseling for her trauma?? Or is sticking a teen in jail close the curtains, and then she can go on with her merry life?
BOTH of them need help, but I really resent the judge’s decisions and words. Prison is no solution for a young person who, as the article states, had a shitty upbringing and is/was confused about her gender identification. She lied and conned the other girl, and should be punished for it, but three years in jail to me is not punishment, it’s negligence, and a cop out which sends a barbaric message towards our young teens, and their confusion and problems. If this stands, everyone who ever lied and conned to get someone in bed, which has always happened and will keep on happening, should be viciously jailed, and forgotten. Just like this poor girl, where justice is probably going to fuck her up even more.

Luiveton's avatar

@livelaughlove21 “So because she was the cause of someone’s trust issues or supposed emotional trauma, she deserves prison time?” Precisely. The fact that you’re sarcastically phrasing it doesn’t make the subject any less serious. And if you do, in fact, ‘puh…know’ a lot of people who get deceived as such, and you do nothing about it, then you, with all due respect, need to reassess your attitude and nonchalance towards the situation. If not, taking this as a joke by saying you know a lot of people who deserve prison time isn’t remotely funny. In fact, if you did believe prison sentences to be a serious matter, you wouldn’t be joking about it, would you now? It is of course understandable that we wouldn’t fully understand how the victim feels, but we should try. And so far, I only see adults saying that the predator is just a child who shouldn’t be sentenced to prison. Yes, both need help, but the offender also needs punishment, even if it’s less severe.

If 16 is ‘the age of legal consent’ then you were clearly given a legal responsibility, so don’t complain when you’re thusly dealt with. From the moment a person is given a legal privilege, their actions and consequences don’t and shouldn’t separate them from those of adults.

Having said that, let’s assume for a second that the offender was actually an adult. What would you have said? Because I’m almost 100% sure we wouldn’t have had issues with the sentence.

ragingloli's avatar

And child molesting priests walk free.
This world must be burnt.

livelaughlove21's avatar

@Luiveton First of all, I never said squat about the ages of either of the people involved in this case, so I have no clue what you’re talking about. I also never said the victim deserved to be punished, so that’s all you.

And if you honestly think that a person deceiving another person is enough of a reason to throw them in prison, I have nothing more to say to you. The thought of that is just ridiculous. We’re human beings, we all make mistakes, and not every mistake we make that negatively affects another calls for legal action. Live and learn.

And I probably know more about prison (and certainly about the criminal justice system) than you do, so I take it plenty seriously. What I said wasn’t a “joke,” it was sarcasm used in order to express how crazy I thought your belief about this case was.

bkcunningham's avatar

It isn’t just deceit, the girl deliberately and calculatingly deceived her and then penetrated her vaginally with an object. Not once, but three times. Now tell me, whose okay with that? Not me. Would you feel any different if it was a boy who took advantage of a lesbian girl who thought he was another girl she was having sex with in a dark room? Or a female who acted like another male to penetrate a boy with an object? It is wrong regardless of the gender of the people involved.

Luiveton's avatar

@livelaughlove21 The age part wasn’t directed at you, it was a general statement. I was simply replying to your less-than-polite reply towards myself. Why do you decide to pick the least relevant sections of my answer?
And when did I say the victim needed to be punished in my latest response?

It actually quite amuses me that you think I’m simply saying that a person deceiving another deserves to go to prison. You need to start thinking outside of the box a little (and improving your perception skills is quite essential, as well). First of all, when you so daringly said that “I’m sorry, but the victim’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with a criminal case.”, you need to understand that, gasp, it has everything to do with the criminal case! Also I’d like to stress that if you think that the consequences for having sex with someone you met on the internet are mainly composed of gasp trust issues then we should all be worried, because I assure you murder comes first etc. Anyway, sexual orientation here is the ROOT of the case. This girl used another girl, whom her sexual orientation she was immensely aware of, and had meaningless sex with her, THREE times. Now I assure you, if the same was done to you or your daughter, you would be furious beyond words! So don’t tell me sexual orientation has nothing to do with it because it has everything to do with it. It’s based on it. And we all know that if the opposite had happened, (ie a gay person gets abused instead) we would all go crazy with the excuse of ‘gay rights’ blah blah. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for gay rights etc, but we should also pay attention to the rights of heteros. Stop defending everything you’re not just to appear nonconformist.

Also, as of now, we (including me) need to forget the idea of blaming the victim about online dating, because I assure you, had Scott actually been a boy, there wouldn’t have been a problem in the first place. The victim was fully aware what she was going to do, she just wasn’t aware of who she was going to do it with. So, once again I repeat, had Scott been a boy, there would not be a case in the first place. So really this isn’t a matter of the girl meeting a stranger online as much as it is deception and abuse..

So back to you thinking this is merely a ‘mistake’. No. This is not a mistake. This was a horrible scheme that has been going on for three years. So please don’t call this a ‘mistake’. A mistake is accidentally taking someone else’s book. A mistake is accidentally tripping someone. THAT is a mistake. But don’t call horrendous scheming a mistake. So to satisfy your curiosities, no, I wouldn’t condemn a person to prison if they go by MY definition of mistake, not yours.
And you only ‘live and learn’ if you were the one who had experienced such a trauma, but don’t observe the tragedies of others and call this ‘learning’. You only learn from your mistakes.

And I’m sure you do, however—are you familiar with the criminal justice system more than the judges themselves? I highly doubt that. They know the law inside-out, and it’s their job to decide what is and isn’t appropriate.

So once you actually understand what my belief is about, feel free to call it crazy, but just stop with the careless interpretations you get from my replies.

RareDenver's avatar

@Luiveton

had meaningless sex with her, THREE times

There is no suggestion it was meaningless to either party, in fact I think we can infer that it was very meaningful to the victim and if you are suggesting that it must have been meaningless to Scott/Justine because it was obtained by subterfuge then I think that is a little presumptuous on your part if you don’t mind me saying. Scott/Justine may well have been head over heals in love or simply completely infatuated with the victim and terrified of revealing their true identity and the consequences of that, remember their online communications started when they were 12 and 13, what might have started as a bit of fantasy life for a child on the internet obviously escalated, do you not remember being an adolescent? I just can’t see this sentence for Scott/Justine as anything but massively disproportionate. A lifetime on the sex offenders register for fucks sake, a lifetime, their whole life. Not to mention the prison term.

Luiveton's avatar

@RareDenver Oh yeah the lifetime register is probably too much. I actually like your answer because it adds to my perspective—so yes it was probably meaningful to Justine and the girl. But had the girl known Justine’s ulterior motive, I doubt it would’ve been meaningful, so perhaps that’s what I really meant to say. So while I completely respect your opinion, I still hold my own opinion. Because I see it as Justine having an ulterior motive all along. Why couldn’t she have been honest to someone else with the same interests instead?

RareDenver's avatar

@Luiveton had the girl known Justine’s ulterior motive, I doubt it would’ve been meaningful

had the girl known Justine’s ulterior motive, I doubt it would’ve ever happened

And none of us can help who we fall in love with, Any minute you will feel, the chemistry, vibrations in the brain, can’t ever be explained

RareDenver's avatar

Actually I don’t like the term ‘ulterior motive’ here, ‘massively misguided motive’ maybe but ‘ulterior motive’ gives it a sinister overtone that we can’t know was there or not

livelaughlove21's avatar

@Luiveton Yeah, I’m the impolite one. Whatever you say, hun.

When exactly did I call this a mistake? I called it bad judgment, which is not the same thing. I’m focusing on the “least relevant,” perhaps because it doesn’t seem like you’re even reading my responses. And perhaps it’s not my perception that needs fine-tuning.

No, I don’t think I know more about the law than a judge, but judges make mistakes just like everyone else. And if this was a cut and dry right vs. wrong situation regarding the decision, there would be no controversy over it on the first place.

I’m not talking about morals here. There’s no question that what this girl did was morally wrong. And it’s not something to just brush off. However, I’m speaking about the law, as it is and not as you think it should be. And sexual orientation, again, has nothing to do with the case. Correction: it shouldn’t. A crime isn’t defined by how badly it makes someone feel emotionally/mentally. If you can say, “if the victim was gay, there probably wouldn’t have been a problem,” then there’s no crime either way. Gender certainly has a lot to do with the case, but not sexual orientation.

I’m not here to fight with you over something like this. It’s gone on a little too long for my liking and I have nothing more to say. As much as I enjoy your condescending attitude, I’m out. :)

whitenoise's avatar

This started when the ‘perpetrator’ was 14. We’re talking about children.

A child with a problem should be helped not jailed.

Luiveton's avatar

@livelaughlove21 I apologize regarding the attitude. :)

rooeytoo's avatar

Seems as if it was consensual sex, albeit weird. The sentence is absolutely absurd. Here people have received lesser sentences for actual rape and sometimes murder. As was said above if everyone who lied to get another in bed were jailed, there wouldn’t be many people left on the outside.

gorillapaws's avatar

The sex was non-consentual because the victim was being deceived. The victim consented to engage in sex with what she was intentionally led to believe was a man with a penis, and instead was penetrated with a foreign object on several occasions.

I think consenting adults can do whatever the hell they want to each other in the bedroom, but this wasn’t consensual and needs to be treated as such.

rooeytoo's avatar

I think it was consensual, no one was screaming stop don’t. One lied, one believed but I don’t think that makes it non consensual. But that is just my humble opinion.

jerv's avatar

TL:DR

If the alleged victim has an issue with being deceived then they are in for a life of loneliness; guys use deception to get laid all the time. If you want to go that route then you are saying that no female anywhere is ever capable of consent, and that all sex is rape.

No, I think what happened here is a simple case of the “victim” not wanting to admit that they are impure (sexually active and with even the slightest hint of lust in their hearts) and so this is an attempt to assuage their guilt over having sex with anyone. Or possibly maybe just a way to make people think that they are not bi/gay. Hell, I don’t see how one could keep their true gender a secret for years, except from casual acquaintances. I don’t buy that.

Of course, the “perpetrator” isn’t exactly innocent here, so don’t go thinking I’m blaming the victim here. There are better ways to deal with gender issues, and I feel it best for people to be honest about what they have in their pants regardless of their gender identity. I think a bit of secure psychiatric detention is in order as they have mental issues that pose a potential danger to others; that sort of lying implies a lack of empathy that may be full-on psychopathy.

OpryLeigh's avatar

I think I’m with @bkcunningham for the most part but I also agree that, while this girl deserves some jail time, she also needs a lot of help so that she doesn’t turn into a repeat offender.

ragingloli's avatar

remember mulan? basically the same story

whitenoise's avatar

mrs Doubtfire?
Yentl?
probaly lots more

gorillapaws's avatar

@jerv “guys use deception to get laid all the time…”

This may sound like splitting hairs, but it’s a significant difference. Guys lie to secure consent to a sexual act that they both agree upon happening. This girl lied to trick the victim into engaging in a different sex act than what the victim thought she was agreeing to. So it may be sleazy to lie and say “I’ll still respect you in the morning,” but that is very different from getting a girl to consent to sex, blindfolding her (or using some other method to hide what was really happening) and then penetrating her with a foreign object instead, or filming her without permission, or any number of acts that are different than what she agreed to by deliberately tricking her. I hope you can appreciate the difference there.

One is sleazy, the other is a violation of consent.

Unbroken's avatar

TLDR
In a country that allows “parents” to have custody of the children despite records of domestic violence, domestic violence that they have probably not served much or any time for, this is appalling, backward and wrong in every possible way.

The only reason she got jail time was because it was unusual and people aren’t tired of hearing about it.

My question surrounding this is why aren’t the parents being charged with negilgent behavoir. They let their daughter have someone over she had been having an online relationship with? What kind of parents would open up their home to a “sexual predator” sight unseen and welcome them to take their young daughters virginity. In what amounted to a one night stand?

rooeytoo's avatar

@rosehips – I always wonder where the hell the parents are! But it is probably new age parenting, you don’t expect your children to be obedient, you don’t teach them, you allow them to experiment, experience and learn!

Unbroken's avatar

Lol @rooeytoo that is why I am not a parent. I realize the responsibility involved to be a proper parent and admit I am not in a place where I could handle it.

If we are going with the experiment and learn philosophy then criminality and the legal system shouldn’t be involved. A system based on nothing whim and inclination is bound to to induce painful experiences. Mistakes that one can learn from yes. But can we please benefit from collective knowledge. How else shall we progress?

poisonedantidote's avatar

After reading the story, the sentence does not seem all that harsh, this is a rape case. She was old enough to know what she was doing, this was premeditated rape.

Luiveton's avatar

Has anyone seen Les Miserables? He gets sentenced to 20 years of prison/labor because he stole a loaf of bread. That’s harsh.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

It is and it isn’t. But what can be expected from such hypocrisy dealing with sex, as to what is offensive and what is not, notwithstanding what is normal or not. Seeing this is how mankind wanted to view it, I say appropriate, but hypocritical in the fact other sexual offenses are not prosecuted at all or even championed.

Certainly the family friend was not Justine’s friend, or they would not have busted her out like that.

The victim was even fooled into thinking she had lost her virginity to her in a darkened bedroom.
That is a non-issue, girls get duped out of their virginity all of the time, they just become part of popular locker room, and frat dorm lore. It is the only priceless thing you can swindle someone out of and never go to jail for.

‘She had her first sexual experience with you, and you abused her trust so badly she finds it difficult to trust other people’, he told McNally, now 18.
‘She obtained consent to physical intimacy between them by fraud,’ said David Markham, for the prosecution.
Again, no different than millions of other girls who got played by some smooth talking stud or some band geek who winked nicely and said “I love you”.

She was placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register for life and ordered not to contact the victim and her mother.
Ironically it is only a sex offence to secular people if they do not agree with the type of sex, though other sexual encounters may be just as much of an offense.

Too bad for Justine, she got caught up in a hypocrisy loop but she did stick something up the other girl’s hooha that she would not have allowed had she knew what it was, and that should be addressed; should it be addressed the way, I think something different should have been done.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther