Kate Hunt Case Ends in Plea

[prisonchaplain]

Kaitlyn Hunt Update: Fla. teen charged over same-sex underage relationship to accept plea deal; won't have to register as sex offender, report says - Crimesider - CBS News

I watched the 20/20 interview and came away with some impressions.

1. Kate says she did not know about "dating laws." She also claims that if the 14-year old's parents had met with her in person she would have respected and obeyed their wishes.

My reaction: really? I do not believe she was ignorant of the law. My guess is that she did not believe it would be enforced. As for having a sit-down with the parents--that hindsight suggestion rings hallow. If she didn't obey the judge issuing a no-contact order, why would the victim's parents have had more influence? For that matter, she definitely knew about the no contact order, but defied it. Why are we to believe she would have obeyed the law, if she had been better educated about it?

2. Kate's mother says she did not realize the victim was only 14. I doubt this--nor do I believe she would have interfered anyway. This is the same mother who told the victim "DELETE EVERYTHING!"

3. Kate would not accept blame for dating the victim. She insists the law is wrong, not her. She continues to insist that the victim's parents were reacting to the same-sex nature of the relationship. The final kicker: She has no apologies for them.

4. She says she no longer loves the victim in the same way. Watching her say this on video, Kate does appear to be very immature. If so, then isn't the 14-year old even more immature--and in need of the kind of legal protection that statutory rape laws provide?

5. Her sentence of 4 months, plus 3 years probation is probably a reasonable one. The parent in me wanted her to get 15 years. Kate will have learned whatever lessons she is going to learn. Further, the victim's parents were not pushing for a lengthy punishment--just one serious enough that Kate would no she'd done something wrong and illegal and hurtful. Of course, Kate may learn little of that--but 15 years wouldn't have taught her what she is unwilling to understand.

6. Finally, I seriously hope that efforts to strip away statutory rape laws fail. I don't want to see 18 year olds in penitentiaries for their escapades with 17 year olds. However, so long as the laws give prosecutors and judges plenty of leeway, they are perfect for cases just like this. Kate was never seriously looking at 15 years. The prosecutors were always pushing for no jail time and community monitoring. It was only Kate's stubborness that landed her any jail time at all.

[NeuroTypical]

1. Kate says she did not know about "dating laws." She also claims that if the 14-year old's parents had met with her in person she would have respected and obeyed their wishes.

I guess it's possible. I mean, I'm sure there's at least one American out there who doesn't know such things - maybe it really was her.

I wonder if she has any bridges to sell?

[Just_A_Guy]

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

[prisonchaplain]

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

Translation: That dog don't hunt!

[estradling75]

Translation: That dog don't hunt!

Nope that would be: Ut canis non venantur

[prisonchaplain]

Okay...so mine was more of an interpretation than a translation...what do I expect from devotees of the King James Version? :-)

[applepansy]

PC thank you for the update.

[Traveler]

Kaitlyn Hunt Update: Fla. teen charged over same-sex underage relationship to accept plea deal; won't have to register as sex offender, report says - Crimesider - CBS News

I watched the 20/20 interview and came away with some impressions.

1. Kate says she did not know about "dating laws." She also claims that if the 14-year old's parents had met with her in person she would have respected and obeyed their wishes.

My reaction: really? I do not believe she was ignorant of the law. My guess is that she did not believe it would be enforced. As for having a sit-down with the parents--that hindsight suggestion rings hallow. If she didn't obey the judge issuing a no-contact order, why would the victim's parents have had more influence? For that matter, she definitely knew about the no contact order, but defied it. Why are we to believe she would have obeyed the law, if she had been better educated about it?

2. Kate's mother says she did not realize the victim was only 14. I doubt this--nor do I believe she would have interfered anyway. This is the same mother who told the victim "DELETE EVERYTHING!"

3. Kate would not accept blame for dating the victim. She insists the law is wrong, not her. She continues to insist that the victim's parents were reacting to the same-sex nature of the relationship. The final kicker: She has no apologies for them.

4. She says she no longer loves the victim in the same way. Watching her say this on video, Kate does appear to be very immature. If so, then isn't the 14-year old even more immature--and in need of the kind of legal protection that statutory rape laws provide?

5. Her sentence of 4 months, plus 3 years probation is probably a reasonable one. The parent in me wanted her to get 15 years. Kate will have learned whatever lessons she is going to learn. Further, the victim's parents were not pushing for a lengthy punishment--just one serious enough that Kate would no she'd done something wrong and illegal and hurtful. Of course, Kate may learn little of that--but 15 years wouldn't have taught her what she is unwilling to understand.

6. Finally, I seriously hope that efforts to strip away statutory rape laws fail. I don't want to see 18 year olds in penitentiaries for their escapades with 17 year olds. However, so long as the laws give prosecutors and judges plenty of leeway, they are perfect for cases just like this. Kate was never seriously looking at 15 years. The prosecutors were always pushing for no jail time and community monitoring. It was only Kate's stubborness that landed her any jail time at all.

There is a saying of the Traveler - "Time wounds all heals."

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

Thanks for the sentencing update. I also watched the 20/20 segment and was regularly yelling at the tv. Sisterbund hadn't heard about this case before, and based on the way the show was presenting it had a difficult time understanding why I was so upset about it*. In fairness, she didn't marry a sports enthusiast, so seeing the fanatic reaction Southerners usual reserve for football or basketball catches her attention.

* She could see the rational justification, just not the rabid justification.

Edited October 10, 2013 by mordorbund

[NeuroTypical]

Best Simpsons ever:

Chief: You're off the case, McGonigle!

McGonigle: You're off your case, Chief!

Chief: What does that mean exactly?

Homer: (yelling) It means he gets results, you stupid chief!

Lisa: Dad, sit down.

[marshac]

My first introduction to Washington's statutory rape laws was oddly enough during a church orientation session for all high school youth group leaders- I was too much in shock that they felt the need to cover this topic to think about how the law actually worked, but in retrospect, I think the law is amazingly enlightened and probably does a good job protecting everyone. In a nutshell the younger the parties, the closer in age they must be in order for it to not count as statutory rape- this graduated system I think is more just than a simple arbitrary age of consent.

Chapter 9a.44 RCW: SEX OFFENSES

Oddly enough there is an exemption for marriage in all the child rape laws... Does anyone have a good argument for why the State should allow for this?

[Vort]

Oddly enough there is an exemption for marriage in all the child rape laws... Does anyone have a good argument for why the State should allow for this?

Sure. If a fourteen-year-old girl is married, consensual sex with her husband cannot be considered rape, even if he's 35.

[marshac]

Sure. If a fourteen-year-old girl is married, consensual sex with her husband cannot be considered rape, even if he's 35.

I guess I should have been more explicit since your example is the literal implementation of the law- I was mainly referring to the fact that someone under 12 could consent as long as they're married- generally the US seems to take a dim view of child marriage, so I was just a little surprised to see it as a carved out exemption to first degree rape of a child.

[Vort]

Can a child under 12 even marry? If so, then obviously a 12-year-old wife (or husband) cannot be considered a rape victim for having consensual sex with her/his spouse. Otherwise, that obviates the very meaning of marriage.

Maybe I'm still missing your point. If so, I apologize. I'm not always too quick on the uptake.

[estradling75]

I think Marshac is trying to wrap his head around why the Law allows 'Child Marriages'

If they weren't allowed then the Statutory Rape laws wouldn't need an exception for marriages

[marshac]

Can a child under 12 even marry? If so, then obviously a 12-year-old wife (or husband) cannot be considered a rape victim for having consensual sex with her/his spouse. Otherwise, that obviates the very meaning of marriage.

Maybe I'm still missing your point. If so, I apologize. I'm not always too quick on the uptake.

I think I see the miscommunication here, and you're right- that would obviate the meaning of marriage... or at least one of the perks of it. In Washington State you can't simply get married if you're under the age of 17- not only do you need a a parent to agree, but the family court system also has to approve. Clearly the writers of the law who are (in theory) codifying the values of the WA State residents are stating that generally the lower limit for marriage is 18 while making some room for exceptional cases for those underage. It's good that the statutory rape laws make exceptions for these couples. What surprised me though while reading the statutory rape laws is that it made blanket exceptions for marriage for even the youngest category (<12). So while I suppose it's possible the court could allow a 9 year old girl to marry a 30 year old man, I doubt it would ever happen in practice- that would be national news. It's not uncommon in other countries for a fairly young girl (like 9) to be married to a much older man. I understand that such a marriage could be lawful somewhere else, but just because something is lawful elsewhere doesn't mean that we need to condone or protect such action in this country (as we wound most likely never legally allow such a coupling to happen)... as I said, I was just surprised to see the exception to first-degree rape of a child, that's all.

[Gretchen]

Oddly enough there is an exemption for marriage in all the child rape laws... Does anyone have a good argument for why the State should allow for this?

I read something about some countries having simaler laws, and how a "couple" might only be married for a few hours, something about human trafficking, and prostitution loophole. (Hulk SMASH!!!)