Debra Lafave, Media Sensationalism, and Rethinking Statutory Rape
December 5th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I've little sympathy for Debra Lafave (pictured above), who at 23 statutorily raped a 14-year-old boy. She got the female sentencing discount and did not go to jail because she's a woman. A five-year study conducted by a Kansas State University professor found that male teachers are likely to get 15 to 20 years in prison for sexual relations with students, whereas female teachers usually are placed on probation or go to prison for one to three years. Paul Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association, says:
"There is no question it's more likely that as a case winds its way through the court, in more cases the woman is going to get probation, whereas the man, under the same circumstances, is going to get prison."
To learn more, see my blog post Extreme Gender Bias: Woman Who Statutorily Raped Boy Avoids Jail, While Boy's Older Brother Goes to Prison for Exact Same Crime.
However one feels about Lafave's crimes, the recent media furor over her seems rather petty. In screaming headlines the New York Post reports in EX-TEACHER DEBRA LAFAVE BUSTED AGAIN (12/4/07) that Lafave had "illegal contact with a teenager." Sounds sinister, right? Turns out that all Lafave apparently did was have a private conversation with a 17-year-old girl she works with. It does violate her probation, but it hardly merits such sensationalism.
I also think some of this statutory rape stuff is overdone. A 23-year-old with a 14-year-old goes too far, but I think it's ridiculous that we have 21 year-old men going to jail for having sex with 17-year-old girls, or 19-year-old boys going to jail for having sex with 16-year-old girls.
In fact, a friend's grandparents recently celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary, and it was publicized in local papers, as it should be, since it's such an achievement. But looking at the story and doing a little math made me realize that if the two of them had gotten together today, he would go to jail--he was 21 and she was 17 when they got married in 1922. Then it was perfectly normal--now it's a crime. Why?
[Late note: the Kansas University study is discussed in Child-sex cases raise questions of gender bias (Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, 3/11/06). The Logli quote is from Backup of Female Sex Offenders Drawing Increased Scrutiny (Los Angeles Times, 1/13/06).]
"));
19 queries. 0.353 seconds.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Glenn,
Many feminists have claimed there is no such female discount. I couldn't find the study on your source page, can you provide a link to it? (A very rough google search, and I couldn't find it, but I have to go pick my kids up, Wednesday of course.)
Thanks,
December 5th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
re: In fact, a friend's grandparents recently celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary, and it was publicized in local papers, as it should be, since it's such an achievement. But looking at the story and doing a little math made me realize that if the two of them had gotten together today, he would go to jail--he was 21 and she was 17 when they got married in 1922. Then it was perfectly normal--now it's a crime. Why?
...too many overzealous legislators and too many lawyers needing work, maybe? How do you get work for lawyers? By ensnaring more people into the legal system. And how do you do that? By recasting formerly legal behaviors as crimes...
December 5th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
If Pam Smart didn't have her husband killed after she engaged in pediphilia, Debra Lafave might not even had made much news. (I wonder if her husband 'forced her to wear red pumps in bed.)
Mike
December 5th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
One thing that the 21-year-old/17-year-old married couple anecdote reminded me of was this question: in my previous relationship, me and my girlfriend were both 18 years old. Eventually, she dumped me. One week after we broke up, she started a relationship with another guy. It turns out that this guy was 30, that's thirty, years old.
What do you guys think about something like that, just out of curiousity. 18-year-old girl, 30-year-old guy? Sure, it's technically legal (but barely), but that's a difference of 12 years, not 4. Isn't that at least a little gross?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I first had sex with my girlfriend when we were both 15.
Technically I raped her.
Call me what you will, but that just doesn't seem right to me.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Paul Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association, says:
"There is no question it's more likely that as a case winds its way through the court, in more cases the woman is going to get probation, whereas the man, under the same circumstances, is going to get prison."
U.S lawyers everywhere noted that "we don't need no stinking 14th Amendment."
December 5th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
With respect to the female sentencing discount: Glenn, I suspect you are very familiar with this, but I've seen a study showing that the only crimes for which there is not much difference between the genders in sentencing are crimes involving fraud. The reason for this, it seems to me, is that fraud does not involve either of the two vile characteristics for which it is assumed males have a monopoly: aggression and lust. When crimes involve either of these, the law punishes the perpetrator severely. Now I agree that there are serious problems with the validity of this assumption. but female-on-male statutory rape poses an interesting dilemna to the sentencer because it is assumed that the perpetrator did not not act out of lust but that that the VICTIM did! Hence, the sentencing discount for the woman, and hence the strange rule that if the woman has the boy's child, she can even sue him for child support, at least where he really did "consent." (Get that last part? A boy can be "statutorily raped" which means for criminal law purposes, he could not legally "consent," but for support law purposes, he CAN consent -- and be liable for child support -- at the age of 12 or 14 -- or whatever.)
December 5th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Ever notice that female defendants to statutory rape appear in the courtroom looking as "hot" as possible so that judge will say "damn that boy got lucky", whereas 17 year old female victims dress like 10 year old girls so that the same judge will say "how could that monster defile that poor innocent child"?
Whom is the law actually protecting, from what? That seems to have been completely forgotten and replaced with a very Victorian attitude which most feminists have:
female sexuality = wonderful, natural, empowering
male sexuality = sinister, savage, reprehensible
It's a shame that these attitudes are still held, and a tragedy that they are applied in the law. The DA Paul Logli's statement sounds so matter-of-fact that its disturbing he doesn't question it in any way.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Sorry Alex, that's not gross at all. Don't hate, congratulate the "old Man". You got dumped for someone that could teach her a few things, instead of her teaching YOU a few, lol.
As far as this female discount goes--how does anyone feel this compares to the Genarlo Wilson case? This boy--and I mean boy, was trapped under a law designed for men. But here you have two children having consensual sex and HE gets charge?? A mandatory 10 year sentence?? Yes he was released, but he still spent more time in prison that this grown woman, who damn well knew better. And believe that I didn't even touch the race issues that I think were involved. So can I at least get an amen?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Jerry--the sources were added as a late note to the blog post. Yes, feminists and some others may dispute the gender bias in sentencing for statutory rape, but I think the preponderance of the evidence supports my contention.--GS
December 5th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Did anyone see that South Park episode, Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy?
Kyle's three-year-old brother gets into a "relationship" with his kindergarten teacher. Kyle is horrified and goes to the police, but all they can say is "nice," and "lucky kid."
December 5th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
The moral "rule" that I once heard suggested to me and I actually think would be fairly nice to advocate is the following:
Take the age of the older person... add 13 and divide by 2... that is the youngest they should be allowed to date (this does not work below age 13... but kids younger that 13 shouldn't be seriously dating anyway).
As a result of this for someone age 17... they could date as young as 15... someone age 19 could date a 16 year old... and so on.
Incidentally Alex... that 30 year old in your story would fail this test as his limit would be to date women 21 and older.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
In Utah I think they say you can have sex with someone under 18 if they are less than five years younger. That seems reasonable to me.
The worst is in states where underage teenagers can't even have sex with each other (that is a different crime than statutory rape though).
December 5th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Glenn,
I have a distant relative, VERY well known actor (his name's not germain, so I won't name him).
His Great grandfather, my Gr3 grandfather was born in 1790, while that same great grandfather's wife was born in 1818.
While I don't have the dates of their marriage, my understanding is that it was not uncommon for a man to establish his home and some degree of wealth, then get married.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Part of the furore over statutory rape comes from the fact that the age of consent in the US is 18. That seems ridiculously high from a European standpoint. In the UK it is 16 and I believe it is as low as 14 in some countries. It is also enforced with some degree of common-sense (as it must be in the US) and genuine peer relationships are not penalised.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:47 am
A cousin of mine is 42 and his partner is 27/28. They have a 2-year old daughter. I'm not sure when they got together, but I would imagine that he would have been 37/38 and she would have been 22/23. When does an age gap pass the stomach test, i.e. people don't give them funny looks and think the relationship is a bit icky? There's no real definitive answer to that one and you have to look at each relationship individually.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Debra Lafave, Media Sensationalism, and Rethinking Statutory Rape
I also think some of this statutory rape stuff is overdone. A 23-year-old with a 14-year-old goes too far, but I think it's ridiculous that we have 21 year-old men going to jail for having sex with 17-year-old girls, or 19-year-old boys going to jail for having sex with 16-year-old girls.
In fact, a friend's grandparents recently celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary, and it was publicized in local papers, as it should be, since it's such an achievement. But looking at the story and doing a little math made me realize that if the two of them had gotten together today, he would go to jail--he was 21 and she was 17 when they got married in 1922. Then it was perfectly normal--now it's a crime. Why?
= = = = = = =
Sorry again saw this story several days ago in the news but my modem went down. Using computer at work.
Glenn,
Your above quotes are not true everywhere . . .
This has been the rule in NYS for some time now;
The below came about because of the parents of girls (who did not like the boys, using the law as a weapon instead of a tool) would literally threaten and have arrested boys who turned 18 today and their girlfriend would turn 18 tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year even if the couple were an item for years.
Many parents of boys became involved and fought this injustice and won! It is a great victory for us and it still amazes me the number of judges that could not figure out the true meaning of the law and what it was really intended for in the first place. It seems that common sense is sadly lacking in our judges.
(Rape in NYS)
What constitutes lack of consent?
Under 17 years of age: New York law states that a person less than 17 years of age is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse or other sexual contact. These laws are typically known as statutory rape laws.
• If the victim is under 13, and the defendant is at least 18, this constitutes a 1st degree sexual offense. 1st degree crimes are considered the most serious ones and carry the longest penalties.
• If the victim is under 15 and the perpetrator is at least 18, this constitutes a 2nd degree sexual offense. However, if the defendant is less than 4 years older than the victim, this may constitute an affirmative defense. Affirmative defenses are those in which the defendant introduces evidence which negates criminal liability.
Offenders/Bail/Sentencing Provisions
• Convicted sex offender changes
1. Mandated probation and parole conditions are added for released convicted child molesters to keep them away from child settings, such as playgrounds and schoolyards.
2. Harsher penalties and determinate sentences for repeat sex offenders and longer periods of probation and parole for persistent child molesters. This includes 10 years of probation for any felony sexual assault and 6 years for a misdemeanor sexual assault charge.
3. No reduced bail or release on their own recognizance for offenders 18 years or older who have been convicted, but not sentenced, for Class A, B, or C felony sex offenses against a child less than 18 years old.
4. No bail for those convicted of B or C level violent felonies, even on appeal. No orders of recognizance in bail pending an appeal for Class A, B, or C felony sex offenses against a child.
5. New requirements for the sex offender registry were added whereby internet accounts and screen names must be added to aliases of registered sex offenders.
• Five years will be added to the maximum sentence of a defendant who engaged in sex with a child after contacting their victim through the Internet.
• The "900" number used to receive information about convicted sexual offenders will notify callers about the charge (lowered from $5.00 to .50) and provide basic information about a packet of materials that is available.
• Prosecutors who failed in discovery to reveal some non-essential document to the defense cannot result in a vacated conviction of the case.
b
--------------------
Turns out that all Lafave apparently did was have a private conversation with a 17-year-old girl she works with. It does violate her probation, but it hardly merits such sensationalism.
= = = =
Probation violation is very serious, besides her "private conversation" did involve sex talk a clear no-no. Men have received some serious time for contempt of court for a violation of an order of protection and sorry but a violation of an OOP is far less serious than violation of probation.
b
December 6th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Harq al-Ada Says:
December 5th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Did anyone see that South Park episode, Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy?
Kyle's three-year-old brother gets into a "relationship" with his kindergarten teacher. Kyle is horrified and goes to the police, but all they can say is "nice," and "lucky kid."
= = = = =
Yes,
I believe that the first statement was something like "so what is the problem" "is she really ugly or something?"
Then the "nice!" and "She's hot! "Wish that happened to me with a teacher like that!" came out!
And before that they were really baffled as what to do . . .
b
December 6th, 2007 at 10:13 am
I find that those of you who have made suggestions regarding a limit to age differences between two consenting adults and have also argued for gay relationships’ have made diametrically opposing statements/arguments.
b
December 6th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
"I first had sex with my girlfriend when we were both 15.
Technically I raped her."
Well technically, didn't she rape you too? :-)
December 6th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Under today's laws my father would be a rapist. He was 26 when he married my mom who was 17 at the time.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
On a related topic, I just returned from the California mandatory sexual harassment training for supervisors. They actually had a slightly more balanced presentation this year. For example, two "dramatic example" videos where shown: one where the predator was a man and one where the predator was a woman. Two years ago, both predators were men. Unfortunately, some of the the cuplability was put on the male supervisor of the female predator, but at least it is some progress...
Does anyone have thoughts on what might be responsible for this positive progress?
December 6th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I have some thoughts....I think we're making an impact....that's why.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:27 am
That's what I was hoping someone would say... so whatever it is, let's keep doing it.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Bernie M's right - pedophile LaFave knows the confines of her probation and she defied that. I think she's a high-risk perp who would offend against anyone she percieves as a peer, and I think she's the kind of person who would seduce simply because she can, be it male or female. While some like to consider teachers as less of an offender, I don't concur with that notion. She's a predator. If the law forbids contact with a 17 year old who'll be 18 in 5 minutes - give 'em a prob vio! If she were a man, she'd be in jail (can't say "back in jail").
As I've shared before, my husband is 12 years older - we started dating when I was 35. He was stable and mature, among many other qualities. We often joke about him being in high school and dating an elementary school kid - I was 6 when he was 18. People looked at us like they didn't take us seriously - we are total opposites, kind of like beauty and the beast. But we compliment one another and that's what makes it work. Wait until your older and you get the chance to be with a younger woman - will you call her gross then, old man?!
January 11th, 2008 at 7:06 am
your all confused..in michigan for example consenting age is 16..there are different state laws..check out your state law they are all different...!!
January 12th, 2008 at 12:19 am
[...] female sentencing discount and my sentiments about these types of cases, see my recent blog posts Debra Lafave, Media Sensationalism, and Rethinking Statutory Rape and Extreme Gender Bias: Woman Who Statutorily Raped Boy Avoids Jail, While Boy's Older Brother [...]
January 13th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
[...] female sentencing discount and my sentiments about these types of cases, see my recent blog posts Debra Lafave, Media Sensationalism, and Rethinking Statutory Rape and Extreme Gender Bias: Woman Who Statutorily Raped Boy Avoids Jail, While Boy's Older [...]
February 7th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Also, how do they prove rape if the "victim" or mom or dad doesnt say anything?
someone please tell me that, what do they do? just take a guess and arrest them on probable cause?
i can see if the person got pregnant but other than that and having it on tape, how would they catch them if all they do is see them together but not see them do anything?
Do cops now days just sneek onto peoples property and drill a hole and look and listen to every house?
or do they have infrared heat vision cameras outside the house?
someone tell me, i am very curiuse.
What is the big deal with all this crap anyways if the mom dad or girl doesnt complains about it?
Also a 17 year old with a 21 year old?
how would they get arrested if they are married?
someone please tell me that!!!
I thought it was legal if you are married!
Someone please tel me how that is legal if they are married, i thought that there would be no way on earth that they can arrest you if you are married.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:13 am
How can playboy bunnies sleep with Hugh Hefner who might be 20 odd years older than them, and a HOT 23 year old teacher can't sleep with a 14 year old student? It's not as if he didn't know what he was doing, and i'm almost certain that he would have consented - i would have :)
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I find this information really irritating.
In England, where i am from the legal age for consent is 16.
I knew of a woman from my town who had sex with a 12 year old boy over a period of a few months. She was put on probation for two years and given a new home to live in.
My husband had consensual sex with a girl who lied about her age for 2 weeks of their relationship, (She decided to tell him after the fact) she was 17, a year under the age for consent in this state and he is now facing jail time for statutory rape.
There are no consequences for the lying girl that obviously knew what she wanted and how to get it.
Its all on my husband, who is a good, honest man and wouldn't have looked twice had he known she was underage from the start. Apparently he should have known better being the adult.
I lost my virginity at the age of 15, after being in a relationship with an 18 year old guy for 2 years, there was no creepiness about it, it was young love. He is technically a rapist too.
Why are women any different than men? In my opinion they are far more devious and sneaky. The Law needs to stop protecting these girls and start giving some kind of punishment for being devious lying tramps.
My father married my mother when he was 26 and she was 18, they had been dating for three years. This technically makes my father a rapist.