60 days for raping a 12 year old?

[destinie21]

What nobody seems to have addressed so far is that there was no evidence against the man and, under the usual rules of procedure, he should have been acquitted because of that lack. I am assuming there was no physical evidence. The entries in the girls diaries should not have been considered because she admitted they were fabricated.

Unfortunately, with the witch hunting attitude RE sex crimes against minors, a person accused almost have to prove it was not possible for the acts to have been committed and even then, there is a good chance of conviction. It's not supposed to work that way; the burden of proof should be on the prosecution, but it isn't in this kind of case.

Perhaps the judge saw that the conviction was bogus and pronounced the minimum sentence because that was all he could do since he couldn't have overruled the jury. Even so, the man should never have been convicted. Maybe when the girl grows up, there can be a petition to expunge the conviction. If she testifies then, as an adult, people might believe her. Meanwhile, the man wears the jacket of a child molester.

She could have admitted they were fabricated because she was afraid or didn't want the guy jailed, I'll tell you this much though it would be up to the judge to review the diaries and decide depending on her language use and descriptions of what happened it may have mbeen clear if it was fabricated beyond that there had to have been some eveidence or he wouldn't have gotten convicted.

 

[Teenage Venus]

To put an age restriction on anything - be it sexual intercourse or driving or voting - does an injustice to some, and flatters others.

Most laws where age is a factor, have resulted from considerable thought, and consensus of opinion. In general, they work out reasonably well for the majority, and should be enforced.

In THIS case, the girl happened to be 12 years old. She may well have been FULLY capable of making rational decisions. As for her being physically mature enough - many that age are.

Earlier I stated I think the judge was weak. I stand by that.

From what I can glean, the two were not exactly strangers, and I see it VERY unlikely the guy did not know she was 'underage' legally. As such, he should have received an appropriate sentence. If his mentality was such that he genuinely could not make the distinction, he should have been committed to a mental institution for his own and others' safety.

On the commune, boys of 7 drove tractors - expertly too. Should they have been allowed on the public highway!

 

[Boxlicker101]

She could have admitted they were fabricated because she was afraid or didn't want the guy jailed, I'll tell you this much though it would be up to the judge to review the diaries and decide depending on her language use and descriptions of what happened it may have mbeen clear if it was fabricated beyond that there had to have been some eveidence or he wouldn't have gotten convicted.

She might have lied about fabricating the entries or she might have told the truth. I didn't read about any other evidence although there might have been some. Obviously, the entries were scrutinized by the judge and maybe child psychologists but they wouldn't have been able to prove anything. Sodomy and rape would probably mean she described oral sex performed on her and vaginal penetration. She could have copied the description from one of my stories on Lit or from thousands of other places.

As for the other evidence, there may or may not have been some. The news articles didn't say anything about any. Unfortunately, with the present atmosphere, people are convicted on this kind of offense with little or no credible evidence. The McMartin case is probably the best known but there are others.

I don't know if he was innocent or not and neither does anybody else on Lit. What I am saying is that it looks like there was insufficient evidence for a conviction and that he should have been acquitted because of that.

 

[Weird Harold]

Lisa Denton:
YOU said it was not about rape but age difference, when you said that the case was irrelevant and your were discussing your personal opinions about age difference.

Get your facts straight!

I quoted the prosecuting attorney who said this case was about the age difference and not about forcible rape.

Please find and quote where I said this case is irrelevant -- my whole disucussion has been an attempt to make sense of a judge known for "harsh sentences" handing down such a lenient sentence.

There are laws in THIS country for a reason. A 12 year old child is not able to consent to sex with an adult no matter what grade she's in.

A 12 year old fumbling around sex with other 12 year olds is alarming but you are not even using that defense.

I'm not using that defense because it doesn't have any bearing on THIS case. THIS case is about a twelve year old and a twenty-six year old.

And whether you agree or not, and no matter what head he's thinking with, a 26 year old man is RESPONSIBLE for having sex with a child. Whether the child was willing or not.

The Jury obviously agrees with you, but the Judge apparently does not -- at least not completely. As Boxlicker points out, the Judge probably read her diary and decided either the man was railroaded or the girl was at least partly to blame for the situation.

Regardless of what a child of any age is "capable" of deciding in the eyes of the law, children do make choices that the law says they shouldn't. Passing a law doesn't stop stupidity or create a reality where all children magically become mature in their own eyes at a certain age.

Twelve year olds in general, male or female, should NOT be having sex with anyone of any age. However, apparently nobody ever told the two individuals in this case that little bit of information. They made choices the law says were wrong and that they didn't have the right to make those choices -- that doesn't change the reality that they DID make choices and according to the prosectuing attorney THIS case was only about the age difference.

I am not saying that children should have sex, but children WILL find a way, and a partner, if they want to have sex and any number of laws won't stop them. I think the Judge recognised that reality and sentenced accordingly.

 

[destinie21]

link

I found another link I still maintain that there had to be some evidence he was convicted by a jury after all

 

[Weird Harold]

link

I found another link I still maintain that there had to be some evidence he was convicted by a jury after all

Some interesting bits in that article.

from the latest link:
A jury found Robinson guilty of sexually abusing a 15-year-old girl over a long period of time. The victim was his adopted first-cousin, who lives just next door.
...
Mrs. Weatherly says she and her daughter may be forced to move. She says they are already part of a family fued, which she feels may get worse when Robinson is released.

Robinson was convicted of Rape and Sodomy. He and his family maintain his innocence.

A jury convicted him, but so have most of the participants in this thread -- perhaps their outrage over her youth colored their perception of the evidence? Or perhaps they followed the letter of the law that places the blame on the elder partner -- usually the male -- without regard to the actions of the minor.

What interests me most is the family feud over this.

It doesn't provide a breakdown of who is on which side, but it certainly looks like Mom and (maybe) her daughter are on one side and almost everyone else is on his side. Since the daughter tried to pass her diary off as fiction, I'm not sure that even she's on Mom's side.

Could it be the family supports him because they actually know the girl involved?

Another key point -- There is nothing said about just when in the "long period of time" the relationship progressed from molestation to "rape." All of the outrage over the "poor 12 year-old girl" is probably misplaced -- not that 13 or 14 or even 15 is much better, but I really doubt that the affair started with full intercourse. Since most sodomy laws include oral sex, thats probably what dates the charges back to age 12.

The long term aspect of the affair raises the specter of "brain-washing" -- but that makes the judge's departure from his reputation even more puzzling.

From the article:
The judge who made the decision isn't commenting, but he may have been influenced by Robinson's family and supporters. They spoke up in his favor at the hearing.

People who know both Robinson and the Girl well spoke in his favor. Why aren't they outraged instead. The only one who seems to be outraged is the Mom (who probably brought the charges as well.)

How much is of this case is affected by family not wanting "dirty laundry" aired in public and/or offense at Mom's belated attempt to control a teenage daughter?

 

[sweetnpetite]

After what cloudy said, I wouldn't doubt if the judge did it for just that reason.

I have a friend (on the other hand) who was mollested for several years at a very young age, and the guy (her stepdad) who even admited it in court got a sentance of several months. I guess if you do it to your own kids it's ok- cuz this guy remairied and had another child!

Seems the only one who got punished in all of this was my friend. And if you knew the rest of the story, I'm sure you would agree. But I'll stop now before I get myself worked up.

Good points, SlickTony. The followup story I think you are referring to (here ) does shed some more light on the case, including the defense attourney's contention that the victim fabricated her diary entries.

This makes it all the more confusing. If the victim fabricated evidence and the judge knew this, then how was the defendant found guilty at all? Isn't fabricating evidence a felony? Wouldn't the case be thrown out on that basis?

But if he was guilty, why such a short sentence?

All I can think of is that this would qualify as statutory rape based on the victim's age, but that's not what they found this guy guilty of, so far as I can tell. And Judge Bush sounds like the sort who would have thrown the book at a 26-year old for statutory rape anyway, but he didn't.

I don't get it.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Are you seriously implying that a 12 year old child is mature enough to CONSENT to sexual intercourse? [/B]

My cousin at 12 had consentual sex and got pregnant. It happens. At 13 she was a mother.

 

[sweetnpetite]

12 year olds are are often prosecuted as adults in this country because it is recognised that they can distinguish right from wrong.

This is an excellent point. Although I don't really agree that 12 year olds 'should' be prosicuted as adults, the fact is that the law does recognize that they are responsible for their actions.

Does anybody remember what Brooke Shields looked/acted like at 12?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Good points, SlickTony. The followup story I think you are referring to (here ) does shed some more light on the case, including the defense attourney's contention that the victim fabricated her diary entries.

This makes it all the more confusing. If the victim fabricated evidence and the judge knew this, then how was the defendant found guilty at all? Isn't fabricating evidence a felony? Wouldn't the case be thrown out on that basis?

But if he was guilty, why such a short sentence?

All I can think of is that this would qualify as statutory rape based on the victim's age, but that's not what they found this guy guilty of, so far as I can tell. And Judge Bush sounds like the sort who would have thrown the book at a 26-year old for statutory rape anyway, but he didn't.

I don't get it.

Nobody is saying she "fabricated evidence". She is saying she wrote things in her diary that never happened, in other words she fabricated the diary entries but they were never intended to be made public.

I understand that "statutory rape" relates to older minors, fifteen and older. Because she is so young, he was charged with rape. The crux of the matter is "Why such a light sentence?" If he was guilty, he should do a much heavier sentence; if he was innocent, he should have been acquitted. Personally, I think the judge considered him to be innocent but was loathe or unable to overturn the jury decision so he gave him a very light senternce.

There was a case in California a few years back where a man was convicted of rape, kidnapping and armed robbery and the judge sentenced the offender to one year of weekends or something trivial like that.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Most people who are underage that commit murders go to Juvenile Detention. Trials as an adult
are still a relative novelty and usually occur in situations of exceptional cruelty and obvious pathology,
such as the two pre-teen boys in my state who stabbed and beat their little friend to death out of "curiousity".

The only point I wanted to make is that, yes- 12 year olds can say "yes" to sex, and many do-
but that consent is effectively rendered null and void because children are considered
incapable of true consent. This is not a bad law, because it is in place to protect children
from coercive assault.

If you ask me if I believe that a 26 year old man should be held to a greater culpability than the 12 year
old girl he was sex with- I say, resoundingly, fuck yes. Being 27 myself, I'd say this is waaay fucking into the realm of adulthood. I've managed to get along very well not fucking little boys, and I'm fairly carnally enthusiastic.
If "Young and dumb" is the excuse, and it doesn't apply it to a 12 year old, I'll be
damned if it'll be used to defend a man over a quarter of a century old.
˜
The guy I had sex with when I was 13 certainly knew how old I was. It didn't stop him from hinting and
cajoling. Yeah, I consented- purely because I thought I *was* so fucking mature- and immediately repented, realizing I was out of my depth. I was all about making out and the occasional "fingerbang" (charming colloquialism...). It wasn't what I wanted. He was 18, and I still find it creepy. I can't imagine someone more than twice my age having done the same thing. Thank god it was only one penetration. (Adding insult to injury, he looked *exactly* like
Axl Rose in his heyday)

12 year old girls (and boys...my state again, good old Mary Kay Letourneau) say "yes", but they do it
for the wrong reasons. I don't think that can be disputed.

Young men should be suspicious if a girl doesn't drive, lives at home, won't tell you where she lives,
doesn't have a job or go to a high school or college, and doesn't display the same social references as he does.

"Thinking with your dick" is a mistake, not a defense.

mlle

 

[Weird Harold]

Young men should be suspicious if a girl doesn't drive, lives at home, won't tell you where she lives,
doesn't have a job or go to a high school or college, and doesn't display the same social references as he does.

It's fairly clear now, with the link to the third article I quoted from above that Robinson probably knew his adopted first cousin's age and where she lived (next door).

Any suggestions as to why apparently all of their family except her mother aren't upset about this and are defending him?

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

You said it yourself. They're family. Families tend to go for not rocking the boat overmuch
when it comes to kith and kin. The exception to this, is, of course, moms, who really don't dig anyone messing with their
daughters at *any* age. *laugh*

My grandmother wouldn't institutionalize my violently schizophrenic aunt, even after
she stabbed a waitress with a butter knife.

She believed that Tom Petty wanted to "cut off her clitoris".

mlle

 

[Weird Harold]

You said it yourself. They're family. Families tend to go for not rocking the boat overmuch
when it comes to kith and kin. The exception to this, is, of course, moms, who really don't dig anyone messing with their
daughters at *any* age. *laugh*

Too true. There are a few family scandals hanging around in my family tree -- my dad always said his side of the family were In-laws and Mom's side were Out-laws. He wasn't far from the truth. My great-great aunt commissioned a family history and then burned it because of all the scandls it turned up.

The thing that puzzles me about the "family feud" is that the judge sided with his supporters. From the earlier articles comments abou this reputation for harsh sentences I'd have expected him to side with the mother and jury and enforce the letter of the law.

 

[Pure]

It's true children are held to be incapable of genuine consent. So their 'yes' to sex is without legal validity.

Yet the laws in some countries recognize a 'gray area' which works like this. Let's say the legal age of consent is 14.
Then these laws say, for a person 12-14, *who has sex with a partner no more than two years older,* there is no crime.

(This does not apply to the original case cited here.)

The interesting consequence is that the 13 year old's 'yes' to a 15 year old IS valid consent. But a 'yes' to a 17 year old, is not.

All these 'protection' laws appear to have admirable goals, but the setting of numbers for 'maturity' and ability not to be exploited results in a lot of 'twilight' cases. If the age is set at 14, for instance, there will always be 'mature' 12 year olds, perhaps more mature than the 'immature' 15 year olds-- as several posters have pointed out.

I believe, however, that the above 'gray area' laws are on the right track, though the numbers might be debated.

 

[snooper]

I repeat

As I said before:

A 12 year old lives close to me. She is a little girl when she goes to school, albeit developing fast, and the oldest kids in that school are twelve (ie the equivalent of US Elementary School). I hardly recognised her in a bar in town at nine in the evening, made up, short skirt, tight blouse. I know we allow drinking at the (to US eyes) shockingly young age of 18 but the barman had no problem serving her. If I hadn't known who she was I wouldn't have begun to suspect her age.

I'm ten years older than WH and I too do not letch after school children, but I would not have questioned anything but her good taste if she had made eyes at me, except for knowing which school she goes to.

If, or probably when, she is impregnated and the father appears in court she will be there dressed as a school girl, no make-up, no short skirt, no tight blouse so that the jury are sure that the young man who fell for her drunken charms is clearly a paedophile.

 

[Liar]

Re: I repeat

As I said before:

A 12 year old lives close to me. She is a little girl when she goes to school, albeit developing fast, and the oldest kids in that school are twelve (ie the equivalent of US Elementary School). I hardly recognised her in a bar in town at nine in the evening, made up, short skirt, tight blouse. I know we allow drinking at the (to US eyes) shockingly young age of 18 but the barman had no problem serving her. If I hadn't known who she was I wouldn't have begun to suspect her age.

I'm ten years older than WH and I too do not letch after school children, but I would not have questioned anything but her good taste if she had made eyes at me, except for knowing which school she goes to.

If, or probably when, she is impregnated and the father appears in court she will be there dressed as a school girl, no make-up, no short skirt, no tight blouse so that the jury are sure that the young man who fell for her drunken charms is clearly a paedophile.

I work with a youth drama group occationally, and met a girl last year who could do exactly the same thing. She's one helluva talented actor, and a nice kid in general. When I first met her she was 13, but I mistook her for a petitely built woman somwhere in the 18 to 25 span. (the ages in the group ranges from kids to 20-somethings, so it was plausible) I admired her looks as such and had more than one uncaste thought about her. Then she happened to mention her age. That kind of creeped me out for a while.

Fortunately for her, she is also more intelligent, sensible and mentally mature than most people up to twice her age, and therefore knows just how not ready for the adult life with all it's implications she is. So she knows better than to hang in bars just because she could.

But if she for some reason would want to, she could easily pull off the physical and the social play-act of a young adult woman. The age of consent is lower here, but I think she could do 18 without a problem too.

#L

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

>>...In-laws and Mom's side were Out-laws.<<

I laughed pretty hard at that.

Oh god, what am I about to say? *siGh* Here goes. Everyone cover their eardrums so they don't rupture and bleed, please....

Ahem. Pure, I absolutely agree with you.

Christ, that was like giving birth to a five-headed infant.

(unusual, painful- but good to get out in the open)

The exceptions for consent between minors of close ages does not disturb me. In fact, I heartily approve. Kids are going to fuck around like little minks, and they should do it with other kids. Equal footing.

So there it is. We are in agreement.

"Dear Penthouse, I never thought it could happen to me..."

miss cobalt chalk

p.s. Making the acquaintance of Monsieur Amicus Asshat has made me very nearly like you. I actually longed for the halcyon days of "S.U.V. driving cunts."

 

[destinie21]

Some interesting bits in that article.



A jury convicted him, but so have most of the participants in this thread -- perhaps their outrage over her youth colored their perception of the evidence? Or perhaps they followed the letter of the law that places the blame on the elder partner -- usually the male -- without regard to the actions of the minor.

What interests me most is the family feud over this.

It doesn't provide a breakdown of who is on which side, but it certainly looks like Mom and (maybe) her daughter are on one side and almost everyone else is on his side. Since the daughter tried to pass her diary off as fiction, I'm not sure that even she's on Mom's side.

Could it be the family supports him because they actually know the girl involved?

Another key point -- There is nothing said about just when in the "long period of time" the relationship progressed from molestation to "rape." All of the outrage over the "poor 12 year-old girl" is probably misplaced -- not that 13 or 14 or even 15 is much better, but I really doubt that the affair started with full intercourse. Since most sodomy laws include oral sex, thats probably what dates the charges back to age 12.

The long term aspect of the affair raises the specter of "brain-washing" -- but that makes the judge's departure from his reputation even more puzzling.



People who know both Robinson and the Girl well spoke in his favor. Why aren't they outraged instead. The only one who seems to be outraged is the Mom (who probably brought the charges as well.)

How much is of this case is affected by family not wanting "dirty laundry" aired in public and/or offense at Mom's belated attempt to control a teenage daughter?

Whether she initiated it or not she was fucking 12 if a 12 y/o comes over to my house and says hey lady lets have a kegger I promise I'm mature and hey look at me I look 26 so we may not even get in trouble I'm certainly not going to blindly agree then try to say hey it was her idea I just helped her commit the crime.

 

[oggbashan]

I do not feel competent to judge in any particular case what an appropriate sentence is - unless I have been present throughout the whole trial and seen all the evidence from the prosecution and the defence.

I have been a foreman of a jury twice. All the cases that we had to consider were a waste of our time. The defendants pleaded 'Not Guilty' just to extend the time before they were sentenced.

No evidence could be given about the defendants' previous convictions. The defendants' demeanor in court showed that they were very used to being defendants. Their demeanor influenced my consideration of their statements from the witness box.

I won't go into details but statements like 'The police fitted us up, planting the knives, tools etc. on us' do not carry conviction when the defendant has been joking with his mates across the court while his lawyer asks him questions.

The sentences might have seemed harsh for the offences but in one case the defendant asked for 120+ other offences to be taken into consideration. That was a shock to some of the jury who had been arguing that 'He's a nice lad and should be given another chance."

A case reported locally had editorial comment about the lightness of the sentence for wounding. What the press didn't say was that the defendant had been attacked by three men he didn't know, for no apparent reason. When he hit out with his walking stick and broke the arm of one of his attackers - he was charged with assault. Yes. He did it. His injuries were only bruises. If his attackers had not been disturbed by other people approaching he might be dead.

His sentence was a conditional discharge.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

Double, double, toil and trouble...

Og

 

[Pure]

MDLPB: has made me very nearly like you

mlle de la belle langue est presque trop aimable

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Awwww....are we having a moment?

 

[Pure]

very nearly

 

[Guest]

Awwww....are we having a moment?

Bella, Noooooooooooooooooo...

Trova