Debra Lafave, Media Sensationalism, and Rethinking Statutory Rape
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).]
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
December 6th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Why?
thats easy. Since the game is to put off birth till you cant have kids, having a law like this prevents families starting young.
back then, people wanted families to be healthy, and with grandparents assitance and best genetics, and the ability of the young to be more fit. they also had more influence and participation in the relationships as well, so they saw less of a problem and less of a situation where the young was left alone with the old. back then they may have been split in a way that is illegal today, but he never would have been alone with here to work on her the way someone could today.
we lost the unity in which we were allowed to look after each other and to use many things to make better choices. society and family looking out after children who become adults, meant that they could have those relationships (as someone who was not sincere would not be allowed to have her company). children with no familes, like those raised by the state, are not looked after, are on their own, and so there is nothing to mediate it. making an agency to do it costs too much, and so it serves better to make it illegal. you assume the worst and ignore the few that wouldnt be since their getting hitched in love so early is against ideology.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
my mother had me when she was 17. her mother had her when she was 16 and her mother had her when she was 16. we actually had 5 generations alive twice in my immediate family in my lifetime. i recently read that Mary was around 14 when she had Jesus. uncomfortable subject? you bet.
so let’s shoot straight here. our ancestors married younger, had children younger, and stayed married a lot longer. we live somewhat longer, but we aren’t talking about old age here. we are talking about youth.
since we are shooting straight here, let’s not forget that our forefathers were quite a bit older than their average brides. western scieties look down on all of this and give all of it nasty names. sentences men to loooong terms in prison for what our revered ancestors (for thousands of years) did as a matter of recourse. and they actually stayed married until death do us part.
don’t get me wrong, we all see that in today’s society 14 and 15 year old children should be allowed to grow up. but isn’t it the height of hypocracy for us to put an arbitrary age like 18 as when a girl becomes a woman, and God help the man who touches her before that? it also shows a lack of respect for our ancestors judgement, especially since they had great respect for things like marriage and the family, and actually knew how to make them work.
isn’t it also weird that now when women are finally starting to be prosecuted for being with underage boys some people want to start “rethinking” the whole issue?