Posted on 09/22/2007 6:21:10 AM PDT by Jim Noble
WEARE – A father attacked his daughter's boyfriend last week after learning the boy had sex with the underage girl, police said.
It was about 1:30 p.m. Monday, Sept. 10, when the man stormed onto the grounds of John J. Stark High School and beat up the 17-year-old from Henniker. School was just letting out, and many students witnessed the attack, said Detective Lou Chatel.
The boy suffered bruising and later received two stitches to his face.
The father was charged with simple assault, a Class B felony.
Police said the boy is dating the man's 15-year-old daughter.
The man discovered the two had had sex earlier that day, during school hours but not on school property, police said.
Under state law, a 15-year-old cannot consent to sex; therefore, police are investigating the allegation as a sexual assault.
The New Hampshire Union Leader has a policy of not identifying sexual assault victims. For that reason, the newspaper is not identifying the father.
Both students attend John Stark High School. The girl lives in Weare.
Chatel said there have been no arrests in the sex case, but he expects there will be.
I’d say the real division concerns what moral standards (and whose) should be enforced by law, and which should be left to the freely made decisions of the individuals involved.
Good observation. One complication is that our lives have become increasingly interdependent. Too often others have to endure the consequences of our "freely made decisions." I would note that the decisions of each of the parties in the article (father, daughter, and boyfriend) impacted the lives of each other.
Some would be tempted to say, "it was just sex." Others would say that the difference between 15 and 17 is sufficient that the daughter could not have given informed consent. This is why statutory rape laws exist. The legislatures that enact these laws need to balance the rights of all involved, and the judiciary provides one check to see that they do.
Yes, I very definitely support statutory rape laws where it involves adults and children. The questions start when the differences in age and maturity levels aren’t that great. When it involves teens, three years seem about right, though there could be many opinions.
“Good observation. One complication is that our lives have become increasingly interdependent. Too often others have to endure the consequences of our “freely made decisions.” I would note that the decisions of each of the parties in the article (father, daughter, and boyfriend) impacted the lives of each other.”
IMO, the parents should have decided that their kids “freely made decisions” should not be a matter of law enforcement, and certainly not vigilante action, but a parental disciplinary and moral question for each set of parents to take up with their kids, and maybe together.
The questions start when the differences in age and maturity levels aren’t that great.Yes. And wherever one draws the line, when someone just over the line gets caught, questions will re-surface. I think most youth 16 and over can grasp the concept of an age of consent and the need to respect it. My 16 year old peers certainly did in 1971, referring to underage girls as 'jail bait.' No matter where one draws the line, if parents do not consistently teach their children to respect authority, laws, and the rights of other people, those who reach majority will not respect laws or others.
Exactly. Not what you'd call livable system is it?
Thats kind of cold but you bring up a good point.
The father obviously failed in raising his daughter to uphold traditional Judeo-Christian standards of morality.
I think his behavior afterwards was a sign that he KNEW he had failed to raise his daughter right and he lashed out in frustration.
IMO, the parents should have decided that their kids “freely made decisions” should not be a matter of law enforcement, and certainly not vigilante action, but a parental disciplinary and moral question for each set of parents to take up with their kids, and maybe together.
If both were under 16, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. When the 17 year old boy "freely decided" to have intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, he crossed a significant line for all the reasons I mentioned before. He must freely accept the consequences of his free choice.
“Yes. And wherever one draws the line, when someone just over the line gets caught, questions will re-surface.”
There might actually be some wisdom in the choices teens have made most often over the years. Just my observation, it seemed that a guy two years older than a girl was the most common age difference. Same age and one year difference next, and three year difference less common, and four year difference getting into “robbing the cradle” territory for kids still in high school. The four and greater year difference seldom happened until the younger party was out of high school. - Things might be different some places.
And, some cases where the girl was older, but when a boy is beyond three years or grades older, that starts seeming too much while still in high school. Sixteen seems right for age of consent, but I don’t think many sixteen year-olds considered fifteen, or even fourteen year-olds jail bait. I think the kids were/are more cognizant of the age difference than the age of consent.
The pro-"choice" crowd comes out again.
Exactly. Also, it appears pretty obvious that this wasn’t the girl’s first time, for better or for worse, considering the circumstances of the “act” as it had occurred.
While any good and decent father would get the urge to beat the living daylights out of this kid he must remember:
-his daughter is also complicit in the act and perhaps as a father, SHE is the one he needs to be talking to
-it’s still illegal to just go attack someone, esp. a minor
-you especially can’t enter school property to do it, especially WITH THAT SPECIFIC PURPOSE IN MIND
“When the 17 year old boy “freely decided” to have intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, he crossed a significant line for all the reasons I mentioned before. He must freely accept the consequences of his free choice.”
Can’t agree with that. Law out of touch with reality. What if we have a couple, with the boy one or two years older, having sex before the boy is sixteen. Nothing illegal, both are under age. Then the boy turns sixteen and the girl is still fourteen or fifteen. Sex continues. Should the boy be prosecuted for statutory rape?
I think the age difference among teens is the only sensible guideline, not the age of consent.
And, with the age of consent wisdom, a sixteen year-old can suddenly have sex with a sixty year-old.
don’t think many sixteen year-olds considered fifteen, or even fourteen year-olds jail bait.
Ignorance of the law has rarely been accepted as justification. If parents resurfaced from their busy lives once in a while and actually taught their sons, perhaps such willful ignorance would be remedied. Those who espouse 'liberty' must, by necessity, accept 'responsibility.'
It’s not “rape.” They’re essentially the same age, and there wasn’t any force involved that we know of.
Statuatory rape laws are meant for actual predators, not teenage lovers. If the boy were 17, and the girl perhaps 12, that of course is much different, as the mental ages of the two are incomparable. If the boy were 22 and the girl 15, same thing.
A teenage couple 2 years apart having consensual sex is not what statuatory rape laws are meant to prevent and punish.
I’m not saying teenagers should have sex. I’m saying it’s not the same as statuatory rape.
Half the people on this forum had sex as teenagers, and I really don’t think they’re rapists.
Takes 2 to tango and from my experience 15 yo girls are as mature as 17yo boys.
Just my 2 cents.
Statutory rape laws are meant for actual predators, not teenage lovers.
Not quire right. Statutory rape laws exist because society requires 'consensual sexual acts' to have 'informed consent.' The legislatures, elected by the people, have passed laws setting the age for that consent at 16. By definition this girl could not give consent for sex. I imagine few on this forum would suggest the 15 year old girl could give consent to sign any contract (e.g. purchase a car, donate an organ, etc.) Why do so many here treat the ability to give 'informed consent' for sexual intercourse so differently?
” . . . which should be left to the freely made decisions of the individuals involved.
The pro-”choice” crowd comes out again.”
Well, you tried, but that statement was made in the context of this discussion about consensual sex or statutory rape. Why not include more of the quote?
“I’d say the real division concerns what moral standards (and whose) should be enforced by law, and which should be left to the freely made decisions of the individuals involved.”
As related to the divisions of opinion in this specific thread, not a universal application to other subjects not being discussed.
Are you saying you think there should be laws governing with whom those over the age of consent have sex with?
“Ignorance of the law has rarely been accepted as justification. If parents resurfaced from their busy lives once in a while and actually taught their sons, perhaps such willful ignorance would be remedied. Those who espouse ‘liberty’ must, by necessity, accept ‘responsibility.’”
You want a strict enforcement of the age of consent. I think consideration of the age difference among teens is more sensible. We just disagree.
But, in reality, it’s the prosecutors who decide when and how to apply the law, in the very few such cases that come to the attention of adults.
“If the mother of the boy goes and kicks the crap out of the 15 year old girl, would you be saying “Good Mother”?”
Lol, I asked that question long ago. Nobody wants to address it, or the general idea of when the girl is the older, and guilty of statutory rape.
Perhaps not.
However, I’d rather see these laws enforced on actual predators instead of this. What’s more of a threat, really?
Besides, I’ve never signed a contract for sex. ;-)
“If the mother of the boy goes and kicks the crap out of the 15 year old girl, would you be saying “Good Mother”?”
Another thought. People forget that there really are mother’s who think that there are evil Jezebel’s just out to bed their sweet and innocent, young virgin sons.
And in some cases, they’re exactly right. Boys are often propositioned these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.