Teenager Charged With Felony over lesbian relationship

nighttimer said:

Looking at the parents of the younger girl, I would have thought they know a thing or two about facing prejudice themselves.

This video makes clear the reason why.

Click to expand...

---

The vid just shows that an interracial couple can be just as homophobic as a same-race couple, Jeff.

Or not.

Now, from looking at all two minutes-plus of it, all I can see is that the couple was worried that their little girl was being taken advantage of by an older girl. I'm not denying that homophobia is part of the deal; it probably does factor in somewhere along the line. But just because they're an interracial couple and implying they should be more open-minded due to the fact that they ARE an interracial couple AND should be more open-minded doesn't wash.

What matters most here is the law. You can talk to me until the cows come home in the morning that the law is wrong, that they're beating up on the older girl due to the fact she's a lesbian--you can tell me all you want. However, the bottom line is that Hunt is eighteen. When the relationship started the other girl was fourteen. The law states that it was illegal. To me, it does not matter whether it's a same-sex relationship or a heterosexual one. It's the law--period. And it will be up to the lawmakers to change it if they're so inclined.

Going back to the video, Hunt does not come across as some drug-addled predator. Far from it. She strikes me as being a rather nice young lady caught up in an unfortunate situation. However, she also knew it was wrong, at least in legalistic terms. There is no way for me to know at present whether or not the relationship was sexual in nature or they just held hands. And I honestly wish Ms. Hunt the best in her defense. But in this case, she's still wrong and it is truly sad that she'll have to pay for what she did with her reputation.

J.S.F. said:

However, the bottom line is that Hunt is eighteen. When the relationship started the other girl was fourteen. The law states that it was illegal. To me, it does not matter whether it's a same-sex relationship or a heterosexual one.



But in this case, she's still wrong and it is truly sad that she'll have to pay for what she did with her reputation.

Click to expand...

At what point did she become wrong? Was it wrong when the relationship
Started before she was eighteen, or was she wrong for not breaking up the relationship before turning eighteen?

My understanding of everything is that someone over eighteen having sex with someone under eighteen is illegal in that jurisdiction, not that dating is illegal or that two people under eighteen having sex is illegal.

I've still yet to see any reports that they have been confirmed to have had sex after the older girl turned eighteen. Unless I'm mistaken, if that didn't happen, there wasn't actually a crime. Has the younger girl herself spoken?

RemaCaracappa said:

At what point did she become wrong? Was it wrong when the relationship
Started before she was eighteen, or was she wrong for not breaking up the relationship before turning eighteen?

My understanding of everything is that someone over eighteen having sex with someone under eighteen is illegal in that jurisdiction, not that dating is illegal or that two people under eighteen having sex is illegal.

I've still yet to see any reports that they have been confirmed to have had sex after the older girl turned eighteen. Unless I'm mistaken, if that didn't happen, there wasn't actually a crime. Has the younger girl herself spoken?

Click to expand...

---

Apparently it became wrong when Kaitlyn Hunt turned eighteen. Yes, I know the law in this situation is hypocritical and stupid, and no, I haven't seen those reports of them having sex, either before the eighteenth birthday or after. No way to know, and while I figure they did, that doesn't really matter. What DOES matter is the law itself.

As for the younger girl's parents, this all goes back to a post someone put on the first or second page (I forget who did it). Why did the younger girl's parents wait until Ms. Hunt was eighteen? Obviously to trap her in the legal system. It was a rotten thing, IMO, but that's what they did.

For my money, they could have sat both girls down with Ms. Hunt's parents and discussed the matter, but there is that nasty anti-gay feelin' goin' round, and I doubt many parents can readily and quickly come to terms with their son or in this case, their daughter, being gay, much less one who is fourteen, on the cusp of young womanhood.

Telling a young adult "You can't date this person" regardless of sexual orientation is a surefire way for the YA to rebel. Perhaps they thought of that, perhaps not. Again, as of this moment, there's no way to know.

It's a rotten situation all around, but the fact is the law--while it may be an ass--still stands. I feel badly for Ms. Hunt. She comes across as basically a very nice person who just wanted to be with someone she cared for. But the law ain't gonna see it that way.

So why didn't Ms. Hunt's parents look out for her? With all the anti-gay stuff going around and knowing that she was about to become a legal adult. Why didn't they try and tell her about dating someone underage with the added stigma of being gay? They couldn't possibly see this as ending well unless the younger girl's parents were sleazy enough to fake being happy and okay with this relationship.

nighttimer said:

Why? I'm sure they have seen the double takes, the narrowed glances, the shaking heads and the reproach that comes from crossing the color line. I know interracial couples aren't automatically more open-minded and tolerant based upon the likely fact they have faced narrow-minds and intolerance, but that doesn't make me feel bad about making the observation.

---ME. Good, as long as you've stated it's an observation and nothing more then there's no problem. To be fair, I've also gotten the looks and double-takes from the passersby over here (Japan), as I'm a fairly big white dude married to a petite Japanese lady. So I'm no stranger to racism and neither are my children. But again, since you've stated that it was an observation, no biggie.



And here is where we part company.

Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.

~ Martin Luther King, Jr.---ME. This is true so I won't disagree.

I'm not interested in the law when the law does not advance the cause of justice and when a law is unjust I would have no hesitation to break it before waiting for politicians to right the wrong.

There is no benefit to the community to prosecute and possibly imprison Kaitlyn Hunt. None. She is not a sexual predator. She is not a threat to society. I don't believe there was no other recourse to the parents of the younger girl. I would hope a judge orders mediation and counseling rather than exacting punishment on a young woman and possibly screwing up her life more than it already has been.

Arrested. Expelled. Prosecuted. Humiliated. Outed. Now she faces jail time and being forced to register as a sex offender.

How many more pounds of Kaitlyn Hunt flesh is required here before "the law" is satisfied?

Click to expand...

---

See above, please, and I'll address your four final paragraphs here.

The fact that you're not interested in the law advancing the cause of justice when it doesn't seem to and having no hesitation in breaking it doesn't matter. It is not relevant to this case. It's your opinion. That's all.

Now, in the matter of Kaitlyn Hunt, we both agree. I've said so before and I'll say it again. I doubt most sincerely from what I've read and seen that she is a predator and there are certainly lots worse cases walking around out there. I'm also of the opinion that the younger girl's parents are just a step above pond scum for waiting for Ms. Hunt to reach the legal age so they could have her arrested.

I would also agree with you in the case for leniency and mediation. I think Kaitlyn Hunt deserves that.

However, and this is where we'll have to agree to disagree, if I were a judge strictly interpreting the law I would have no choice in rendering the verdict of guilty simply because she was of legal age when the younger girl's parents decided to do a number on her. It doesn't matter if the relationship was sexual or not. It doesn't even matter if they slept together before Kaitlyn Hunt turned eighteen. All that does matter is that Kaitlyn Hunt IS considered an adult under the law and the prosecution will try and prove their case as such.

Will it serve justice to damage Kaitlyn Hunt's life more than it has been? No, it will not. Should the parents of both girls have consulted with each other and did they know about the relationship before all the shit went down? I don't know if they knew per se (I'm sure Kaitlyn's parents knew about her sexual orientation, but I'm not so sure about the other girl's folks nor am I sure if either side was aware of the relationship from start until now) but at the very least they could have contacted each other and hopefully figured something out.

The bottom line is that the prosecution will try to paint Ms. Hunt not as a predator (although I wouldn't put it past them), but as an adult held culpable under the laws of the state. And I would certainly hope that the judge will take into consideration that Ms. Hunt has already been through the emotional wringer, not to mention having a virtual 'P' tattooed on her forehead.

But I ain't counting on the leniency part. I would hope so for Ms. Hunt's sake...but I kind of doubt it. And that is a shame.

nighttimer said:

Fortunately for Ms. Hunt, you're not a judge because depending on whether there is a "mandatory/minimum" limit on them, the judge can use their own discretion and set aside a guilty verdict and impose his or her interpretation of how justice is best served here.

The motivations of the parents definitely matter in terms of both the law and whether or not Hunt is a victim of a malicious prosecution, which is a possibility Hunt's attorneys will probably explore.

But if you were a judge, wouldn't it be a tad premature to declare you must find Hunt guilty? You haven't seen all the evidence and haven't heard any of the testimony and you're ready to slam the gavel down? The role of the judge is not to take the side of the prosecution by default.

Click to expand...

-----

If I were a judge--and I stated this previously--if I were to strictly interpret the law as it is written--and from what I've read so far--then I would have no choice but to declare her guilty. Fortunately for all concerned, I am not. Neither are you.

However, getting back to the judge thing, most definitely would I use my own discretion and push for some kind of leniency. From what I've read, Ms. Hunt doesn't fit the pattern of a predator in any way, shape or form, and that must be taken into consideration. As I said, she appears to be a very nice young person who got caught up the gears of the system as it stands.

The problem is that I haven't seen all the evidence. I doubt anyone on this forum has. All we have to go on is what's been linked. I don't know the younger girl's name nor do I know her opinions, nor do I know whether they'd be accepted in court or not or if there's malicious intent. (Truthfully, I think there is, but that's for the court to decide).

I don't know if her parents were aware of her orientation before all this went down, if they tried to talk to her about it, or if Kaitlyn Hunt's parents tried to talk to her about the relationship. I imagine all that will come out at the trial. And I would certainly hope that the judge will use his/her discretion to find some kind of equitable solution to this.

But, and this is the cynic coming out in me, in trials such as this, the old adage of whether one is right or wrong doesn't matter but what one can prove does, will hold sway. And I fear it will hold sway against Kaitlyn.

They offered her a plea bargain. Isn't that leniency? If this same deal were offered to a guy in this situation wouldn't people be begging him to take it in order to not be labeled a sexual predator?

Lyra Jean said:

They offered her a plea bargain. Isn't that leniency? If this same deal were offered to a guy in this situation wouldn't people be begging him to take it in order to not be labeled a sexual predator?

Click to expand...

---

It's leniency...in a way. If I remember correctly, it's house arrest for two years and one year probation. This means that while she won't be marked officially as a predator, my opinion is that it's going to screw her future, anyway. I think that Ms. Hunt refused to accept the plea bargain as she thought it would stain her reputation...but rejecting it and losing the case in court--if she does lose--will get her for life.

This kind of thing is really a Catch-22 situation. If she goes to court, my feeling is she'll lose based on the fact that she was eighteen at the time the relationship began. It doesn't matter if she saw the other girl before turning eighteen. it doesn't even matter if they had sex or not. What matters is the age, and that's what the case will hinge on.

The defense will try to portray the younger girl's parents as being homophobic, which I believe is a factor in all this. And perhaps they'll focus on "malicious intent" as nighttimer brought up before. Whether or not the judge takes all that into consideration is another matter. Perhaps the judge will allow mediation or reduce the possible sentence or perhaps show some leniency. Perhaps not. The link said that if she loses she'll face up to fifteen years in jail and be marked as a sexual predator. I believe that the "predator" charge is baseless, but there it is.

I honestly feel terrible for the girl. Had it been a heterosexual relationship, I think the man might have gotten a stiffer sentence and no plea bargain because he is a man, larger--much larger and stronger (obviously) than Ms. Hunt is--and the concept of coercion might be deemed more of a factor. This is JMO and I may be offbase here.

The bottom line is that Ms. Hunt will be marked for life even if the judge does reduce the sentence and that is assuming he/she finds Ms. Hunt guilty. There are no winners here.

I figured she was marked for life as soon as this story hit the news.

Lyra Jean said:

They offered her a plea bargain. Isn't that leniency? If this same deal were offered to a guy in this situation wouldn't people be begging him to take it in order to not be labeled a sexual predator?

Click to expand...

It doesn't seem particularly lenient looking to me. I'm sure we've all known of young people that have did worse* and been offered better terms than that. There are statutory rapists that are older than the offender here, and their victims were younger than the one here, and they were given better terms than two years of probation and house arrest.

(*in terms of legal severity and the length of sentences)

oh didn't realize this.

J.S.F. said:

Why did the younger girl's parents wait until Ms. Hunt was eighteen? Obviously to trap her in the legal system. It was a rotten thing, IMO, but that's what they did.

Click to expand...

I have a very hard time believing that they said nothing and expressed no disapproval at all prior to her 18th birthday. Their homophobia is apparent, but everyone is talking about them as if they pretended they were okay with it, just so they could have the older girl arrested as soon as she turned 18. Who does that? I know some of the articles have said they "didn't do anything," but there wasn't anything to "do" at that point, besides express disapproval.

I also agree with Lyra Jean that I'm surprised that the older girl's parents didn't tell her to be a bit more careful.

Celia Cyanide said:

I have a very hard time believing that they said nothing and expressed no disapproval at all prior to her 18th birthday. Their homophobia is apparent, but everyone is talking about them as if they pretended they were okay with it, just so they could have the older girl arrested as soon as she turned 18. Who does that? I know some of the articles have said they "didn't do anything," but there wasn't anything to "do" at that point, besides express disapproval.

I also agree with Lyra Jean that I'm surprised that the older girl's parents didn't tell her to be a bit more careful.

Click to expand...

----

Those were my thoughts and I was paraphrasing someone else's response (can't remember whose it was) and wondering the same thing.

I imagine Kaitlyn's parents knew all about her sexual orientation and while they may have disapproved of it, they didn't get all homophobic. I don't know about the younger girl's parents, but perhaps they didn't know about the relationship at first, perhaps they thought it was just a phase (believe it or not I've heard some parents say that) or perhaps they wanted to entrap the older girl. I don't know and right now I have to wait for more facts like everyone else.

Now, to take another view, if you're a parent and you tell your teenager "don't date so and so because I don't approve", short of locking them in their rooms most of the time it won't work. In the case of a same-sex relationship, the tension and emotions may be higher due to society's disapproval of homosexuality in general, so the kids may have hidden what they did--if they did anything at all. Again, I don't know if they had sex or not prior to Kaitlyn's 18th B-day. It doesn't matter if they did. What matters is what they did AFTER she turned eighteen.

As a parent myself, I can only advise my children on what to do and what not to. I, however, cannot enforce what they do 24/7 and have to give them a measure of trust to do the right thing. I can only assume that Kaitlyn's parents might have said something and that the other girl's parents also might have said something...or didn't. There's no way to know for now...all we have are guesses.