14 Year Old Raped, Town Burns Down House for Revenge

[wolfie]

Definitely no reason to drop the case. They had a video of sexual activity involving a 14 year old girl. Whether or not the sex was consensual, that's "Manufacturing, distributing, and possession of child pornography". An open-and-shut case.

[s_stabeler]

Definitely no reason to drop the case. They had a video of sexual activity involving a 14 year old girl. Whether or not the sex was consensual, that's "Manufacturing, distributing, and possession of child pornography". An open-and-shut case.

whether or not the sex was consensual, that's open-and-shut statutory rape. There's no close in age exemption in the relevant state, so...

[smileyeagle1021]

whether or not the sex was consensual, that's open-and-shut statutory rape. There's no close in age exemption in the relevant state, so...

And even if there was a close in age exemption, the lowest age it applies to for the younger party is 16 (at least that I'm aware of)

[Greenday]

whether or not the sex was consensual, that's open-and-shut statutory rape. There's no close in age exemption in the relevant state, so...

Actually it's not statutory rape in Missouri. First degree statutory rape is having sex with someone 13 or younger. Second degree statutory rape is when someone 21 or older has sex with someone 16 or younger.

[s_stabeler]

Nope. direct quote of the law in question:

Statutory rape and attempt to commit, first degree, penalties.

566.032. 1. A person commits the crime of statutory rape in the first degree if he has sexual intercourse with another person who is less than fourteen years old.

2. Statutory rape in the first degree or an attempt to commit statutory rape in the first degree is a felony for which the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than five years, unless in the course thereof the actor inflicts serious physical injury on any person, displays a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in a threatening manner, subjects the victim to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with more than one person, or the victim is less than twelve years of age in which case the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than ten years.

(L. 1994 S.B. 693, A.L. 2006 H.B. 1698, et al.)

Effective 6-05-06

it's strictly if the victim is less that 14 for first degree. It's SECOND degree that requires the offender to be over 21.

[Greenday]

Nope. direct quote of the law in question:

Statutory rape and attempt to commit, first degree, penalties.

566.032. 1. A person commits the crime of statutory rape in the first degree if he has sexual intercourse with another person who is less than fourteen years old.

2. Statutory rape in the first degree or an attempt to commit statutory rape in the first degree is a felony for which the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than five years, unless in the course thereof the actor inflicts serious physical injury on any person, displays a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in a threatening manner, subjects the victim to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with more than one person, or the victim is less than twelve years of age in which case the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than ten years.

(L. 1994 S.B. 693, A.L. 2006 H.B. 1698, et al.)

Effective 6-05-06

it's strictly if the victim is less that 14 for first degree. It's SECOND degree that requires the offender to be over 21.

The main girl was 14. 14 is not less than 14.

[Canarr]

In that 2nd article about the reopening of the case, the prosecutor states:

Rice defended his previous actions but said, because the victim appeared on CNN saying she would testify, the time is right to appoint a special prosecutor to re-examine the case.

"Until that time, the witnesses never told me that they were willing to cooperate and testify after they invoked their 5th Amendment right in a deposition under oath," he said. "They understood that when they at that time invoked their 5th Amendment right, that by doing so was going to force the dismissal of the case, they understood that."

From my TV-based knowledge of the 5th Amendment, you can invoke it to refuse testimony on the grounds that you might implicate yourself in a crime when doing so. Which, of course, implies that you're guilty of something, so other parties involved in the same event might not be guilty themselves.

However: I thought that the justice system was not supposed to assume guilt just from the invocation of the 5th Amendment alone? Is the guy just trying to cover his ass, or does he have a point?

[Kelmon]

The main girl was 14. 14 is not less than 14.

But one of the girls was 13 at the time.

Definitely no reason to drop the case. They had a video of sexual activity involving a 14 year old girl. Whether or not the sex was consensual, that's "Manufacturing, distributing, and possession of child pornography". An open-and-shut case.

If i understood the article correctly, the video doesn't actually show them having sex. As i have not seen it, i don't know if what you can see in the video counts as "sexual activity".

[s_stabeler]

In that 2nd article about the reopening of the case, the prosecutor states:

Rice defended his previous actions but said, because the victim appeared on CNN saying she would testify, the time is right to appoint a special prosecutor to re-examine the case.

"Until that time, the witnesses never told me that they were willing to cooperate and testify after they invoked their 5th Amendment right in a deposition under oath," he said. "They understood that when they at that time invoked their 5th Amendment right, that by doing so was going to force the dismissal of the case, they understood that."

From my TV-based knowledge of the 5th Amendment, you can invoke it to refuse testimony on the grounds that you might implicate yourself in a crime when doing so. Which, of course, implies that you're guilty of something, so other parties involved in the same event might not be guilty themselves.

However: I thought that the justice system was not supposed to assume guilt just from the invocation of the 5th Amendment alone? Is the guy just trying to cover his ass, or does he have a point?

you cannot draw any conclusions from an invocation of the 5th amendment. However, it does mean you cannot gain anything from the testimony that would otherwise have been brought. What he is suggesting if that he needs their testimony to prove his case.

[Greenday]

From my TV-based knowledge of the 5th Amendment, you can invoke it to refuse testimony on the grounds that you might implicate yourself in a crime when doing so. Which, of course, implies that you're guilty of something, so other parties involved in the same event might not be guilty themselves.

Like underage drinking?

[Canarr]

Is that a felony?

[Hyena Dandy]

Is that a felony?

No, but it's a crime. The 5th amendment doesn't need to be a serious crime.

[Greenday]

Is that a felony?

No but it doesn't help having any kind of a criminal record.

[Titi]

But one of the girls was 13 at the time.

And according to other sites I've been on that guy confessed to the rape and that the 13 year old had repeatedly said no. What does invoking the 5th have to do with a taped and signed confession? Why were his charges dropped at all when she was under the age of consent?

[hinakiba777]

This is an interview with a journalist talking to a criminal defense lawyer, getting his opinion about the case. The best part is around the one minute mark where the lawyer says "I'm not saying she deserved to be raped but..." I feel like that says a lot of about case.