On the face of it, it would sound like a pretty reasonable complaint. Why was this woman ever released? Maybe a clue can be found here. Here is the convicted 'rapist' and her 'victim' ten years later -
Confused? It had me wondering to.
The reality of course is somewhat different. She was charged at the time with statutory rape, given that she had sexual relations with someone under the age of 18 (and also her student). Aside from that however, there's no evidence that actual coercion was involved. By their very nature, statutory rape laws have a 'guilty until proven innocent' nature to them, thus there was no need to prove this usually absolutely essential element of rape.
I was compelled to comment on the status, pointing out that, while this women was doubtless guilty of a crime, that doesn't necessarily mean that what she did was wrong. What is illegal and what is wrong are not synonymous terms. Her 'victim' later had two kids with her, married her, and is apparently still with her. She may have broken the law at the time, and you could still argue that at the time punishing her may have been appropriate, but to still label her 'the worst kind of scum' years later? When, in hindsight we can see this was clearly a relationship where, regardless of their age gap, these two people deeply loved each other, as much as any married couple, and have remained together since then despite the widespread condemnation of society?
Now in saying this, I'd never excuse her actions completely of course. The fact that he was her student clearly shows that her behavior was unprofessional to say the least, but for this women to be jailed for a number of years? And still be labelled as 'the worst kind of scum' when her only crime was not sticking to relationships in the politically correct age range? For society to be so determined to break them apart and ruin their lives, because of a number on a piece of paper? I think society ought to calm the hell down a little. Especially given the fact that over 40% of marriages now end in divorce, aren't we being just a little hypocritical judging these two?
In commenting on the status, I even made the point that - 'I think in a hundred years time, history will view this women as a victim rather than a criminal'.
Allow me to elaborate on what I mean by that.
Currently, age of consent laws vary enormously from country to country. Its typically 18 in the US, 16 here in Australia, 14 in Germany or Italy and 13 in Spain or Japan. Even then, these numbers have some flexibility to them. In Australia the penalties go up if the victim is a person under the age of 12 for instance. Most of the world ends up sitting between about 13 and 16, though some countries even forgo an age of consent altogether, in favor of a definition like 'before puberty' or even 'before marriage'. To make things even more convoluted, the age limit tends to shrink further, or even disappear entirely, if two people are close to each other in age. In Australia you can still have sexual relations with someone under the age of 16 (but still over the age of 12) if you are yourself not more than two years older then them. Bearing in mind also that, according to recent surveys, 10% of people lose their virginity before they even turn 14, and that the average age by which people have seen pornography is now 11, clearly the laws are struggling to keep up with modern society as well.
The point I'm making is that, despite people arguing that according to 'the experts', no 12 year old is emotionally mature enough to become sexually active, the reality would seem to be that they really have no clue. Clearly, different experts in different countries with different cultures and different legal systems have come to entirely different conclusions.
The system is imperfect, meaning that innocent people are sometimes going to slip through the cracks, as this women did.
As far as Europeans are concerned, American courts legally sanctioning people for having sexual relations just because one party is not yet 18 is not needed protection, but flat-out persecution. Its like banning interracial marriage, or homosexuality, or...marijuana. Its bizarre, its unnecessary, and it shouldn't be happening.
I basically agree. The laws are really very stringent and arbitrary. Its the government playing gods with people's personal behavior, and it shouldn't be happening without sufficient justification. By definition, this has to be a 'lesser of two evils' argument.
At the very least, I'd probably be supportive of lowering the age of consent here in Australia to a more sensible 14, and review penalties for statutory rape below that age range where its quite clear no actual coercion has occurred (i.e. have a court order separating the perpetrator from the victim, rather than throwing one of them in jail straight away).
Ultimately however, this is just a stopgap, and why I talk of her being viewed as a victim in 'a hundred years time'. Because in the next century or so, science will no doubt march on, and society will march with it.
Eventually, I predict, we will come up with better ways to regulate adolescent sexual relations, and to determine whether someone is 'emotionally mature' enough to have sex, than by simply asking how many orbits of the Earth around that sun that person has been around for. People should understand that psychology as a science is still basically sitting in the 19th century. We have only the most primitive, imprecise methods of even judging, let alone maintaining, people's mental health.
Better science and technology means being able to make better choices, and as history shows, allows us to grow increasingly confident condemning the past behaviors of others. Take slavery for instance, an abhorrent crime yes? Well today sure, but one wonders, how else do you really run a pre-industrial, agricultural economy? Surely its either slavery or serfdom? They're aren't really many other choices. In hindsight its an institution we're able to condemn, but at the time one could argue there was no better system in existence, and thus it was the lesser-most evil then available.
Today's age of consent laws will eventually, I firmly believe, be put into much the same category by future historians. We live in a time before we can accurately judge when people are mature enough to start having sex. Thus we have simply drawn a neat line...somewhere, and threatened people with sanctions if they dare cross it in pursuit of sex or love. You know, just those little things which, as far as most of society is concerned, are among the most precious and desirable things one can ever have in life...
As for what superior means of judging people this may be? Well its hard to tell in our time, but no doubt technology to diagnose people with mental conditions will get better, and before long we should be able to, in all seriousness, delve into people's minds and be able to gauge their maturity, or tell whether they are being sincere, with a much greater deal of accuracy. Basically, among other things, I'm talking about mind-reading. Already, as of 2013, the technology to read people's thoughts just by scanning their brains is in its infancy -
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mind-reading-technology-speeds-ahead
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/16/4842418/stanford-mind-reading-research-with-numbers
Be it in 20 years or 50 years, it will be possible, I guarantee you, to hook someone up to a machine and be able to read their thoughts. To see, for instance, if they are lying, perhaps even to read their memories. Already a number of other technologies have revolutionized the way evidence works in our legal system - fingerprints, DNA evidence, handheld video cameras. Such techniques and devices have no doubt cleared the names of millions of people over the years. Wouldn't it be much better to use such technology to judge cases concerning underage sexual relations on a case-by-case basis, rather than drawing such an absurd line in the sand?
So let us then imagine then, how this case would be dealt with in a hundred years time? Upon receiving complaints that a 34 year old was in a sexual relationship with a 12 year old, Ms Letourneau would probably be brought before a court, and offered to have her mind 'read' to see if it hides any guilt at her actions. This would be followed up, if no coercion could be found, by assessing whether her 12 year old partner was emotionally mature enough to be doing such a thing voluntarily. If everything was found to be in order, i.e. that neither partner was coercing the other, and both were judged mature enough to be engaging in such behavior, then they would be released and left in peace.
No arbitrary line in the sand, no locking up of innocent people, and no uninformed witch-hunting of the sort our primitive 20th century society just loves to indulge in. Just science marching on, and dragging society along with it.
Hence, why we shouldn't be so quick to judge, and why I lament that this women was unjustly locked up. She has been a victim of an imperfect system. One we may not yet be able to improve upon, but doubtless will be able to eventually.
