Nine charged in bullying suicide

[Tiassa]

Thank you

Thank you, Nasor.

I read these as stating that the sex was the reason why she became a target, rather than part of some pre-planned scheme. I have not seen anything to indicate that the boys planned to have sex with her in order to torment her later.

An interesting quote from one of your links: "There was Sean Mulveyhill, the football star with whom Phoebe had a brief fling who then turned on her, enabling a host of Mean Girls to torment her."

Logic suggests that if the simple fact of sexual intercourse was all there was to it, there wouldn't be any statutory rape charges against Sean Mulveyhill, at least. After all, teenagers in Massachusetts have sex just like in other states, and the way the statute is worded exposes many of them to statutory rape charges that are never filed. I think Asguard was correct in his reference to Al Capone ("they took that mafia boss to court for tax evasion"); the statutory charge is what they have to work with, and the analogy even seems legitimate. The other article seems to describe a syndicate of cruelty at South Hadley High School, and by sending up everyone they can find a charge against who was involved in this tragedy, prosecutors will be winning as much of a measure of justice as they can, much like nailing Capone for tax evasion may have done nothing to account for any other victims of his crimes, but at least they got him.
____________________

Notes:

Cullen, Kevin. "Standing up for Phoebe". Boston Globe. March 30, 2010. Boston.com. April 2, 2010. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/03/30/standing_up_for_phoebe/

—————. "The untouchable Mean Girls". Boston Globe. January 24, 2010. Boston.com. April 2, 2010. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/24/the_untouchable_mean_girls/

 

[Nasor]

Logic suggests that if the simple fact of sexual intercourse was all there was to it, there wouldn't be any statutory rape charges against Sean Mulveyhill, at least. After all, teenagers in Massachusetts have sex just like in other states, and the way the statute is worded exposes many of them to statutory rape charges that are never filed.

I suppose you have far more faith in "prosecutorial reasonableness" than I do. I would submit to you that in the vast majority of cases in which teenagers aren't charged with statutory rape for having sex with other teenagers, it's simply because it never comes to the attention of the police/DA. I would not be surprised if in this instance the teens stupidly admitted to having sex with her when asked by the police, thinking that they were just cooperating with a reasonable police investigation into a suicide by providing background information and not realizing that they were confessing to a serious felony.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

I suppose you have far more faith in "prosecutorial reasonableness" than I do.

It's possible; I don't know how much faith you have in "prosecutorial reasonableness". To the other, ask some of my critics about my view of police and prosecutors.

I would submit to you that in the vast majority of cases in which teenagers aren't charged with statutory rape for having sex with other teenagers, it's simply because it never comes to the attention of the police/DA.

Which is, as a side note, a curious phenomenon I don't entirely get about statutory laws, especially when they're written like the Massachusetts statute: It's important enough to put convicted offenders on the registry, but not important enough to pursue until someone complains. It's a strange implication, is it not? ("Won't somebody please think of the children!")

And imagine all the parents who are offenders for aiding and abetting sex crimes. I mean, I'm lucky I grew up in Washington, because I likely violated the Massachusetts standard when I was seventeen; my girlfriend was fifteen. And both our parents knew we were sexually active, which would make them accessories. I might have had a narrow, very specific defense, though, thanks to the wording of the statute.

I would not be surprised if in this instance the teens stupidly admitted to having sex with her when asked by the police, thinking that they were just cooperating with a reasonable police investigation into a suicide by providing background information and not realizing that they were confessing to a serious felony.

Nor I. Although that would suggest they either did not invoke their right to counsel, or waived it, because under such circumstances, no lawyer worth his bar certification would let his client make such statements without some sort of guarantees from the prosecutors.

It's also possible that there is some sort of record; in a period featuring television shows like World's Dumbest Criminals, it is not unimaginable that in the boasting that came after Phoebe Prince's suicide, these kids essentially confessed and left an obvious record for investigators to find.

 

[Nasor]

I mean, I'm lucky I grew up in Washington, because I likely violated the Massachusetts standard when I was seventeen; my girlfriend was fifteen. And both our parents knew we were sexually active, which would make them accessories. I might have had a narrow, very specific defense, though, thanks to the wording of the statute.

You mean MA's famous "Look, that chick was already a slut" defense?

 

[Tiassa]

Sort of ... maybe ... but not quite?

You mean MA's famous "Look, that chick was already a slut" defense?

I was thinking more conventionally according to the legal terminology, although I see now the chastity aspect is part of 272.4, and not 265.23. It's a tougher construction, but it's still possible, as the chastity issue would undo 272.4, thus evading the standard of unlawful intercourse in 265.23.

I am unsure which statute covers the "already a slut" defense. Perhaps you could fill us in. Either way, statutory rape involves underage persons giving consent, so it doesn't really matter if she was a slut or not.

 

[Nasor]

I am unsure which statute covers the "already a slut" defense. Perhaps you could fill us in.

I was thinking of 272.4.

 

[Tiassa]

An important consideration

I was thinking of 272.4.

I would only point out that not everyone exempted from 272.4 by lack of chastity is necessarily a slut. Rape survivors, for instance. But, otherwise, yeah. 272.4 would have been my way out of prison.

 

[Nasor]

I would only point out that not everyone exempted from 272.4 by lack of chastity is necessarily a slut. Rape survivors, for instance.

Well yes, clearly. I was phrasing it that way in an effort to mock what appears to be the underlying philosophy behind it.

 

[Tiassa]

Fair 'nuff

Well yes, clearly. I was phrasing it that way in an effort to mock what appears to be the underlying philosophy behind it.

Fair 'nuff. I just felt a need to defend a good friend against such accidental implications.

 

[Asguard]

tiassa, for the sake of argument lets say your right, that the boys were involved in the plot to hurt her. What happened to the equal penelty claus under the constitution? after all the boys are going to get life sentances where as the girls (who are ALOT crueler when they bully than boys could ever be) are going to get a slap on the wrist.

 

[Tiassa]

It is, indeed, a mess

What happened to the equal penelty claus under the constitution?

The "equal penalty clause"? I think you're combining Amendments VIII (no cruel and unusual punishment) and XIV (equal protection under the law).

after all the boys are going to get life sentances where as the girls (who are ALOT crueler when they bully than boys could ever be) are going to get a slap on the wrist.

I wouldn't say there's something wrong with your underlying logic, but therein lies one of the questions pertaining to anti-bullying laws. Right now, all the prosecutors have to charge these alleged offenders with is what the law says about specific actions. And they're throwing everything they can at these kids. Civil rights violations with bodily harm? That's pretty severe, and will likely see prison terms if convicted. Disrupting a school assembly (right to assemble)? That's pretty obscure. Statutory rape? It's all a matter of what the statutes say and prescribe for the offenses.

Perhaps an aggressive anti-bullying law could reframe the context of the actions in question, but Massachusetts doesn't have anything like that for prosecutors to work with. But for young women of that age, I don't know about calling prison time—I'm searching for the reference, but it's something like two to five on the civil rights charge—a slap on the wrist. Add in criminal harassment—I'm unsure what the sentence schedule is on that—and the obscure disturbing an assembly charge ... prison is virtually assured if convicted, though indeed not life sentences.

And I should correct that I've probably been overstating the sentence; the judge does have room to go for a lesser term. The prior law was no less than five years; the current law doesn't put a number on that lesser term. I expect, however, given the outcome, if the boys are convicted, they're facing some seriously heavy time.