R. Kelly Child Porn Case

[goofyfish]

Originally posted on IRC
Waddaya mean she's a minor? She was a MAJOR 'ho! And it occurs to me that since statutory rape crimes are 'strict liability' (i.e. the older person's knowledge/lack thereof does not affect the criminal charge), how can you hold a man responsible for doing 14-17 y.o girls who look, act and dress like 18-19 y.o. s

These laws were written at a time when girls didn't pretend to be older women, so perhaps its time for a change. Yes, it is difficult to prove that a guy 'knew' she was 17 not 18, but really.... if its ok for companies to sell thongs to 12 y.o., how's a dude to know if he is commiting a crime??

Legal Stuff

In Illinois, where R. Kelly is charged, it is NOT a defense to Criminal Sexual Assault charges that the defendant had a reasonable belief regarding the age of the victim, but it IS a defense to Criminal Sexual Abuse. The differences between those two charges involves the age difference between the ages of the defendant and the victim, as well as the extent of the sexual actions (i.e. whether there was penetration.)

However, R. Kelly isn't charged (yet?) for sexually abusing the girl victim, he is charged for the videotape, which is child pornography. The relevant part of that statute reads

A person commits the offense of child pornography who: (1) films, videotapes, photographs, or otherwise depicts or portrays ... any child whom he knows or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18

Non-Legal Stuff

We know that teenagers tend to lack judgment. And we know that a certain proportion of teenagers - probably a majority under 17 - will agree to do something to make a good impression on an older person. So they're easily manipulated. Even though other teenagers are perfectly capable of consenting in the full, adult meaning of the term, to protect those who aren't, we place a certain amount of risk squarely on the adult. Remember that if we permitted a consent defense in these cases, the very substantial fear many teenagers have of having their vulnerabilities revealed would prevent all but a few successful prosecutions. (Think, for example, of the young men - I use that term intentionally, since most were not children but teenagers - abused by priests. How many of them do you suppose would come forward to prosecutors and be willing to testify against a defense of consent?)

And it should not be forgotten that the tape was allegedly made at some time between 1997 and whenever the newspaper obtained it. The girl was born in 1984, and may have been as young as 13 years old. Let's not kid ourselves here. R. Kelly is a scumbag who gets his jollies raping young girls. He just happens to pick victims whom he can impress or intimidate into "consenting", then buy-off from reporting.

Peace.

 

[orthogonal]

Laws are created only to protect us from the worst of men.

Would you eat at a restaurant that only abides by the "letter-of-law" of the Department of Health's food preparation mandates? Would the advertisement of a fine resturant read: "We don't have rats in our kitchen"?

Laws are minimal safety nets over which we are supposed to fly, rather than slither. Is it necessary to remind a man who only would give, that it is a crime to steal? Those that must resort to the fine-print of the law to justify their actions already deserve our scorn.

Those who merely would obey the law do not belong in prison, neither do they belong in a society of honorable men.

Michael

 

[Azrael]

I hope he gets what he deserves. I think he knew how old she was and what he was doing. I think sometimes celebritys try to use their status to remain outside of the law and be untouchable. The courts need to crack down on this behaviour and do what they need to do.

 

[*stRgrL*]

Oh god! This one really pisses me off! I was fighting with a friend over these allegations just last night. She thinks it "okay" since the girl "looked" 18 - and consented to be videotaped and to having sex. What the hell??? I dont care if she looked it or not, she wasn't old enough to be having sex with a near 40 year old man. I dont care if he has to start asking for ID's - he needs to stop what he is doing. He is damaging childrens lives here. IT IS sexual abuse - no matter how you look at it. I totally agree with Goofy - he is the adult - and he has to take some responsibility here. They need to lock his ass up and make him register as a sex offender. And I will not buy any more of his work - every again!

 

[wet1]

I think the guilt is upon the man. R. Kelly needs to be sent to prision for that. It should be oblivious, without asking for id, that the girl was much too young for him. Certainly beyond the bounds of good judgement...

This is a sick individual.

 

[Adam]

This case reminds me of a friend. She had a long sexual affair with a teacher in high school. He was in his twenties, she was 14. She still says it was the best sex she ever had, and it was with her full consent, she wanted it. However, I don't think that's the point at all.

There are two points that matter:

1)
That guy was in a position of trust. He knew her parents, they thought he was a teacher. He was screwing a kid. He was scum because he used the trust of everyone around ihm to get some young arse.

2)
Regardless of whether "she wanted it" or not, we guys have a duty to keep it in our pants if it's plain old wrong. If you're married, you don't go shagging other chicks just because "she wanted it". You don't see hookers because "she wanted it". And for the same reason you don't screw under-aged girls like that. We know they are impressionable, we know it can mess them up emotionally, we know it could ruin the girl's life it people learnt about it, we know the girl could get pregnant, and so on. So we don't do it.

IF that singer did what is claimed, I hope he gets into jail with some other people who like to say "she wanted it" about him.

 

[Asguard]

look
i work in a place that sells cigerets and i am TERIFIDE of selling them to a minor by mestake

i have seen 26 year olds who look 14 and 14 year olds who look 26

it IS a defence in Victoria that you thought the girl was above 16 (if you are incharge of them its 18)

a 16 year old girl can screw a 90 year old and its NO ONES business

i don't give a DAM about all those people who want to resrict things like that

the freedom the srew whoever you want is been there LONG before "freedom of speach" or anything else

sorry star but once again we are on oposite sides of the fence

i think the girl is a BITCH for lying to him

 

[*stRgrL*]

sorry star but once again we are on oposite sides of the fence

i think the girl is a BITCH for lying to him

How could say that about a child? A 14 year old is a bitch for lying about her age? Come on Assy, think! Aaliyah (may she rest in peace) was only 14 when he and her lied to the courts that she was 18 just to get married. I think he was 33 or something. He knew she was only 14 and he still had sex and married her! Explain that one. He is a sick person. Period. Doesnt matter if he thought she was 18 or not, he is almost 40!!!! He is married with children. You dont think this a bit odd?

 

[ratbat]

Come on folks...
It's only sex. Not like it's anything important, in life. Everyone involved will get over their feelings of this crap.


OOOOH!!! I feel so dirty!!!

 

[*stRgrL*]

Everyone involved will get over their feelings of this crap.

Sorry, but when bad things happen when your young, sexually - some people don't get over the feelings.

 

[ratbat]

Originally posted by *stRgrL*


Sorry, but when bad things happen when your young, sexually - some people don't get over the feelings.

True, but consensual sex is not a bad thing. Rape is a bad thing. In today's society, kids are having sex at a much younger age. I'm not saying I agree with his actions, but you must take into consideration, today's kid's attitudes.

 

[Asguard]

The law is the same for relationships between people of the same sex and relationships between people of opposite sex.

There are age limits on when you are allowed to have sex. If you are:

Under 10
No one is allowed to have sex with you (even if you agree).

Between 10 and 16
A person is not allowed to have sex with you if they are more than two years older than you (even if you agree).

Exceptions to this are if:

you are married to the person
the person had reason to believe that you were 16 or older, or
the person had reason to believe that he or she was married to you.
Aged 16 or 17
A person is not allowed to have sex with you if you are under their care, supervision or authority, for example, a teacher, youth worker or foster carer (even if you agree).

Exceptions to this are if the person had reason to believe that:

you are 18 or older, or
you were married to the person.
Subject to the age limits, the law says that two people are not allowed to have sex unless they both agree. If you do not agree and someone threatens or touches you sexually they are breaking the law. Get advice from Victoria Legal Aid, or contact the Centre Against Sexual Assault. Click on the "How to Get Help" resource link at the right hand side of this page for details.

again i quote this
if you read between 10 and 16 there is an exception that says if you are married or if you thought she was 16

this is from Vic legle aid

 

[ltomaro]

underage sex in canada

In Canada, the age of consent nationally is 14 years. I'm a 33 year old married guy - who really enjoys meeting and getting physical with younger/teenage girls. I've made love to a 14 year old, chat with several teenagers, have great sex chat with one, and I'm seeing another right now. It is incredible and gratifying to live in this country and enjoy such young, beautiful and willing young ladies.

 

[goofyfish]

Welcome to SciForums.
You're a perv or a troll -
I can't decide which.

:m: Peace.

 

[Firefly]

Originally posted by goofyfish
R. Kelly is a scumbag who gets his jollies raping young girls. He just happens to pick victims whom he can impress or intimidate into "consenting", then buy-off from reporting.

I wasn't aware of this. Is it well known?

 

[spacemanspiff]

R Kelly is a bit of a freak. He married a girl when she was 15, though it was anuled.

statutory rape seems like such a gray area.(well not in this case). What if the guy is 20 and the girl says she's 18 but she's really 16? Is this guy a perv and should be locked up? I don't know the laws in detail but isn't there something about the difference in the to peoples ages. Like even if one is a minor it's legal if they are close enough in age?

 

[goofyfish]

Originally posted by goofyfish
R. Kelly is a scumbag who gets his jollies raping young girls. He just happens to pick victims whom he can impress or intimidate into "consenting", then buy-off from reporting.

Originally posted by Firefly
I wasn't aware of this. Is it well known?

He has previously settled lawsuits brought by two women who accused him of having sex with them when they were minors. Documents have also shown that Kelly married the late singer Aaliyah, his former protege, when she was just 15. The marriage was later annulled.

A third lawsuit was filed recently by a Chicago woman who accused Kelly of impregnating her when she was a teen-ager and forcing her to have an abortion. (Full text here)

:m: Peace.

 

[ozmonster]

The big problem I have with US laws on child molestation/statutory rape is the disproportionality of the penalty.

In California, a second degree murderer can get out of prison in as little as two years while a stautory rapist won't be out in under 5 years (and that is for the less egregious cases).

I had a client who was 19 y.o. but had a developmental age of about 13. His entire peer group was 12 y.o. to 15 y.o. because he was too slow to hang out with kids his own age. His g/f was 13. They had sex and he was charged with PC 288 "lewd and lasvacious acts with a child under 14." This poor little kid went to prison for 11 years (he's still there now). Is that right?

Is it right when another client beat to death another person with his bare hands and only got 5 years (he was out in 2.5 years with good time/work time).

Now I understand children are fucked up for life when sexually assualted but at least they are alive.

Also, don't forget, in the US, there are many states whose age of consent is under 18. Some states even have laws making it OK to have sex with a 14 year old as long as she is not a virgin (no bullshit).

oz

 

[goofyfish]

Originally posted by ozmonster
The big problem I have with US laws on child molestation/statutory rape is the disproportionality of the penalty.

Fortunately, that's the only problem with our judicial system.

:m: Peace.

 

[ozmonster]

Originally posted by goofyfish
Fortunately, that's the only problem with our judicial system.

I wish.

oz