And if Kaitlyn Hunt looked like this, would we be having this discussion?
John Garrison’s incisive Comment of the Day decisively adds Kaitlyn Hunt’s parents to the Kaitlyn Hunt Ethics Train Wreck, which has already enlisted them, the vigilante group Anonymous (itself a self-perpetuating ethics train wreck), the lazy news media, which apparently misreported the essential facts of the case, and the social media as passengers since my first post on the debacle.
Here are his comments on the follow-up post, The Kaitlyn Hunt Affair: Upon Further Review:
“There are a number of things that concern me about this case. First, I do agree that the law is very harsh in Florida. But we never seem to get the actual story from Kaitlyn’s parents. At first, they said that they were 17 when they started dating, and that the parents vindictively waited until Kaitlyn turned 18. That story seems to have changed around the time the police report was released stating that actual ages of the girls. At that time, the family claimed that the police not redacting the address was retaliation against them going to the media, even though it is not remotely unusual for the police not to redact the address of the accused.
“They have claimed that this prosecution (not just the complaint) is based on their girls sexual orientation, even though the very “Romeo and Juliet” law that might keep their daughter’s name of the sex offender list was written because of how often this happens to what is fair to assume is a majority of heterosexual relationships. They have claimed that the police “conspired to entrap” their daughter with the controlled call, even though a controlled pretext call seems to be the way these cases are usually handled when the victim is willing, rather than some extraordinary circumstance that was only applied to them.
“The telling part to that last statement is the willing victim. According to the police press conference, the 14-year-old girl might have filed the complaint with her parents, and certainly cooperated with the phone call. This is not the same as a wiretapping, which some sites are claiming.”
“I’ve also repeatedly seen that the plea deal being offered wouldn’t guarantee that she did not appear on the sex offenders list, but in the article below, the D.A. specifically says that it does guarantee such a thing. Is this a case of the media just not keeping up with the fact, which is obvious, or is this an attempt at the family to make the situation seem more sinister? With their history, I can’t make that call.
“I sympathize with Kaitlyn, but her parents are doing her a disservice by constantly playing up the victim role when there is no evidence that such is the case. It would be much easier for me to get behind Kaitlyn if they were handling this with some acknowledgment of responsibility on her part, instead of trying to pass the blame everywhere else. And it would also really help if this wasn’t the only sex crime in the history of sex crimes where almost no article actually mentions that sex was involved. Many of the comments on news sites are under the impression that the girls didn’t do anything sexual because it isn’t mentioned anywhere in the story, not even the headlines, which all say she is charged with a same-sex relationship, not sex with a minor. Whenever these cases involve a boy, the headline is “18 year old man charged with having sex with a minor”, not “teenage boy charged with dating a girl.”
UPDATE: Go here. The parents of the victim allege something more serious than a simple romance, and say that the anti-gay motives attributed to them are untrue.
Ethics Alarms 
And if Kaitlyn Hunt looked like, oh, say, a very heavy-set, masculinely dressed and groomed college freshman-aged woman, would we be having this discussion?
And shame on her parents and her uncle. Why on Earth didn’t they just take the deal and let Ms. Hunt get out of the spotlight so she could return to living her young life? The elders in the family must be either public relations executives or awful lawyers with too much time on their hands.
I would bet they didnt take the deal becuase they didnt want her labled a sex offender and being a regiistry.
Read the links, Bill. The deal apparently would not have required that.
And who is to say that the law concerning the registries wouldn’t change in the future and require her to register? Or if she moved to another state that they require her to register because of the age of the victim ? With the way the state governments are constantly changing the laws on the registries no prosecutor or judge can guarantee that someone wont be on the registry.
This is why its a good idea to know the laws you are subject to as an adult, and not to break them. No?
Oh absolutely , I was just bringing it up because its not just so simple as plead guilty and get on with her life.
The plea deal was to plead guilty to child abuse. Child abuse is not a sex crime, therefore she could not be put on the sex offenders list. You have to be convicted of a sex crime to get put on that list.
It may not get her on the list now but there is nothing to stop the state legislature from requiring it in the future. And if she moved to another state that state may require it.
I’m not sure that’s right. I think “ex post facto” prohibitions would prevent a plea deal from being altered by changes to laws after the fact. I also doubt moving to a different state would place her in jeopardy due to legal concepts like comity and reciprocity. I think.
Other Bill
Sex offender registries have been put in effect despite ex post facto prohibitions. I think that is Bills point, that it isn’t a matter of it could happen as it has happened. It doesn’t matter now though, she turned down the deal and now faces the original charges which punishment includes incarceration and being put on the registry.
If she was convicted of child abuse, what sex crime was there? Don’t you have to actually be convicted of a sex crime to be put on that list?
I think this is selective prosecution at its worst, and a clear example of bigotry. There is no question that there would not be such a high profile arrest and prosecution had this been a case of heterosexual lovers. The comparison of course wouldn’t be one of an older teen boy, younger teen girl, but the opposite, an older high school girl, younger high school boy. I wonder how many times that combination has received this kind of vindictive approach by the state and the police. It seems to me they are trying to teach lesbians and gays “a lesson.” I certainly hope the overwhelming national and international condemnation of what is being done to Kaitlyn pressures the state into dropping the charges. Her expulsion and government encouraged harassment by bigots is already damage enough for what I hope will be a very large lawsuit. Mentioning Salem or the Scopes monkey trial by comparison is hardly hyperbole, considering how far the rest of the country has come. If I weren’t so outraged, I’d be laughing at how backwards and absurd it is for the government to be wasting tax money on this kind of witch hunt. It’s time to stop the hate, it really is.
I think this is selective prosecution at its worst, and a clear example of bigotry.
Well, it isn’t. That’s the way you’d like to see it, perhaps, but an 18-year-old man sleeping with a 14 year-old girl would be prosecuted in most jurisdictions, and certainly this one.
There is no question that there would not be such a high profile arrest and prosecution had this been a case of heterosexual lovers.
It would be high-profile, perhaps, but the arrest would occur just the same.
The comparison of course wouldn’t be one of an older teen boy, younger teen girl, but the opposite, an older high school girl, younger high school boy.
Why? Are you arguing that a double standard is justifiable? You might be right that this scenario might skate by, but that would be, of course, WRONG. You have won the “Two wrongs makes a right” Award for May.
I wonder how many times that combination has received this kind of vindictive approach by the state and the police.
You are reading “vindictive” into it. I believe the proper term is “enforcing the law.”
It seems to me they are trying to teach lesbians and gays “a lesson.”
You’re deluded. There’s absolutely no basis for that slur.
I certainly hope the overwhelming national and international condemnation of what is being done to Kaitlyn pressures the state into dropping the charges.
So you hope groups can bully law enforcement into waiving their members’ obligation to obey laws, do you?
Her expulsion and government encouraged harassment by bigots is already damage enough for what I hope will be a very large lawsuit.
Oh, Please. Good luck with THAT.
Mentioning Salem or the Scopes monkey trial by comparison is hardly hyperbole, considering how far the rest of the country has come.
Not hyperbole…just ignorant, silly and dumb.
If I weren’t so outraged, I’d be laughing at how backwards and absurd it is for the government to be wasting tax money on this kind of witch hunt. It’s time to stop the hate, it really is.
It’s really time to stop the rhetoric and talk facts. She broke the law, which was clear. Enforcing the law equally is not bigotry. Enforcing laws that protect children from adults with sexual designs on them is not a waste of money. The “hate” rhetoric is cheap and ill-applied here. The state is doing nothing hateful. If you kick about justifiable conduct by the government, you diminish the credibility of legitimate protests where gays really are being mistreated.
Reading Mr. Moolten’s comment, I vacillated between worrying about my blood pressure going through the roof and thinking you’d composed the comment as a straw man for you to obliterate. Thanks for going to the trouble of writing your response. My cardio-vascular system is glad you did.
Yes, lets talk facts. She’s a girl, hence the comparison should be, as I said, an older girl and a younger boy. The fact is they don’t prosecute that; they just don’t. But here, where there is a lesbian girl, they do. So they have a law they dust off just to harass gays and lesbians. Simple. And not unexpected in the deep south. Why don’t the good old boys dust off the old miscegenation “laws” and prosecute darkies for taking good Christian white girls to the prom?
1. What “they do” is neither as predictable nor as uniform as it should be.
2. Florida prosecutes female teachers who prey on student minors, and that is often a female on male situation.
3. Kaitlyn is a female ADULT, and her victim is a child.
4. The fact is, the law is gender neutral, and it is to be enforced that way.
5. “They don’t always prosecute these crimes fairly, so they should keep on doing that” is not a persuasive argument or legitimate public policy.
6.So your description of the situation is just plain wrong on both fact and logic. That law is used all the time. There is no difference under the law, nor should there be, between Kaitlyn and a male, or an adult female teacher, in the same situation.
7. You’re making stuff up to support a non-existent claim of anti-gay bias.
8. Your final sally is idiotic.
Wow. I wonder what he’ll think when he sees the parents of the 14 year old. As he rails against the south for bigotry he seems not to have noticed that he bashing an interracial couple for being bigots. With no proof at all.
And the worst thing I’ve seen today is several Free Kate posters commenting about Mrs. Smith’s looks and comparing her to a man in very unflattering ways. Nothing says “I’m not a a bigot” like going after an African American woman’s looks. Really unbelievable what I’ve seen today. It should make any liberal deeply ashamed. I know I am.
1. In other words, I’m right.
2. A teacher is not the same as another student. Sure they’re both “adults” legally but clearly different in terms of maturity and behavior. It’s precisely this dubiously simplistic catchall definition that has many, even including some conservatives questioning whether such “laws” are a good idea. The 40 year old guy trying to seduce a teen into his van is vastly different from the junior or senior with storm and stress hormone output and no judgment. Does this make sex under such circumstances either a good idea or to be condoned? No, of course not. But lumping it all under the category of felony is both unjust and stupid when the societal consequences are considered.
3. Referring to this “magic” legal threshold as an excuse for its undeserved effects in this case is specious. Sure, an age of majority has to be drawn somewhere for any number of reasons. But there are frequently seemingly contradictory exceptions made for practical reasons. The drinking age for instance is not 18, but 21, and appropriately so. For the same reason, we should reconsider the penalties for an 18 year old girl in the situation described.
4. But it’s not enforced neutrally in Florida or elsewhere. There’s a definite tendency to either avoid prosecution or mitigate penalties based on both gender and circumstances. The rare female teacher prosecuted for molesting an underage male student notwithstanding, there are few females prosecuted for having sex with teen boys, and virtually no teen girls. The fact is no one looks because most people consider it a minor issue (no pun intended). In fact, because of gender bias such instances are viewed as more of a joke than a crime. So the lesbian aspect is relevant here. If it were a younger boy Kaitlyn had “molested” you know as well as I the smirks and quips would be ubiquitous and the sheriff and state’s attorney would be laughingstocks. Fair? Maybe not, but true and you know it. The state has an obligation to be even-handed and to use judgment in its pursuit of justice. This boils down to Florida’s stubbornness about not offering a misdemeanor plea bargain–an offer routinely given in these situations when there are not genuinely aggravating circumstances. There are none here. Kaitlyn Hunt doesn’t deserve to be on a Sex Offenders registry.
5. Justice when it comes to the pursuit of justice is essential. The south saw Jim Crow justice for decades, and still does to some degree. Discriminatory practices promote lawlessness out of the natural outrage that arises in response. No one respects an unfair law. In fact our founding fathers recommended civil disobedience as the correct response. The indignation a large number of people feel about this case reflects that situation.
6. No, the law is employed quite selectively and there is virtually no attempt made by law enforcement to seek out these kinds of “criminals.” Here the pursuit was motivated by the homophobia of the younger girl’s parents.
7. The situation speaks for itself, a teen girl facing charges and penalties no other teen girl would face, and in fact, charges and penalties few teen boys would face, because of her sexual orientation.
8. No, I mention the miscegenation laws that were once ubiquitous in the south and required federal intervention to finally remove as a reminder that no law is sacrosanct. It is only as good as it is wise and wisely prosecuted. What is happening to Kaitlyn Hunt is neither wise nor merited by her actions.
1. If you can interpret that reply as endorsing your various bizarre distortions of fact and logic, not to mention ethics, that explains a lot. If you mean that you a are correct on one narrow point, yes. That was what I intended to convey.
2. Suck laws are a good idea, but they have to be written with common sense and clarity. That doesn’t matter in this case—the violation was egregious, the law isn’t unfair, and she knowingly violated it. Game, set, match.
3.That’s just a minority argument that hasn’t prevailed in legislatures or society. You’re welcome to it.
4. Backwards. Equal enforcement and fairness dictate that women should be prosecuted as zealously as males, and that the gender of the victims don’t matter. Of course she belongs on a Sex Offender Registry, or no one does.
5.”The indignation a large number of people feel about this case reflects” a pro-gay agenda and bias toward cute sex offenders, as well as ignorance of the facts, the law, and basic ethics.
6. “Here the pursuit was motivated by the homophobia of the younger girl’s parents.” This is apparently a lie, and undercuts your logic and motive. Not that it would make Kaitlyn any less guilty if it were true.
7.Another willful distortion of the truth and facts. You’re sinking fast.
8. So you say. The comparison with miscegenation, which posited an imaginary harm, and statutory rape laws, which are based on demonstrable harms, remains nonsense.
1. Ad hominem comments notwithstanding, you’ve conceded the point, so nothing else to say.
2. The Violation was hardly egregious. The “offender” has no legal history. The relationship was consensual and not coerced. It was the younger girls’ parents whose objections catalyzed the proceedings after initial judgment didn’t go in their favor. Compared to others considered “sex offenders” to call her an egregious example is a tad hyperbolic.
3. Hardly a minority argument. Many states have all kinds of tortuous formulas for considering how to treat “adults” who aren’t quite. This includes the area of “statutory rape” where age differences and so forth are considered–three years is o.k. but not four etc. The states are all over the place with this, for obvious reasons; it’s a messy area without the clarity you falsely imply.
4. Gender neutrality in the area of sexual offenses is quite tricky. Men and women are simply not the same when it comes to rape or other sexual crimes, not statistically, not in terms of motivation, not in terms of rates of recidivism and the use of violence. While it’s nice to say everyone is the same in the eyes of the law; it’s just not accurate. When it comes to teens, having no one on the registry of “sex offenders, ” excepting where there are aggravating circumstances would be reasonable. A teen boy who has relations with teen girl shouldn’t be labeled a sex offender and a felon. Again, this isn’t to advise or condone sex among teens–hardly the case–but felony status is overkill.
5. No bias towards gays or true sex offenders, just a desire for proportionate justice; teens like this don’t deserve to be labeled felons, be they straight or gay.
6. Not a lie based on what I’ve seen and read, including the parents’ interview.
7. I could say the same about your facts and data. Simply denying mine isn’t a refutation.
8. There were all kinds of arguments defending miscegenation at the time those laws were in force. I defy you to justify labeling teens like this as felons and sex offenders versus the misdemeanor status most would argue they more reasonably deserve.
2. You are being dishonest, stubborn and dense. A minor cannot meaningfully consent in dealing with an adult. That is law, that is ethics. Everything else falls around that–your argument is built on a falsehood.
3. Your argument against statutory rape period is an extreme minority argument. Falling back on reasonable qualifiers is cheating. They don’t apply to the case at hand.
4.I don’t know what you are saying, or trying to. There is not sufficient data to make the distinctions you are claiming, and the law doesn’t recognize them, and may never. An example of women wanting equality when it helps them, but not when it is inconvenient. Too bad. Gender equality is the law.
5. You keep saying things like this. Ridiculous. Teens ARE felons when they are felons. There are no “labels.” Young felons? Former felons? Who cares? They do the crime, they get the punishment. Why is this so hard for you?
6. Which parents? The victim’s parents were smeared, that’s all. Their statements have no anti-gay content at all.
7. You make stuff up. You don’t comprehend consent. You have no facts at all, just an agenda. You rely on rationalizations. I have the statute, an expertise in what constitutes fairness, and the easy task of calling an 18 year old woman who preys on a 14 year old girl what it is. No contest.
8. I’m not responding to any question that tries to make the ridiculous comparison with miscegenation. What, did you just learn the word or something? Nothing could be more irrelevant. Try “salsify.” That’s a good one.
You’re not just wrong, but emphatically wrong. The evidence clearly backs me up. You may want to review the state laws regarding “statutory rape” and the ages of victims and putative offenders if you haven’t recently. There are all kinds of allowances made for exactly this situation. You’re the one who’s all dogma and no data. The younger girl’s parents weren’t smeared; their actions with the school and with the police are well reported; they clearly had an issue with the older girl’s sexual preference. The extent to which the police contrived (recorded phone calls) to pursue the older girl is astonishing. Selective prosecution was and remains a form of discriminatory harassment. Take ethnic profiling when done abusively (plenty of examples) if you don’t like the example of miscegenation laws (love your ad hominem remarks–shows me you’re failing intellectually–though I apologize for the occasional prolixity).
While hardly to be advised or condoned, teen sex happens for all the reasons you and I know it happen. Maturity doesn’t happen overnight, and clearly 18 year-olds differ quite a bit from adults even just a few years older when it comes to judgment and understanding. Does this mean no consequences for Kaitlyn Hunt or older teen boys in the same situation, or more precisely, older teen girls (in heterosexual relationships with younger teen boys)? No, but wise and compassionate justice would recommend a misdemeanor rather than a felony–and a penalty that would discourage the behavior (and parents not minding their teen offspring) while not destroying futures for irresponsible though not unexpected lapses. The reflexive reaction to what is happening in this case (the public rallying on behalf of Kaitlyn Hunt) is a response to disproportionate justice not a suggestion that her acts were acceptable. Some injustice is subtle and goes unnoticed. But this case is egregious, which is again why there has been a groundswell of indignation about it.
There has been a groundswell of indignation because 1) it has been misrepresented, as with the smear that the parents waited for a birthday before reporting the woman 2) some misguided souls think this is a good platform for gay rights grandstanding.It’s not.
Other state laws are irrelevant, you know. What matters is this state’s law, of which Ms. Hunts conduct is obviously in violation. Thsi si NOT selective prosecution…good luck with that defense. Find a male on female 18-24 molestation, or a male on male, that wouldn’t be charged in Florida on these facts.
You seem to think some magical rule guards “teens” from the consequences of their actions when they are teen adults. There isn’t one, nor should there be one. This is all bluster. I’m all for prosecuting older teen girls when they violate this law with 14 year old boys. Your silly, silly argument that negligent non-prosecution demands more of the same isn’t worth my time.
(In response to comment below).
The case hasn’t been misrepresented. There have been errors in its reporting as there always are. Dogmatists love to point at minutiae as a refutation for an entire idea. So, the support will continue, and it already has politicians in Florida taking the popular side. So I think luck will be on my side and Kaitlyn’s in the long run. While the code is what is in the state, she makes a pretty good poster child for reconsidering that code, and for a judge and/or jury to nullify it. I’m sure you’ll be disgusted with that concept, but bad laws are addressed in many ways, bad not because there was no transgression, but because the law poorly and disproportionately addresses it. And other states’ laws do matter, if not legally in this case then certainly morally in a general sense, and you mendaciously kept arguing that somehow I had the “minority opinion.” The fact is that sociological and medical thinking on teen behavior absolutely supports my argument, and the differences in state laws are only a matter of degree. Nearly every state has some kind of “Romeo and Juliet” provision precisely because I’m right when I say that teens should be considered more carefully with regard to adult decisions in the area of sexuality. So my argument is backed up by legal, medical and sociological precepts and codified widely. Yours seems to be backed up by the degree to which you can sound contemptuous and dismissive. Sorry, simply being obnoxious doesn’t win the debate. Your remarks ring hollow, tendentious, and intellectually dishonest, which is not unusual for the internet, though oxymoronic for someone whose website proclaims him some kind of ethicist.
What do you mean, “high profile arrest?” I didn’t hear about the story until the parents of the girl went public. They are the ones that made this high profile. Not the police or the prosecutor, unless there’s some local news report of the police holding a press conference and saying, “We nabbed one of ‘dem evil homosexuals havin’ sex with a youg’un” I don’t see how your argument makes any sense.
30% of all statutory rape arrests in the country stem from people in committed relationships and nearly 60% of them come from offenders in Kate’s age group or younger when the victim is 14. Well over 90% of the offenders are male. So it is entirely disingenuous to say that this doesn’t happen to males all the time. If you are basing what your facts by what you hear on the news, then drugs laws are heavily biased against celebrities. “Willie Nelson was arrest for pot?! Millions of people around the world smoke pot, and they aren’t arrested!” Well, yeah they are. It just doesn’t make headlines.
According to the police report, the girls had sex in the school bathroom. I don’t know too many schools who respond to finding that out by making the student stay after class for a day or so. Especially when the sexual act also happens to be a felony per state law.
Mr. Molton seems to be part of the PR firm that the Hunt family just hired.
She broke the law, which was clear. Enforcing the law equally is not bigotry. Enforcing laws that protect children from adults with sexual designs on them is not a waste of money.
************
Totally agree.
My problem is Kaitlyn being marked for life over this.
I know what it is “technically”, but perhaps the reality is two naive high school kids.
Plus, we still don’t know if we have the whole story.
Maybe the younger girl told her parents she felt coerced.
Maybe there is more info or the info we already have was spun by the parents.
After reading a bunch of comments, I read that Kaitlin would have known it was wrong because she was a witness in a similar case.
If that is true, she deserves the punishment.
I think your chronology is off. What I read said she was a witness in a case that occurred at the alternative school. She didn’t go to the alternative school until after her own situation had blown up.
OK, that makes sense.
Actually from what I read of the story young Kaitlyn reported two other girls for kissing but the report was quite sketchy. Everything about Kaitlyn seems to be sketchy at this point. I think this is one messed up family and if it was up to me Kaitlyn would be forced to go to therapy and her parents placed in jail. But that’s me.
Jack,
Good comment of the day.
I don’t want to distract from your points but wanted your take on the larger picture or impact.
With such unethical behavior coming from the media, some feminists, the gay community as well as supporters will this incident result in the movement losing credibility and good faith that it has built up in recent years?
By unethical behavior I am referring to the outright lies and misleading narratives such as;
“When she was 17 years old, Kaitlyn Hunt started a consensual sexual relationship with a fellow Sebastian River High School student, who was 14 at the time.
When Hunt turned 18, an adult, police arrested her on child abuse charges. (dated today)”
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Florida-18-Year-Old-Facing-Charges-for-Relationship-With-Younger-Teen-Girl-Speaks-Out-208616491.html
US TEEN FACES JAIL OVER LESBIAN SCHOOL AFFAIR
A high school student faces years in jail after the family of her 15-year-old girlfriend waited until she turned 18 to charge her with the sexual abuse of a child. (dated today)
http://news.silobreaker.com/us-teen-faces-jail-over-lesbian-school-affair-5_2266839747626270795
A Florida family says their 18-year-old daughter was charged with a felony and expelled from high school as a result of a consensual, same-sex relationship with another student.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/05/18/2033281/florida-teen-expelled-charged-with-felony-over-lesbian-relationship/#
I find the continued reliance on the argument that this is nothing more than a lesbian being prosecuted because she is a lesbian beyond outrageous. If they don’t take the plea deal, which I would think is unlikely, and this goes to trial will the result be detrimental to all those who continue to misrepresent and mislead the public as it pertains to this incident?
Note: I mentioned “some” feminists and I will clarify before I am crucified. It looks like there is a split to a degree among them, many feminist have argued adamantly in cases similar to this where a 18 year old man is involved that the age differential as it pertains to maturity is much more pronounced in the teen years and that it is fair to say that due to it a “man” can coerce the younger girl into having sex, therefore it can be said that he was a predator. I don’t know how often there is validity to this line of reasoning but based on it I can see some justification of the law but not necessary for inclusion on the sex offenders list, at least not for a single offence. Some are holding true to that reasoning in this case others have abandoned it completely, they don’t even mention why it doesn’t apply, and focus on the gay aspect.
A bit unrelated, but it appears that Kaitlyn’s parents seem to be walking a fine line as it pertains to the possible character assassination of the younger girls parents. They refrain from naming them but make a lot of accusations; does this protect them from defamation if their accusations are not true? Just because the younger girl’s parents are public record does that make them public figures? The whole defamation process is a bit confusing to me but it seems like there is a lot of careful inference being done, not blaming the victim but apparently framing it to make it sound like her parents may be abusive. Stating that her parents made anti gay statements but not having firsthand knowledge of such. Placing the blame on her parents for pressuring the school board to expel her instead acknowledging that the felony charges and sex on school property may have had something to do with it. I guess the question is, and I don’t know if it is a fair question to ask you, if their claims against the younger parents are not true is there any liability there if damages can be shown ?
Nice work Steve. Thanks.
Jack,
I hope you don’t mind but the victims parents just spoke out and it looks like it is being buried, I think it also adds to the comment of the day. The comments to this story are stunning and will make your head explode.
http://cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/exclusive-parents-underage-victim-kate-hunts-case-defend-actions-7597.shtml?wap=0.
Just posted your link, Steve. Thanks.
One more for you Jack, she refused the deal. I guess they are counting on the public support to sway things. I think this will turn out bad for her supporters once this goes to trial. The arguments on these cases have all been tried and usually end with a conviction of the offender. I do think a lot of these cases are overcharged to force a plea but with all the public scrutiny I would be surprised if this case is one of them. This seems like a really bad horse for the gay community to hitch their cart too. Now see if they double down, well actually at this point it is more like quadrupling down and continue to support.
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_indian_river_county/Copy_of_state-attorneys-deadline-looms-for-18-year-old-kaitlyn-hunts-decision-on-plea-deal
In cases that don’t take a plea the state’s attorney usually aim for the fences and hope that the judges land close to there hopes. It will be heard by a jury and judge. They will drag her, her parents, witness everyone through the mud. It will be a she said vs she said. It will come down to birthdates and what was admitted in statements made to police. All of the freekate website will be used against her. Because it is all public knowledge record now. I am sure people have taken screen shots of it. It never was a Public case until her family made is public.
Kaitlyn’s attorney Julia Graves, believes Kaitlyn is being treated unfairly. She cited a 2011 case in which an 18-year-old male, a Vero Beach High School student, had sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old female. In that case, the 18-year-old male was charged with lewd and lascivious battery, but the charge was dropped down to a misdemeanor battery case.
Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_indian_river_county/Copy_of_state-attorneys-deadline-looms-for-18-year-old-kaitlyn-hunts-decision-on-plea-deal#ixzz2UGn0pLRa
Why were they dropped down? What evidence did they have?
That’s what I’m wondering. Kate had sex in the school bathroom twice, which is two extra no-no’s on her case. And she also helped the 14 year old run away from home causing the parents to file a missing person’s report. That’s another no-no. I wonder if the lawyer realizes the extra circumstances in this case and is just playing the same game the family is, just isn’t thinking the differences through, or if the other case really was similar.
It is my understanding that the prosecutor has already addressed this. There was a change in state laws recently and that is why they won’t drop it to a misdemeanor. In the past they could require the perpetrator to stay away from the victim until they were 21 even with a misdemeanor charge. The state has changed that, however, and now they need a felony conviction to make the perp stay clear of the victim. That is why they are sticking with the felony charges. They do not want Kaitlyn to have contact with the victim. Understandable considering everything that has happened.
*sigh* Folks: I can say this. I don’t know the answers. I don’t know the details.
However, in this day and age, would ANY of you take a plea that included pleading guilty to “CHILD ABUSE”?
So what if it officially goes off your record… I don’t know the answers here, I DO however know, that FL DAs in general have a unsavory rep. To be frank, there are no right answers after she admitted having sex with the said victim in the bathroom. That severely cut her options, and ethically, I’m not sure it’d be ethical for the defense to accept it. Nor is it, given what any research shows of Florida’s DA’s, unwise to try the case in the eyes of the public, to taint the jury into YOUR bias, so you can win the case, given the outright chicanery and violations of ethics the Florida DA’s (to my personal knowledge, even) have done both in the past and currently.
Well, that would depend on whether I was in fact guilty of child abuse, as the defendant in this case appears to be.
If the damage included the hard drive containing the roommate’s hard work (it IS the end of the school year, no?), then the price should exceed the cost of the computer, depreciation or not. . . . Fat chance damager’s mom ever considered that. Hope roomie backed up.
Sorry, this should have been posted to the next entry. I have no comment on this one.
This case is a real cluster-flock. I’ve been following it closely ever since it first came to my attention in mid-May, looking up everything I could find out about it, because the case just struck me as so– strange.
Kaitlyn Hunt’s parents initially lied about when and how the relationship began. In their original Facebook posting, they claimed that Kaitlyn was 17 when the relationship started, and that the Smith girl’s parents “waited” until Kaitlyn was 18 and technically an adult before complaining to the sheriff’s office.
However, as was revealed when the arrest report was made public, Kaitlyn turned 18 in August 2012, before the school year began, and before she became acquainted with the Smith girl– so, at the time the relationship started, Hunt was already 18.
In late May, the Smiths did an “interview” with Jana Eschbach. I put “interview” in quotes because calling this thing an “interview” is like calling “Valley of the Dolls” “classic literature.” Eschbach makes no effort to ask probing questions to clear up uncertainties and contradictions; instead, her goal is to portray the Smiths as nice, normal, ordinary people who are being unfairly demonized and persecuted by the “free Kate” campaign and its supporters.
In that interview, the Smiths claim that they repeatedly “warned” Hunt to stay away from their daughter, and went to the law only “as a last resort.”
However, according to the case report, the Smiths did not even learn about the sexual nature of the relationship until February 7, 2013- THE DAY BEFORE THEY FILED THEIR COMPLAINT with the sheriff’s office. So exactly when could they possibly have warned Hunt to stay away from their daughter?
Another point that is being widely overlooked: the Smith girl was not a “typical” 14-year-old. She was apparently scholastically, psychologically, and physically ahead of her age-peers. She was taking advanced classes that put her in some of the same senior classes that Hunt was taking. She was on the same basketball team as Hunt. They shared the same circle of friends– something that would n not have happened unless the Smith girl were perceived as being on the same “level” as a senior.
Finally, everyone seems to be ignoring the very real possibility that it was the Smith girl who pursued Hunt, and not the other way around. I remember high school very well, and I don’t think it’s at all far-fetched that a precocious, older-than-her-age 14-year-old might pursue an 18-year-old.
At one point– on January 4, 2013– the Smith girl “ran away” from home, called Hunt to come pick her up, and then spent the night at Hunt’s house. Does that sound like the behavior of a “hapless victim”? No, it sounds like the behavior of a precocious, rebellious teenager defying her parents.
As for why Kaitlyn Hunt rejected the “plea bargain”– it wasn’t much of a “bargain.” It would have required her to plead guilty to TWO felonies, thereby branding herself forever as a “convicted felon”– a label that would have haunted and hampered her for the rest of her life. And the much-touted “Romeo and Juliet law” would have had no effect on that whatsoever. All the “Romeo and Juliet law” does is allow a sex offender to apply for the “privilege” of not having to register as a sex offender; it DOES NOT erase the “convicted felon” status.