Skip to comments.Judge says sexually assaulted 14-year-old 'wasn't the victim she claimed to be'
Posted on 05/02/2014 5:06:16 AM PDT by Wolfie
Judge says sexually assaulted 14-year-old 'wasn't the victim she claimed to be'
A man sentenced to five years probation by a Dallas County judge after admitting he raped a 14-year-old girl wont have to follow many of the restrictions typically given to sex offenders.
And the judge who issued the light sentence said Thursday that she did so in part because the girl wasnt a virgin and wasnt the victim she claimed to be.
State District Judge Jeanine Howard, who gave 20-year-old Sir Young deferred probation last week, also altered Youngs probation requirements. As a result, Young does not have to stay away from children, attend sex offender treatment, undergo a sex offender evaluation or refrain from watching pornography.
While not required by law, these are typical probation requirements for rapists that are intended to prevent future victims and rehabilitate offenders.
District Attorney Craig Watkins said Thursday that his prosecutors would always fight for our most vulnerable victims like the one in this case. It is rare for prosecutors to critique a judges actions, but Watkins said he was alarmed by Howards decision.
This young lady was 14 at the time she was sexually assaulted at school, and we cannot send the wrong message to rape victims who have the courage to seek justice, Watkins said. I am disappointed the judge would choose to give the defendant probation after he admitted guilt, but even more alarmed the judge failed to impose standard sex offender conditions of probation designed to protect society.
Howard, a Democrat who will be unopposed in November as she seeks a third term, said in an interview late Thursday with The Dallas Morning News that she planned to recuse herself from the case so she could speak about her decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Some of these old judges would make good Muslims, who think rape is always the fault of the raped. Next, they’ll require two male witnesses in order to file charges.
These judges need to be fired.
She was 14!!!! This judge should be removed and disbarred.
No way am I going to comment on this without knowing a lot more detail. I am not saying this is the case here, but for instance if she misrepresented her age and the accused thought it was consensual because of that, I can see where sex with a minor would still be a crime but the charge of “sex offender” would be overboard.
On the other hand, if this wasn’t statutory rape but rather “rape rape” as some dimwit leftist once called it, I can’t see any justification for lessening terms.
In other words, it’s all in the details.
A 14 year-old cannot give consent for sex anymore than they can sign a contract to buy real estate.
I know that, which is why it would still be a criminal act. But if the accused was misled to believe that she was of age and was consenting, that should factor into the severity of the punishment, should it not?
Me thinks some of these judges are perverts & pedophiles themselves. They should be disbarred. Shame on Texas.
This case seems more complicated to me. The girl was 14 and the boy was 17 at the time. She texted him that she wanted to spend time with him and have sex with him but not at school. The girl had already had a child. Before I get flamed.. hear me out. If this is more of a “he said, she said, she got caught having sex and changed her mind”... why ruin someone’s life with a sexual predator identity? I am all for seeing that rapists get what they deserve; however, this case has a lot of oddities in it IMHO.
A man sentenced to five years probation by a Dallas County judge after admitting he raped a 14-year-old girl
See Post #9. He admitted to the crime.
But she was old enough to already have a baby?
Considering it happened at school, no.
The problem is that the 14 year-old cannot give consent, even if the other party thought they could give consent. It’s a good reason not to have sex with people that could be underage.
The article isn’t clear to me. Did he admit to a “rape” as part of an agreement or did he truly force her physically to have sex? As usual with today’s articles... I can never get a clear cut picture out of it.
But why doesn't someone identify an underlying, much too common problem here? Once a student is 18 at the beginning of an academic year, they should not be allowed to have any contact with the younger students, if they're allowed in the school during normal hours at all.
I've been to some schools that isolate the Freshmen from the rest of the school. A few even separate the Grade 9 boys and girls, and keep a very close eye on the protection of the girls from upperclass boys. It's a real good idea in some environments, and it works.
Having a baby would still not allow her to sign a real estate contract. She cannot legally say “Yes”. You cannot say “This 14 year old can consent to sex but this one cannot”.
I’m not saying he isn’t guilty. Show me where I said he wasn’t guilty.
The problem with reading a news article is that “rape” as in “hold a knife to someone’s throat and forcibly have intercourse with them” and “rape” as in “your girlfriend wasn’t the legal age when you boinked her” are both reported as simply “rape”. Without more detail, it’s impossible to know which case it is.
Nor am I trying to suggest that I know the details of this particular case. I am only throwing out a hypothetical that says the judge might not be completely crazy here, depending on the specific circumstances.
War on women!
Believe me... I see and understand your point. Unfortunately, I see and hear about a lot of the 14 and 15 year old girls at our local high school. Some of them text boys they like and give BJ’s in the hallway or under the bleachers. Our local high school had an incident where a girl cried “rape” after coming home late. A party with alcohol served.. and a video where she willingly “did” several guys.. apparently laughing the entire time. The investigation stopped after the video surfaced. It is a terrible situation with morality today and that is why I try to look for the clearness of the case.
“The girls mother said it seems like the judge didnt want to ruin Youngs life. But what about my daughters life?.......
From what I read, assuming it is all true, the girls life was well on its way toward “ruin” long before this guy supposedly “raped” her.
So raping non-virgins is ok? That’s what this judge is saying?
She can laugh but if she is underage, a crime has been committed.
The exploitation of minors has become epidemic. If we are going to allow minors to have sex, we should also allow them to obtain credit cards under their name. What could possibly go wrong?
That would be impossible to do; however, many states have so called Romeo laws, which acknowledge that there is a big difference between a 17 year old having sexual relations and with someone who is 18 vs 40. These laws generally put a 2 year window on age that overrides statutory rape laws.
There is a lot of difference in maturity between kids 14-18. Some 18 year olds look like children and some 14 year olds look like adults (especially with makeup).
IMHO, any adult that is over 20 shouldn't be dating someone in HS, although the level of maturity is overlapping.
This is the next sexual behavior boundary that the left will seek to destroy.
“If Young complies with the terms of his five-year probation, he will not have a criminal conviction on his record.”
IMHO.. it made more sense to have middle school from grades 7-9 and high school grades 10-12. They use to have that type of arrangement in our county years ago. When you look at the incoming Freshman class vs the Senior class.. the age/maturity disparity is quite noticeable.
First the Ethan Couch case . . . now this. We know the Couches had plenty of money. What did “Sir” Young’s family offer?
Some of the urban high schools have done that around here. A few of them have totally separate academies for the 9th graders, in different buildings. Two of them that have their 9th graders keep the boys and girls segregated, and the directions are if an upperclass boy even looked inside those grade 9 girls' classrooms, call security.
The most impressive thing is that when rules are strict, no exceptions, no favoritism, the kids, both young girls and older guys, accept them with grace and humor (I'm not being sarcastic)
The first guy gets 20 years, because the girl was a virgin and too young to give legal consent.
The second guy gets 10 years, because he, too, committed statutory rape, but the girl was no longer a virgin even though she was still too young to give legal consent.
The third guy gets probation, because by his turn, the girl was a slut who was too young to give legal consent.
Assuming your facts about the case are accurate, I agree with your contention the Judge may have been correct.
Often laws are written with too broad a brush.
Those under 18 can sign a real estate contract, it just isn’t enforceable until they turn 18.
I bought my first home at the ripe old age of 16.
Actually, you didn’t because it didn’t go into effect until you were 18.
I passed EMT certification when I was 17. It didn’t go into effect until I turned 18 so I wasn’t an EMT until I was 18.
I had a legal contract.
“She can laugh but if she is underage, a crime has been committed.
The exploitation of minors has become epidemic. If we are going to allow minors to have sex, we should also allow them to obtain credit cards under their name. What could possibly go wrong?”
Well the law as far as I can tell doesn’t treat classical rape any different from consensual sex. Both were minors at the time, just that the guy was 17 and old enough to be prosecuted.
Now should this guy be listed on some sex offender registry that treats him the same as child molesters or guys who rape women against their will? I think not: The crimes are just not the same as what he did. He was stupid, but it sounds like this young girl offered herself on a platter to be used.
That is because the age requirement for an EMT is 18.
If you would have asked me four years ago.. my opinion may have been different. However, I’ve seen and heard (and even read some of the texts shown to me). Granted, there were always “loose” girls. My parents told me stories of the “loose girls” in high school back in their days. However, today.. all bets are off. Yes.. there are the good girls still but a lot and I mean A LOT of the high school girls are using sex like you and I would chew gum. They like a boy and offer themselves. I don’t know.. maybe Sex in the City and our modern day culture of do whatever feels good plays into all of this. However, it still takes two to tango. If a high school girl offers and a high school boy accepts.. is it really justice to punish just the boy? If punishment was used.. both parties should be punished. ***As for that picture.. if she was my daughter... well, call Social Services now. :)
As post 23 points out, we do allow minors legally to have sex. The 14-year-old child, boy or girl, who is incapable of consenting to sex at 11:45 p.m., because the potential partner is 20, miraculously becomes capable of consenting at 11:47, because the other party is 15.
She was a minor - the guy needs removed from society
Vladimir Nabokov would agree with the judge.
She was willing to have sex with him but not at her school. She met him in a music room to kiss and told him no to sex there. He went ahead anyway. He pleaded guilty.
The sentence is a joke. OTOH it is ridiculous for him to be ordered to keep away from children the rest of his life - he does not appear to be a pedophile - he raped a physically mature girl who had already had several sexual relationships and was already a mother.
And he confessed. So there was no "he said, she said." No means no, and rape is rape.
My question was did he confess to a lesser charge vs going to trial and facing 25 years. People confess all the time to plea arrangements. The article still isn’t very clear to me.
We don’t know all the details.
The latter is quite possible and often done simply by combining 7-9th in middle school.
I would stand by the former being impossible though, as 17 and 18 year olds need to be attending the same classes.
The judge might be saying she has information indicating the sex was consentual and she it was corroborated by a history of consentual sex acts.
True the article isn’t clear. That seems par in today’s “journalism”.
This Democrat has two daughters, unbelievable ............... her sensitivity is overwhewming .... hope she thinks better of her daughters than the victim.
Ah the Democrap War on Women just goes on and on.... a la Clinton. I guess I shouldn’t be too hard on her, undoubtedly she was whoring for the local Black vote.
Find “The Maury Show’ on TV & see how many of these 14 y/o ‘girls’ already have willingly had multiple sex partners.
One ‘lady’ on that show has already had 10 men given 15 DNA tests to find the ‘fathers’ of her 2 kids. Still don’t have the right fathers.
Another 18 y/o ‘man’ was dragged onto the show for DNA test for an 18 month old child birthed by a ‘lady’ who was just under 18. If I do the math, she was about 15 when she got knocked up.
The 18 y/o ‘man’ admitted happily under all the hoopla that he already had been determined to have 17 SEVENTEEN other kids!!! This DNA test would determine his fatherhood of the 18th!!! And he is ONLY 18 himself.
Someone convince me that all these children are NOT being supported by the taxpayers.
You cannot make this stuff up.
You’re right. And as another poster said, this is a typical poorly written story in which the details are as clear as mud. I was jumping to a conclusion and I take it back.