Local case study: corruption of minors

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:00 pm

There was a court case recently in my area involving a former District Attourney who was found to be having a sexual relationship with a 17-year old boy from his youth group. He was also found guilty of providing alcohol to teenagers and smoking pot with them at concerts. He was convicted for corruption of minors and sentenced to house arrest for 3-23 months. The public is outraged and demanding an appeal and jail time.

Personally, I don't see why people are so outraged. The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16, so the sexual relationship between the DA and the boy was perfectly legal. That leaves the purchasing of alcohol and use of marijuana. Uh, last time I checked drinking and smoking was pretty typical behavior for a 17-year old male. I think this guy is getting the beat end of the stick. He used poor judgement in providing alcohol and pot to kids while holding a job as a DA, but I don't think he corrupted the morals of those kids any more than they were already corrupted, which I don't think they were anyway. Drinking and smoking isn't much of a big deal, and I think people are pissed most because they see him as a predator of sorts, which doesn't really seem to be the case.

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:52 am

I think it may be that he was in a position of trust. People in positions like that, e.g. Scout masters, youth workers, anyone in public office -- would have to be crazy to consider doin' anythin' that may be construed, rightly or wrongly, by the public as "bein' a bit dodgy". If anythin' i think he is guilty of gross stupidity.

So, do people see him as a drug dealer, pedophile or homosexual?

Tell me, what age is he, mate? Or do ye have a link?

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:22 am

i said jail time to the general question because people like that can end up making kids do some pretty serious shit, especially under the age of consent. To that particular case, i would agree with the sentence given because (for the reasons you gave of legal age of consent, so on) its technically legal, but only just and if the kid was any younger it would have been unacceptable.

the 'only just' age of the kid as well as the fact that i'm guessing that this guy was pretty senior if he was an ex district attorney because, while i'm an aussie and we don't have those here (i don't think), the position of district attorney takes a while to get a hold of, usually a fairly long career (correct me if im wrong) so for him to be retired from that position would make him older still. so i guess what i'm trying to say is that it's so close to a 'corruption of a minor' its ridiculous so he deserves sentence that couldn't be considered the same as an all out one (if that makes sense, its 10:30 pm, time for bed)

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:27 pm

Bryce-e-boy wrote:

i said jail time to the general question because people like that can end up making kids do some pretty serious shit, especially under the age of consent. To that particular case, i would agree with the sentence given because (for the reasons you gave of legal age of consent, so on) its technically legal, but only just and if the kid was any younger it would have been unacceptable.

the 'only just' age of the kid as well as the fact that i'm guessing that this guy was pretty senior if he was an ex district attorney because, while i'm an aussie and we don't have those here (i don't think), the position of district attorney takes a while to get a hold of, usually a fairly long career (correct me if im wrong) so for him to be retired from that position would make him older still. so i guess what i'm trying to say is that it's so close to a 'corruption of a minor' its ridiculous so he deserves sentence that couldn't be considered the same as an all out one (if that makes sense, its 10:30 pm, time for bed)

Your assumptions have failed you. He resigned as a direct result of the investigation. He's a pretty young guy, early to mid 30s I believe.

I found a couple articles. There have been several in recent weeks, however.

Prosecutors want sentence overturned
Ex-chief deputy DA's sentence under fire

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:42 am

I take it back, it wasnt gross stupidity altho it was a dumb thing to be caught doin'. It was gross arrogance that he thought he could act that way without a backlash.

If he was Joe Average tho' i suspect he would have been handed a jail sentence for supplyin' drugs.

Ye gotta admit the whole affair does stink.

He is obviously a ephebophile. Why doesnt that get the press attention that pedophilia receives? Is it because there is probably no man that isnt one?

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:48 am

Quote:

former District Attourney who was found to be having a sexual relationship with a 17-year old boy from his youth group

Look into the legal status more in your country, I am in Australia and here the age of 16 is the age of consent, but......

Quote:

I think it may be that he was in a position of trust. People in positions like that, e.g. Scout masters, youth workers, anyone in public office -- would have to be crazy to consider doin' anythin' that may be construed, rightly or wrongly, by the public as "bein' a bit dodgy". If anythin' i think he is guilty of gross stupidity.

....here that statment is incorrect, he is not guilty of gross stupidy, he is guilty pure and simple (carnal knowledge I think)

When the the older person in the relationship is in any position of power over the younger person ie what soda said above, the younger person has to be 18, not 16. You will find the charges of corruption of minors would be simular to our carnal knowledge.

Quote:

Personally, I don't see why people are so outraged. The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16, so the sexual relationship between the DA and the boy was perfectly legal.

In our countries law the sexual relationship was not legal because of the position of trust, it it considered predotary and grooming.

Edit - from wikipedia

Ages of consent in North America

Also, different ages may apply if one partner is in a position of power or authority over the other (e.g., a teacher-student relationship).

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:07 am

Yeah, thanks trollster for correctin' me but as you can see i did that myself! Wink

Age of consent is a grey area to say the least. In the UK (Scotland, England & Wales) it is now (since 2003) 16 for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. (17 in N. Ireland and ranges from 14 to 17 thru'out Europe) But there is a clause to the amendment that criminalises anyone who, in a position of trust, engages with sexual activity with 16-18 yr olds. It's not deemed wrong by law in this country for a 40 yr old man to bugger a 16 yr old boy up the dung chute unless that man is a teacher or scout master or youth worker, etc. But some individuals think that is wrong regardless of position in society. Views differ dependent on what you read.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1045383.stm - so gay!

http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/homosexualageofconsent.htm - so not gay!!

http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Personal/Relationships/Gay.htm - what the feck do you think??!!!

Back to the case in point, he is guilty by the laws of HIS land of supplyin' others with drugs and alcohol (regardless of whether the youths of today do it anyway) engagin' in sexual activity in a public place and, if he were in the UK, betrayin' a position of trust which here would mean at the very least 10 yrs on the Sex Offenders Register.

Now the man isnt stupid or uneducated, indeed he is from a well off upper class background so he is guilty of incredible arrogance if you ask me. Maybe he just thought he had the right to do what he wants because he was from a certain background.

I do think others wouldnt have been treated as leniently.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:44 pm

If this happened to one of my family i would angry trollster and SoDa is right ...These People are meant to be looking out for children if it was one of yours would you not be upset ?

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:10 pm

Considering what teenagers are like, especially in my area, I doubt that he manipulated anyone. I think it's entirely possible that he was pressured into buying booze and drugs, but I'm not claiming that as a fact. All I know is that when I was 17 I would have killed to have some dude buy booze for me. His big mistake was doing this for kids from his church. Even if he wasn't intentionally manipulating them, of course that's what people will see. The worst part isn't what he did, but the circumstances surrounding it. If I were a parent of one of the kids, I'd be more pissed at my kids than him. I do think his morals and judgement are questionable at best. What kind of DA would risk his entire career and reputation like that?

SoDa: I don't think he can be considered a pedophile, or rather pederast. The legal statutes are clear, but let's say they weren't. Boys are usually shaving regularly by 17. Shit, I had a beard by that age. Besides, in one more year, it would be legal anywhere. I'm sure he's just gay and likes young men. If he wanted to have sex with a child I think he would've picked something less hormonally developed. I do agree that he is very arrogant thinking he get away with shit like that, but I think the sentence he got is appropriate. The consequences on his reputation and career are destroyed and that's something that he won't ever be able to live down. That's justice if you ask me.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:04 pm

True, his life is in tatters an' rightly so IMO, but i aint gonnie start feelin' sorry for the asshole an' that my friend, is what he basically is.

I didnt say he was a pedophile man, i said he was a ephebophile. Look it up! Razz

Look mate, i cant defend him as you do. Why? Because he, as a thirty somethin' shouldnt be "hangin' out" with kids. 17 is a kid in my book regardless of how hirsute. He shouldnt be givin' anyone drugs or alcohol despite how "cool" that makes him look in front of said kids. An' he sure as f**k shouldnt be bangin' the ass of one of those kids in the back of his car after temptin' him in with illegal substances. He was a deputy DA ffs.

As i said, i think the sentence is only proportional to his status in society an' therefore it is little wonder that some feel the sentence was too light.

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:39 am

SoDaSeeD wrote:

i said he was a ephebophile.

Most people are, aren't they? I mean, that's why teens in skimpy clothes makes adults uncomfortable.

- Not disagreeing with anything you said.

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:34 pm

l know i am altho' i think the discomfort in alot of cases may be the reverse!! If a man said he didnt find a 15 or 16 yo georgous nubile girl sexualy attractive then they are either gay or a lyin' bastard. Most men, however, dont or wont act on these impulses for reasons that dont need explainin'.

You dont disagree....with anythin'?? Are ye awright man? You have got me worried now!! Wink

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:39 pm

SoDaSeeD wrote:

Most men, however, dont or wont act on these impulses for reasons that dont need explainin'.

And even more most women Wink

Quote:

You dont disagree....with anythin'?? Are ye awright man? You have got me worried now!! Wink

Nah, I'm wonderful, as always. Good news is that means you must be too Cool

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:24 pm

SoDaSeeD wrote:

True, his life is in tatters an' rightly so IMO, but i aint gonnie start feelin' sorry for the asshole an' that my friend, is what he basically is.

I didnt say he was a pedophile man, i said he was a ephebophile. Look it up! Razz

Look mate, i cant defend him as you do. Why? Because he, as a thirty somethin' shouldnt be "hangin' out" with kids. 17 is a kid in my book regardless of how hirsute. He shouldnt be givin' anyone drugs or alcohol despite how "cool" that makes him look in front of said kids. An' he sure as shouldnt be bangin' the ass of one of those kids in the back of his car after temptin' him in with illegal substances. He was a deputy DA ffs.

As i said, i think the sentence is only proportional to his status in society an' therefore it is little wonder that some feel the sentence was too light.

Hehe, that's actually the first time I've seen that word. Good to know. Also, I agree with the rest of that paragraph.