Sexual Predator over in Townhouses

You're missing an important point here that changes everything - the normal dynamics change when there is a person of authority, a person in a position of power involved. It's a well-documented phenomenon. She is not to blame. If you don't believe me, go read the book called "Sex in the Forbidden Zone:When Men in Power-Therapists, Doctors, Clergy, Teachers and Others- Betray Women's Trust". By Peter Rutter, M.D.

 

Call it whatever you want... it takes too to tango and unless the girl was forced into it (which she wasn't) she isn't free of blame.

Actually, she was forced. This is considered a form of force and coercion because he was in a position of authority and power. As I said before, her ability to choose is taken away because of his position/authority/power. And I know for a fact that that would hold up legally and psychologically in court.

 

Whether it be a teacher, a coach, a mentor or a religious leader these people are supposed to be teaching and leading our kids not having sex with them. And yes, that is victimization. If you don't get that girls and women have often been victimized in these types of situations then thank goodness we do have the laws that we have and not the laws of Flynnibus. This guy had a responsibility to this girl to be her youth minister and he had a responsibility to his 6 month preganant wife. He failed miserably at both.

These guys prey on young girls and make them believe that they are "special" and they always find the ones that they know will fall for it. There's usually not just one girl...one of the articles that I read indicated that there might be another girl. This poor youth minister just had to fight the aggressive 17 year old girls off, eh? Or maybe, as is often the case, this guy abused his position of authority.

This guy was supposed to be a leader in her spiritual guidance, not her first sexual experience. The fact that he was her "first" also suggets that this girl was not the aggressor.

Oh, and you missed the point of my hypothetical woman in my previous post. I was giving an example not referring to the 17 year old girl. And manipulation of a 17 year old girl by a person in a position of authority does in deed take away her responsibility. She is not to blame.

Women are indeed often victims in our society. And that is a sad fact. Blaming them again is not the answer.

 

I totally agree that the youth minister did wrong in this situation - there's no doubt about that for any of us. However, the girl may not have been manipulated, she may have just been doing something she wanted to do, regardless of the consequences. The youth minister certainly should have known better but it doesn't seem from the articles that the girl was coerced in any way.

As a female and mother of a daughter, I am well aware of the choices that young girls make. When I was 17 I made that type of choice with an older man but didn't think a thing about it in terms of statutory rape or anything of that nature. We had a relationship, that's all. Age was not a consideration for me.

Definitely the minister should not have become involved with the girl in this way, but let's remember that it was apparently a personal choice by both parties - the girl, even being a minor, was involved also of her own accord. There has been no evidence that she felt she *had* to become involved with him because he was in a position of authority over her. As he was her youth minister I would imagine she knew him well enough to know he was married and she still chose to have the relationship. No force, just a bad choice all around.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that what the guy did was right, just trying to make clear that there was no evidence that the girl was forced or coerced in any way.

 

Good points.

 

Great post, and I want to agree with you. The concern is that there is no evidence, for or against, any position. All we have is a "predator" list, and a google'd news article. We all want this to be "a misunderstanding," but what if it was an intentional, manipulative act? Does anything about the listing indicate / warrant concern?

Also missing, was the person "rehabilitated" or did they just finish their sentence? Now that these lists are in place, and a valuable resource for communities, we need to determine the amount / lack of data that is needed to keep these lists useful. Personally, the more data we can get, the better.

 

Merky1, Also some very good points.

One piece of information that we do know is the specific crimes this jerk was convicted of.

He was convicted of two counts of this crime, in the state of Ohio:
2907.03 Sexual battery.

(A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:

(2) The offender knows that the other person’s ability to appraise the nature of or control the other person’s own conduct is substantially impaired.

Legally that is what we have to go on. The ADA did not charge him with, nor did the court convict him of:

(12) The other person is a minor, the offender is a cleric, and the other person is a member of, or attends, the church or congregation served by the cleric.

Perhaps an inference can be made that, in this case, the fact that this criminal was a cleric was not a major part of this crime. I would imagine that if the ADA thought that this criminal did use his "authority" of being a youth minister the ADA would have charged this guy under paragraph 12.

On the other hand, it is possible that, in Ohio, a youth minister does not legally qualify as a cleric so this guy could not be charged under paragraph 12.

It is possible, and we don't have the information to confirm or refute, that this jerk being a youth minister may have been coincidental to the crime he committed. The charging under paragraph 2 seems to support this hypothesis.

I think that I am on pretty secure grounds when I say that everyone who has posted on this thread agrees that this guy broke the law. The law is specific and exact.

The thread devolved into a discussion whether the female involved in this case is or is not culpable. Here the law is specific and exact, it is also arbitrary. In Ohio, the age of consent is 18. This is an arbitrary age with more political than medical basis for capability for consent.

Under Ohio law a female 17 Years, 11 Months, 30 days is unable to give consent but just under 1,500 minutes later she is magically able to give consent. This does not make sense but that is the law and laws don't have to make sense. It is, however, the law. Any discussions concerning the legal basis of this case must accept the law's definition.

Outside of the law, the concepts of guilt are not so exact and are open to interpretations and opinions on morality. As long as we differentiate, during the discussion, between legal and moral arguments we should be OK.

 

You're right that the general public can't take a clear position based on what the list presents. We don't know the details or the rehabilitation status so it's hard to know what level of concern we should have. I suppose simply having the list is a step in the right direction. If the person has been released into the general population we would like to assume that they will commit no further crimes but we don't truly know that so the list is helpful in making us aware of the "potential" threat and that's about it.

Do we have a right to know if one is living next door to us? Yes. Does that person have a right to begin their lives anew? Yes. I'll just appreciate the list for making me aware of the situation and then be extra vigilant.

 

Complete sexist drivel.

The latest posts have been reasonable and thoughtful. We don't know exactly what transpired and frankly the victim, regardless of age, should be given the benefit of doubt. The guy was convicted of a sex offense, period. He has moved into the Broadlands and thank you for posting so the community is aware of his residence here.

What has truly been REPUGNANT are the posters who immediately gave the convicted offender the benefit of doubt, wanted to lessen his responsibility, or wanted to place blame on the victim without knowing the facts. It really is extraordinarily disappointing to know that some in our community feel this way.

 

Asked and answered. Because she is a minor and he is not only a legal adult but one in a position of authority which in this case is a minister. He was convicted in a court of law and put on the sexual offender list. She was not. Because: she is not to blame.

 

I think you misspelled guilty. Justice can never determine who is to blame for situations, and given our current legal system, I don't want it to.

 

I didn't misspell a thing. Please don't try to make my thoughts conform to how you view things. I meant blame. This girl deserves NEITHER blame nor guilt: she was not charged with anything. She is not on trial here.

Holy cow! I am shocked at the perspectives displayed on this thread. Truly shocked.

Can so few have compassion for a 17 year old girl who was most likely taken advantage of, IMO? She said this was her first time, that she lost her virginity to this guy and that she now had trust issues. That to me, says alot. It is an important indicator to who was in control, at least that's how I see it.

 

We don't know any of this. Based on our individual beliefs and experiences we can each make our own inference concerning this, but none of this is known.

I don't think anyone posting here on this thread indicated a lack of compassion towards this woman. I think everyone is in agreement that from a legal point of view the guy was at fault. I think we are all angered at what this guy did and I hope we are all glad he was tried, convicted and served his sentence.

 

We do know that this 17 year old said in court that this was guy took her virginity and that she said she had trust issues. She said that in court according to the news article.

As I said, IMO (in my opinion) this is an indicator to me. Which means: my perspective. I don't think that all who have posted here feel as you have summarized.

 

I will grant that to you as a fact of the case -- She did say those words in court.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise.

 

Gee, thanks Ozgood--how generous of you to grant me that.

I think you need to re-read earlier posts. People did do some back peddling...but some indicated that they felt the guy was treated unfairly. Yup. They did.

 

If you don't want to participate in a discussion on this topic with me, just let me know.