Hmmm...charged as a pedofile for sex with your wife

[Blackadar]

Is this a case where EVERYONE is wrong and just plain stupid? Weird and scary...


Nebraska man charged for sex with wife, 13
Families support couple, but prosecutor calls union ‘repugnant’

LINCOLN, Neb. - A 22-year-old man faces criminal charges in Nebraska for having sex with an underage 13-year-old girl, although he legally married her in Kansas after she became pregnant.

The man’s lawyer said the couple, with their families’ support, “made a responsible decision to try to cope with the problem.”

Matthew Koso, 22, was charged Monday with first-degree sexual assault, punishable by up to 50 years in prison. He was released on $7,500 bail pending an Aug. 17 preliminary hearing

After the girl became pregnant, her mother gave permission in May for Koso to take the young woman to Kansas, which allows minors to get married with parental consent. The girl is now 14 and seven months pregnant.

“The idea ... is repugnant to me,” said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. “These people made the decision to send their ... 14-year-old daughter to Kansas to marry a pedophile.”

Kansas law labeled ‘ridiculous’
He said the marriage is valid, thanks to the “ridiculous” Kansas law, “but it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to stand by while a grown man ... has a relationship with a 13-year-old — now 14-year-old — girl.”

Bruning, who has said he will seek a second term in 2006, has aggressively prosecuted sex crimes against children since he was elected in 2002

The couple were married in May by a judge in Hiawatha, Kan., just across the state line from Falls City.

Nebraska allows people as young as 17 to marry if they have parental consent.

Kansas law, however, sets no minimum marriage age, although case law sets the minimum age at 14 for boys and 12 for girls. The marriage must be approved by both parents or guardian, or by a district court judge, said Whitney Watson, spokesman for Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline. A judge also must approve if only one parent approves.

Koso’s lawyer, Willis Yoesel, said the girl’s mother and Koso’s parents approved of the marriage. He said the girl’s father has not lived with the family for some time.

‘The families are all united’
“It seems to me like they, as much as they could, made a responsible decision to try to cope with the problem,” Yoesel said.

“The families are all united in this effort,” Yoesel said. “I don’t know who is complaining. ... What benefit is there to anybody in the prosecution of this young man?”

There was no comment from Koso, who does not have a listed telephone number.

[cody8200]

Hmmmm. This is tough. Obviously the 22 year old was in the wrong but now that their married and everyone is seemingly happy I dont see how you can prosecute the case. If he did go to prison it would merely destroy a marriage that is already going to be a very difficult one (can anyone here imagine being married to an annoying 14 year old?)

[Samdari]

I really hope he is charging her with the sex that got her pregnant in Nebraska before they were married, and she was 13. Otherwise, this whole thing is an exercise in getting your name in the paper.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Bruning, who has said he will seek a second term in 2006

I think this says it all.

[gstelmack]

I really hope he is charging her with the sex that got her pregnant in Nebraska before they were married, and she was 13.
This is key. It may not be pedophilia now, but it was before they got married...

[Samdari]

This is key. It may not be pedophilia now, but it was before they got married...

I agree - her getting pregnant was a result of him committing a crime. I think charging a man with a crime for sex when he readily admits it is in the context of a marriage his jurisdiction recognizes as valid, well, lets just say I think THAT should be considered a criminal waste of taxpayer money.

It still seems to me that the only point (ok, the main point) of this prosecution is the prosecutor's name in the paper.

[QuikSand]

You know, this makes another interesting case for why the concept of government-recognized "marriage" is a potentially flawed idea from the get-go.

If Nebraska says that this girl is below the "age of consent," and that a 22 year old man having sex with her is therefore a violation of the law... why should it matter that some other government decided that it was okay for her to enter into a marriage at her age? If the state gets to determine a matter such as "age of consent," then shouldn't their continued sexual relationship be illegal in that state, regardless? If they are in Nebraska, why should laws of Kansas trump the local laws?

(This also raises some arguments about the inherent weaknesses in the "states' rights" philosophy, too)

[Raiders Army]

At least when she goes through her health classes, he can pick up some free condoms.

[Huckleberry]

Full faith and credit clause. The DOMA, AFAIK, only grants an exception based on same-sex marriages.

[Blackadar]

I REALLY wonder about the parents. Who the hell lets her daughter get married at 13 AFTER getting knocked up by a 22 year old?

[Draft Dodger]

I REALLY wonder about the parents. Who the hell lets her daughter get married at 13 AFTER getting knocked up by a 22 year old?

have you BEEN to Nebraska before?

[Samdari]

Who the hell lets her daughter get married at 13 AFTER getting knocked up by a 22 year old?

Someone who thinks that children HAVE to be born in wedlock.

[QuikSand]

Full faith and credit clause.

I understand how the laws work in practice... but how does this reconcile with any degree of common sense? I'll try again.

If Nebraska believes it's a criminal act for an adult man to have sex with a 13 year old girl (and good for them, incidentally) then why should they be required to waive that law just because the Kansans (just one more thing that's apparently wrong over there) can't get up to speed and pass a similar law? Is "marriage" really that special that respect for it (or whatever another state wants to call it) should trump our own sensibilities as to what is proper and improper conduct?

[QuikSand]

Oops, I seem to have neglected to CAPITALIZE a certain word. Bucking the trend.

[hhiipp]

I think in practice the Nebraska Attorney General is correct in his attempt to press charges. However, if everyone else involved, the mother and girl are fine with everything that has happened why should this marriage be broken up and the yet to be born child be forced to live without a father?

It seems to me like they are doing what's right by the law, but not looking at this from a family perspective.

[QuikSand]

For those of you who oppose this prosecution -- just how far should this go?

If there's a state stupid enough to allow an eight-year-old girl to marry under whatever circumstances... and such a couple from your town runs over there and gets hitched... are you fine with that? Hubby can come back home and bang away with his prepubescent bride and all is well, all in the name of repecting the institution of marriage?

[BrianD]

I think in practice the Nebraska Attorney General is correct in his attempt to press charges. However, if everyone else involved, the mother and girl are fine with everything that has happened why should this marriage be broken up and the yet to be born child be forced to live without a father?

It seems to me like they are doing what's right by the law, but not looking at this from a family perspective.

Actually, I think the Attorney General is the only one who is looking at this from a family perspective. With a decision like this, I have to wonder if the girl's parents are fit to be parents. How can the girl not be totally screwed up from this?

[Samdari]

For those of you who oppose this prosecution -- just how far should this go?

If there's a state stupid enough to allow an eight-year-old girl to marry under whatever circumstances... and such a couple from your town runs over there and gets hitched... are you fine with that? Hubby can come back home and bang away with his prepubescent bride and all is well, all in the name of repecting the institution of marriage?

This is a ridiculous post, QS. You are pushing an existing situation to an extreme that could never exist. First of all, there is not, nor is it likely enough to even discuss that there will be, such a state. Secondly, all states which allow minors to marry require parental permission. Not many parents gonna give that 8 year old permission to marry.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Actually, I think the Attorney General is the only one who is looking at this from a family perspective. With a decision like this, I have to wonder if the girl's parents are fit to be parents. How can the girl not be totally screwed up from this?
Exactly. That's why statutory rape laws are writen like they are. There is no "gray" area when it comes to this. It doesn't matter what the girl says, her family, her "husband", anyone. You have sex with an underage child, you committed a felony.

There is no family perspective under the law and the law sort of assumes that the best family perspective to take is making these act illegal, regardless of what people say after the fact.

[hhiipp]

Depends, is the 8 year old hot? http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

This child's life is already going to be hard enough given the current age of its parents, why make it even harder by removing the 'father figure' from the equation? I know what he did was -very- wrong but I also feel in this situation prosecuting it would be wrong as well. I don't see where sending this guy to jail would benefit or 'protect' anyone else so why punish the mother and kid?.

[QuikSand]

This is a ridiculous post, QS. You are pushing an existing situation to an extreme that could never exist. First of all, there is not, nor is it likely enough to even discuss that there will be, such a state. Secondly, all states which allow minors to marry require parental permission. Not many parents gonna give that 8 year old permission to marry.

But the logic is exacly the same - and that is my point.

If you are willing to reject the legislated sensibilities of the people of Nebraska just becasue you want to honor marriages from Kansas -- is there any limit to this argument? Of course my eight-year-old was ridiculous -- that is the point of the argument... as absurd as it is, it is the logical result of making the "marriage trumps all" argument.

[KWhit]

I don't have a problem with the prosecution. I can't believe that Kansas allows a 13 year-old to marry. And the parents agreed to this?!?! Sheesh.

[hhiipp]

Just for the record, if this was my knocked up 13 year old daughter I'd be the one going to jail, not the guy who did it.

[Psmith]

Depends, is the 8 year old hot? http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

This child's life is already going to be hard enough given the current age of its parents, why make it even harder by removing the 'father figure' from the equation? I know what he did was -very- wrong but I also feel in this situation prosecuting it would be wrong as well. I don't see where sending this guy to jail would benefit or 'protect' anyone else so why punish the mother and kid?.

Being a father does not make someone a father figure -- if by that you mean a man who will be a good role model and have a positive influence in his kid's life. Someone who thinks it's okay to have sex with a thirteen year old is not a father figure. And does anyone here think that he's even going to be around 5 years from now? He'll have found another pubescent girl to screw at that point. If the families really cared for the girl and the baby, they would have encouraged her to give it up for adoption. Then it could have a father figure and a mature mother to boot.

[HomerJSimpson]

Depends, is the 8 year old hot? http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

This child's life is already going to be hard enough given the current age of its parents, why make it even harder by removing the 'father figure' from the equation? I know what he did was -very- wrong but I also feel in this situation prosecuting it would be wrong as well. I don't see where sending this guy to jail would benefit or 'protect' anyone else so why punish the mother and kid?.


When the "father figure" is a pedophile, shouldn't he be taken out of the situation? Do you really want this child to be raised by a pedophile?

[albionmoonlight]

But the logic is exacly the same - and that is my point.

If you are willing to reject the legislated sensibilities of the people of Nebraska just becasue you want to honor marriages from Kansas -- is there any limit to this argument? Of course my eight-year-old was ridiculous -- that is the point of the argument... as absurd as it is, it is the logical result of making the "marriage trumps all" argument.
One of the more esoteric, academic, and interesting classes in law school is called "Conflict of laws," and addresses situations like this.

Nebraska may choose to recognize the marriages, drivers licenses, etc. of other states (which, BTW, is NOT compelled by the full faith and credit clause. FF&C requires states to treat valid court judgements of other states as they would treat their own court judgments. It does NOT compel Nebraska to allow Joe Blow to drive a car legally in Nebraska if he has a license from a state that (say) decides to give a drivers license to any person over age 16).

But states do, as a matter of comity, recognize marriages from other states (this has come up in the past because some states allow (for example) 2nd cousins to marry and others do not. If New York allows my 2nd cousin marriage, New Jersey will recognize it as valid--even if they would not have allowed the marriage). Most states, placing "values" over comity, have chosen not to recognize same-sex marriage. Nothing in the FF&C clause forces them to do it.

But that is another thread for another day. Nebraska will probably recognize the Kansas marriage as valid. Let's assume that it does. Does it change anything? What does the statute say? Does it say that it is a crime to have sex with a 13 year old? Does it provide an exception for marriage? If not, I think that the AG has a pretty good legal argument that the husband is guilty of a crime.

Look at it this way--if a husband forces his adult wife to have sex against her will, would you say that the rape prosecution should be dismissed because they are married? Probably not--you would say that the bonds of marriage do not allow someone to perform sexual acts on someone else without their consent. Well isn't that the point of statutory rape laws? Haven't the people of Nebraska decided that a 13 year old is not capable of giving consent to have sex (and that her parents cannot give it for her). Why does her marriage change that? And if you argue that the marriage does change that, why does it not change the rules for non-statutory rape. In both cases, the crime is sex without legally sufficent consent.

Of course, you can argue that the AG should choose not to prosecute this crime, using his good discretion. The same way that you may argue that a woman who kills her abusive husband should be prosecuted less harsly than a contract killer. Or that a person violating a sign ordinance to put up a "support our troops" sign should be given more leeway than a person putting up an "eat at joe's" sign. But your issue there is not with the law--which applies equally to all. It is with the local prosecutor.

[Glengoyne]

Oops, I seem to have neglected to CAPITALIZE a certain word. Bucking the trend. trump? That would really set the Donald off your idea catches on.http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Huckleberry]

I agree that the full faith and credit clause brings up some tough situations. In reality, I think we could do without it, although that would call into question how seriously you can refer to us as one nation.

Then again, I'm in favor of moving toward the association envisioned at the time of the Constitutional Convention. In a situation like this one, if these parents wanted the two to be wed, they would send them to Kansas, where they would have to stay. Even that, in this case, would still leave us with a problem as the Nebraska DA would almost certainly want to have the man extradited back to Nebraska to answer for the crime he committed. And Article IV Section 2 requires that Kansas give him up.

Of course, it may turn out that the Nebraska DA is choosing to violate Section 3 of the same Article, so I don't know how much of an argument Nebraska has here. But I think he's fine. Here's what I found for the Nebraska statute against this offense:
28-320.01
Sexual assault of a child; penalties.



(1) A person commits sexual assault of achild if he or she subjects another person fourteen years of ageor younger to sexual contact and the actor is at least nineteenyears of age or older. (2) Sexual assault of a child is a Class IIIA felonyfor the first offense. (3) Any person who is found guilty of sexual assault ofa child under this section and who has previously been convicted(a) under this section, (b) under section 28-319 of first degreeor attempted first degree sexual assault, or (c) in any otherstate or federal court under laws with essentially the sameelements as this section or section 28-319 shall be guilty of aClass IC felony.</PRE>

</PRE>

Doesn't seem like there's an exception for married people.</PRE>

[Huckleberry]

...

Nebraska may choose to recognize the marriages, drivers licenses, etc. of other states (which, BTW, is NOT compelled by the full faith and credit clause. FF&C requires states to treat valid court judgements of other states as they would treat their own court judgments. It does NOT compel Nebraska to allow Joe Blow to drive a car legally in Nebraska if he has a license from a state that (say) decides to give a drivers license to any person over age 16).

...
I disagree. That's a very limited reading of the text that I don't believe would stand up.


Article IV



<EMP>Section 1.</EMP> Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Full faith and credit not only to the judicial proceedings, which you cite, but also to the public acts and records. I have a hard time understanding marriage not qualifying as a public act and/or record.

[albionmoonlight]

I disagree. That's a very limited reading of the text that I don't believe would stand up.


Full faith and credit not only to the judicial proceedings, which you cite, but also to the public acts and records. I have a hard time understanding marriage not qualifying as a public act and/or record.

Noted. As I said before, the issue quickly becomes academic and complicated. It implicates the relationship between the fed and the states, the relationships among the states, and the relationship between the different branches of government.

The Supreme Court has noted in Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 422 (1979) that "the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy."

So we also start talking about the very slippery terms of "public policy" and "legitmate public policy."

In the end, I don't think that anyone is 100% sure what the court would do when faced with "We will not recognize the marriages of state X." But I was taught (and, from what I can read from the precedents, I believe) that the courts would allow a state to do that. You are right to question my somewhat summary discussion above. In an attempt to keep things simple, I conveyed an authority that is based more on my reasonably held belief than on rock solid law.

In this case, I am sure that the courts would say that Nebraska has a legitmate public policy in preventing statutory rape that trumps any Kansas recognized marriage to the contrary.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

have you BEEN to Nebraska before?
This had me laughing!!!

Everything that needs to be known about Nebraska is they got corn. Lotsa corn. Yup. They sure do got corn.

I was on an amtrak once and there was a 10 year old from Nebraska who wouldn't shut up. He was going on and on, and out of the blue he punctuates a sentence with the term "Goll-ee-bum!" I had to hold in the laughther. It was like I had Opie Taylor right in front of me.

[rkmsuf]

But she has the breasts of a 20 year old. Give the guy a break.

[Bee]

I'm all for the marriage. From my experience, if you want him to stop having sex with the 13 year old girl then marrying her is generally the best way to assure that.

[QuikSand]

I thought this was a brilliant addition to the thread -- on point, well-articulated, and compelling.

One of the more esoteric, academic, and interesting classes in law school is called "Conflict of laws," and addresses situations like this.

Nebraska may choose to recognize the marriages, drivers licenses, etc. of other states (which, BTW, is NOT compelled by the full faith and credit clause. FF&C requires states to treat valid court judgements of other states as they would treat their own court judgments. It does NOT compel Nebraska to allow Joe Blow to drive a car legally in Nebraska if he has a license from a state that (say) decides to give a drivers license to any person over age 16).

But states do, as a matter of comity, recognize marriages from other states (this has come up in the past because some states allow (for example) 2nd cousins to marry and others do not. If New York allows my 2nd cousin marriage, New Jersey will recognize it as valid--even if they would not have allowed the marriage). Most states, placing "values" over comity, have chosen not to recognize same-sex marriage. Nothing in the FF&C clause forces them to do it.

But that is another thread for another day. Nebraska will probably recognize the Kansas marriage as valid. Let's assume that it does. Does it change anything? What does the statute say? Does it say that it is a crime to have sex with a 13 year old? Does it provide an exception for marriage? If not, I think that the AG has a pretty good legal argument that the husband is guilty of a crime.

Look at it this way--if a husband forces his adult wife to have sex against her will, would you say that the rape prosecution should be dismissed because they are married? Probably not--you would say that the bonds of marriage do not allow someone to perform sexual acts on someone else without their consent. Well isn't that the point of statutory rape laws? Haven't the people of Nebraska decided that a 13 year old is not capable of giving consent to have sex (and that her parents cannot give it for her). Why does her marriage change that? And if you argue that the marriage does change that, why does it not change the rules for non-statutory rape. In both cases, the crime is sex without legally sufficent consent.

Of course, you can argue that the AG should choose not to prosecute this crime, using his good discretion. The same way that you may argue that a woman who kills her abusive husband should be prosecuted less harsly than a contract killer. Or that a person violating a sign ordinance to put up a "support our troops" sign should be given more leeway than a person putting up an "eat at joe's" sign. But your issue there is not with the law--which applies equally to all. It is with the local prosecutor.

...and it probably verifies that I'm over my head on "conflict of laws" issues...



But then I read this:

I'm all for the marriage. From my experience, if you want him to stop having sex with the 13 year old girl then marrying her is generally the best way to assure that.

...and basically had coffee all over my keyboard.

Thanks to you both.

[Samdari]

I'm all for the marriage. From my experience, if you want him to stop having sex with the 13 year old girl then marrying her is generally the best way to assure that.

You REALLY need to post a picture of your wife. I think we may catch her in polygamy and both be rid of her.

[Fritz]

its not like this is the first 13 year old bride

[korme]

I'm all for the marriage. From my experience, if you want him to stop having sex with the 13 year old girl then marrying her is generally the best way to assure that.
Gold.

[sterlingice]

Great thread all around (sorry, sorry- I know almost a week is thread necromancy but I'm having to catch up with the old stuff from when I was gone and had to give credit where credit was due).

SI

[Mac Howard]

But isn't the marriage irrelevant? The man had sex with a 13 year old BEFORE he married her. Surely, even in Kansas, this is illegal?

[RendeR]

But isn't the marriage irrelevant? The man had sex with a 13 year old BEFORE he married her. Surely, even in Kansas, this is illegal?


This would be a point where Nebraska has to come up with valid evidence proving beyond doubt that he specifically committed the act and get the timing perfect to the point that no doubt can be given that she was 13 at the time.

If they can do that, then I have no doubt the man will be in jail for about 3 weeks, at which point Bubba and a number of his bitches will gang rape the man and kill him.

[MrBug708]

In case you wanted to know what they look like...

http://www.journalstar.com/shared-content/gallery/?galleryid=6&albumid=9&mediaid=170&filename=photo42eac1d822a96548424196.jpg

[Axxon]

In case you wanted to know what they look like...

http://www.journalstar.com/shared-content/gallery/?galleryid=6&albumid=9&mediaid=170&filename=photo42eac1d822a96548424196.jpg

Do you think he's saying to her, "Crystal, I've got a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore"?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It's amazing that 13 and 14 year olds married guys in their 20s and 30s all the time many many years ago. Not saying that was a good thing, but times sure have changed (for the better). But I think in this instance, a 'judge' legally married them. Hopefully, he listened to the parents and the situation and made the call that this was in her best interests. I trust his judgment over the prosecutor's without knowing more of the story (and apparently Kansas feels sometimes this is a good thing). However, I still think the guy should be arrested for the prior act in getting her pregnant. My guess is the law was more meant for people a little closer in age and not when a broken law is the impetus for the marriage.

[Loren]

Being a father does not make someone a father figure -- if by that you mean a man who will be a good role model and have a positive influence in his kid's life. Someone who thinks it's okay to have sex with a thirteen year old is not a father figure. And does anyone here think that he's even going to be around 5 years from now? He'll have found another pubescent girl to screw at that point. If the families really cared for the girl and the baby, they would have encouraged her to give it up for adoption. Then it could have a father figure and a mature mother to boot.


I'm sure many of us have grandfather's or great-grandfather's who were great father-figures and got it on with their teenage wives :rolleyes:

BUTT yeah things are diff now, this guy commited a crime the first time around, if not SEVERAL times around before the marriage..and the parents are fukkd in the head and she's going to be to if not already...

[stevew]

My grandmother was like 15 or 16 when she married my grandfather, l believe he was about 26 or so at the time. Anyways, after they were married for 60 some years, she got cancer and died. Now he's a spry 92 or thereabouts. I guess stuff was way different back in the 30s and 40s. People farmed(my grandparents did) and had lots of kids(8 in total). I'd say a 21 year old should know better than to mess with a 13 year old these days. Grass on the field does not mean play ball.

[korme]

How can you be 22 and legitimately consider a 13 year old girl? How bad is your game?

[Young Drachma]

Well..the whole story is really, really wacky. But the girl might not have "looked" 13 and in that photo, it's hard to tell. The guy is obviously wrong. But one might presume he didn't know how old she was and she surely didn't go advertising it (or at least, that's being presumptive).

I think in the case the parents decided what they did, that we try all sorts of teenagers for adult crimes these days..I don't really know what criminal prosecution - given that no one REALLY knows what happened here (short of this dude sleeping with a girl that was way younger than him and that it's a crime..) and I dunno, I don't see anyone leaping to his defense other than say that indeed..if they want to be together, is it the state's job to break up a family?

[albionmoonlight]

Looks like Kansas is ready boldly to enter the 20th century--just in time for the 21st. My favorite part? That four senators voted against this. I guess that's what happens when you get the majority of your campaign contributions from Big Pedophilia.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/05/kansas.marriage.ap/index.html

TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- Kansas may have seen the last of its child brides. After a pregnant 14-year-old from Nebraska drove to Kansas last year to marry her 22-year-old boyfriend, now serving time for having sex with the minor, Kansas lawmakers decided it was time the set a minimum marriage age.
On Thursday, the Kansas House vote 119-0 to approve a bill that would prohibit anyone under the age of 15 from marrying in Kansas and would set strict limits for would-be brides or grooms under the age of 18. The Senate approved it a day earlier, 36-4.
Under the legislation, requested by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a 15-year-old could marry only if a district court judge decided it was in that person's best interest.
Those who are 16 or 17 could marry if they met one of three conditions: permission from a parent or legal guardian and judicial consent; permission from both parents and any legal guardian; or permission from judge if the parents are dead and there is no legal guardian.
Currently, Kansas has no minimum age for marriage if the minor has parental or judicial approval.
In the case of the Nebraska girl -- a person must be at least 17 to marry in that state -- the girl's mother gave permission for the couple to get married in Kansas last spring after learning that her daughter was pregnant. The couple's daughter was born a few months later, in August.
The groom, Matthew Koso, was charged with sexual assault and sentenced in February to 18 to 30 months in prison for impregnating the girl.
Last month, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue set 16 as that state's minimum marriage age after a 37-year-old woman married a 15-year-old boy, a friend of her teenage son. Lisa Lynnette Clark pleaded guilty in March to statutory rape and was sentenced to nine months in prison.

[ISiddiqui]

What albionmoonlight said (I did take a "Conflict of Laws" class in law school and I have no arguments with his comprehensive post).

Just because they got married in Kansas (and yes, before the recently passed law, an EIGHT YEAR OLD could get married if their parents agreed), doesn't mean that Nebraska has to throw out its pedophilia law, unless Nebraska's law says there is an exception for marriage. Nebraska can recognize the marriage, but still apply its own pedophilia law to the situtation.

[Young Drachma]

So now her husband has a criminal record and a teenage wife whose still in high school. I mean, they had to send a message. But damn.

[tategter]

So now her husband has a criminal record and a teenage wife whose still in high school. I mean, they had to send a message. But damn.

Would people even be considering whether-or-not he should go to prison if he didn't get her pregnant?

[sterlingice]

I guess that's what happens when you get the majority of your campaign contributions from Big Pedophilia.
I don't think this line got enough credit :D

(Tho to be fair, I remember reading about this story and there was some kindof legit reason the Senators voted against it and it wasn't because they liked having sex with 5 year olds).

SI

[SackAttack]

I don't think this line got enough credit :D

(Tho to be fair, I remember reading about this story and there was some kindof legit reason the Senators voted against it and it wasn't because they liked having sex with 5 year olds).

SI

But really, did that hurt?

[Young Drachma]

Would people even be considering whether-or-not he should go to prison if he didn't get her pregnant?

I read about this story when it broke. They interviewed some of the guys friends, who were like 16-19 kids and the story was basically "he hangs out with younger people." The girl lied about her age at first and he didn't card her.

He found out about her age later, her mother wasn't happy about the whole scenario and well...the story here is simple. For every story about a predatory male getting off on some kid -- and you could argue this guy is one of them -- this is an individual story, that required individual discretion rather than painting it with a big brush.

The fact is, the mother was close to the situation. Maybe she's fucked up and dysfunctional and perhaps we should deem her unfit for letting this happen.

But none of it matters now. The guy married the girl and was apparently trying to support her and the kid while the girl finishes high school. But sending him to prison, seems to be a rash decision by a prosecutor who was trying to send a message because he thought this was something that other people needed to be informed of how wrong and "predatory" it was.

And in the status quo, he's sent his example. And now, this "victim" has to live with a kid who has a father in jail, a husband -- unless the law voided the marriage, which it didn't -- who when he gets out of jail will be that much less equipped to do anything to help the situation that right or not, will exist regardless of what example was set here.

I'm not so sure it's that black and white. That's all I'm saying.