A startling ruling in an even more startling case
In Los Angeles, the legal age of consent is 18 years old. So, how did a lawyer successfully argue that a 14-year old girl was partially liable for a teacher being sent to prison in 2011 for having sex with her? With an apparently convincing, but morally revolting, argument. The Los Angeles Unified School District’s lawyer used a 14-year old girl’s sexual history and the circumstances under which she engaged in sexual activity with her 28-year old teacher when making an argument that the teacher nor the District were entirely liable for the lewd acts. The attorney, Keith Wyatt, had this to say about the girl’s actions with the teacher.
She lied to her mother so she could have sex with her teacher…She went to a motel in which she engaged in voluntary consensual sex with her teacher. Why shouldn’t she be responsible for that?
As expected, this ruling will set a chilling precedent. The deputy executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, John Dion, admits that this will affect the way victims come forward, whether or not they know they’ve been a victim of a crime, especially heinous crimes in which the sexual past of victims could potentially come into play. Such histories aren’t usually allowed to be used as evidence, but this specific case may have blown that door wide open–at least that’s the way future victims of sexual abuse or rape will see it.
The judge who made this ludicrous ruling should get a cell next to the rapist!!! So now, even though someone is not legally capable of giving consent, the rapist gets off because the defendant’s lawyer drags them through the mud!!! Not only was the victim, yes, VICTIM, FOUR YEARS younger than the legal age of consent, but the rapist was HER TEACHER, someone in a position of trust!!!
I wonder whether the judge would have made the same ruling if the child had been a boy, rather than a girl???