i've been looking for info but no one seems to have posted anything about bristol palin's boyfriend 'levi'.
but what dawned on me is... SHE'S 17!!!! holy crap. if that dude is 18 or older... and alaska has a statutory rape law.... how in the world can that guy not be prosecuted when you consider the plight of genarlo wilson, the young black man here in georgia who was locked up for years (on a 10 year sentence) for giving a rim job to a 15 year old when he was 17. (yeah, the laws are different but...)
ok. here's the answer in terms of the alaskan law...
The age of consent is defined as 16 years old, according to Alaska statutory rape laws. If a person who is at least 18 years old engages in sexual activity with a person who is 16 years old or younger, he or she will be charged with sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. This charge is a felony in Alaska. And remember, it does not matter if you did not force or threaten the other person into performing this sexual act with you. It is still a crime under Alaska statutory rape laws.
Any person who is 16 years old or older who has sexual intercourse with a minor who is 13-, 14-, or 15-years-old will be charged with sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. Again, this charge is also a felony.
You can also be charged with a felony – sexual abuse in the third degree – if you are at least 16 years old and you have sex with anyone who is age 13-15, or if the person is a minor at least three years younger than you. In addition, Alaska statutory rape laws declare that anyone who is 18 years old or older who has sex with a person who is 16 or 17, or who is at least three years younger than the offender, can be charged with sexual abuse in the third degree. This is also a felony.
so, the boyfriend/soon to be husband could be charged sexual abuse in the third degree. a felony.
my guess, and i'm calling it here first, is that the 'they're going to get married' angle is as much to protect the young man against the inevitable calls for his arrest as it is because the two are 'meant to be'....
it was either a rim or a blow. can't remember. it was, though, caught on tape by someone and that's what led to his arrest.
what was interesting about his case is that the family of the girl not only did not want the case prosecuted, they worked for years to try and help free him.
if 'levi' was, in fact, 18 or older, surely gov. palin would know that, under the alaskan law, that levi had committed a felony (and one, i'll wager, does not need the victim to prosecute).
if she knew that he committed a felony, did she, as an officer of the law, follow her constitutional duty (the alaskan constitution) and turn the young man's name over for prosecution? if not, why not? was she, however inadvertently, obstructing justice? even in the best case scenario, does she think that her daughter's lover is above the law? or is it simply that she wished, like so many other parents, to protect him and her from an added layer of suffering? again, my guess is that in the end, we'll find out the marriage is to protect him and her - she wouldn't be able to testify against him and would make difficult for any jury to convict him based on the circumstances.
it's a worthy question for gov. palin to answer - it would speak volumes about her integrity and ability to put the rule of law above her own personal ambitions or situations. don't be surprised if she has to withdraw this week, if the angle i've outlined above is true....
dudes, get over it. this happens to many families. teenagers have sex. and yes, sometimes they forget condoms. they get preggers and we have to pay for it because some idiots in congress won't allow us to have over-the-counter emergency contraception.
if you dems want to win this election, don't play this game. you're no good at it and it will come back and bite you in the end. remember how much of an ass kerry looked like when he mentioned cheney's lesbian daughter? you have a great potential president. don't fuck it up for him.
genarlo wilson RECIEVED a blow job. It wasn't statutory rape, because he was also underage and there are provisions for similar ages to have consenting sex but it only applies to vaginal sex.... so recieving a blowjob was considered "child molestation". It's from a law that's like 100 years old and I believe being removed from the books because of his ordeal.
What a country we live in... what kind of DA would prosocute that?
how do people "forget" a condom? it's the most basic, obvious tool required to not be an idiot when having sex. it's complacency like this that leads to an astronomical 35% of all american pregnancies leading to abortion. and (nearly) all of those pregnancies would have been fully preventable if they had known a little bit about reality and spent the 50 cents and 10 seconds of their life on a condom.
also, she's lucky that the alaska law allows two 16 years olds to legally have sex. in many states, two 16 year olds having consentual sex would be prosecutable as statutory rape by both partners involved (i.e. they were both statutorily raping each other).
to DJ Tanner "...some idiots in congress won't allow us to have over-the-counter emergency contraception." Just what "idiots" are these? Certainly not "you dems."
Her pregnancy is sort of the result of the republican agenda of abstinence only education. Sort of fitting in a messed up way suppose.
Whats really disgusting about the whole situation is the way she threw her own family under the bus on this. She knew full well going into the campaign this stuff would come out, it was all over the alaska newspapers and she went head long into it.
It still seems like suspicious cover up for the possibility of the 5th child with down syndrome being her daughters also. All of this was admitted to avoid people questioning if the 5th child was hers. The 5 months pregnant is to show the other child (born 4 months ago) can't be hers. There still hasn't been any papers released and documents are "missing". A few simple documents would shut everyone up and take her kids out of the spotlight during what must be a very difficult time for them and the other family involved.
Poczatek - maybe it would be better to acknowledge that Bristol Palin's pregnancy does little to prove the effectiveness of abstinence-only education. Best of luck to Bristol, I say.
in no way have i, as the originator of the thread, implied anything about a pro-life agenda (i am personally anti-abortion), nor that i wish anything but the best for bristol and her husband to be in that regard.
however, (and knowing now that it has been confirmed that the boyfriend is 18, although i'm not sure if he was at the time), my point for the thread is thus:
we are being asked to elect a candidate to be a heartbeat (or skin cancer gone wrong) away from being elected. her character and judgment are absolutely fair game. we already know she is under investigation for allegedly abusing her power in one instance. my question is did she do it again here?
where does she see the limits of her obligation as a civil servant to uphold the law?
does she believe she has the right to ignore the law if it's only a 'little white crime', where no one got hurt?
these are legitimate questions for gov. palin. the rest of what is being examined in the press is pretty much worthless to me.
Her pregnancy is sort of the result of the republican agenda of abstinence only education
Translation: unplanned pregnancy happens, especially by teenagers who don't understand biology, and the proponents of abstinence-only education are choosing to totally ignore study after study finding that abstinence-only doesn't work.
Sort of fitting in a messed up way (I) suppose
OK, that sentence does sound a bit judgmental, you're right, but it's mild and IMO tinged with sadness. NO ONE wants to see teenagers get pregnant. But no one here is saying this baby is a mistake, or an abortion gone wrong, or the 17 year old is a trollop, or whatever.
The questions in ALL personal politician scandals is: were any laws broken? When Larry Craig solicited bathroom sex: the solicitation is illegal, the sex itself isn't. When David Vitter hired a prostitute: the hiring of prostitution is illegal, the sex and cheating on his wife isn't. When Clinton got a blow job in the oval office, it wise unbelievably poor judgement, but I can't off the top of my head think of anything illegal about it unless it was non-consensual.
laru is asking that: in this scenario, did anything illegal actually happen? Because if it did, *that* is reasonable grounds for public questioning.
I suppose that's your translation of what i said. Personally the concept of a pregnancy as "payback" is pretty terrible.
Since you've questioned it, what i think it is, is a example of the failure of the abstinence only education model. With someone so outspoken as Palin was on these issues you can be sure the message was loud and clear to her children. Abstinence is the only option. We also know it didn't work, it rarely does as all studies have shown. I think whats sad is our inability to get past the religious beliefs, as someone has interpreted them, to prevent pregnancy before any of these decisions need to be made. I think to not take seriously all steps possible to prevent teen pregnancy is a crime. To call it only a blessing and not examine the downfalls also associated it with sends the wrong message.
As far as abortion i'm going to leave that alone since that will only bring in an unrelated debate.
The overwhelming acceptance by conservatives of Sarah Palin’s daughters’ pregnancy is a case of hypocrisy not criminality. I find it incredulous that conservatives are shielding Palin with Alaska’s State Law. When have conservatives cared about “the law” when arguing ethics or morality? When it comes to sexual morality, conservatives usually disregard, even denigrate laws that don’t align with the teachings of their religious leaders. To get a true reading on the conservative ideology regarding statutory rape one need only look at the laws in the red state where they have made the moral and legal determination of what constitutes statutory rape. Where conservative ethics directly translate into state law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent ) one must conclude that there was a rapist being glorified at the republican convention.
With such love in your heart, I trust that you and other Christians will be making your way to the red states to try to free the hundreds of poor, mainly minority young men doing hard time in prison for statutory rape. Keep us informed of your progress and good luck. Let us know how many of them you put back on the streets.
DR, I believe statutory rape is a misdemeanor in the Great state of Texas, therefore, we have no young men doing hard time for it. So I guess they're all back on the streets.
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony. "
"Texas
§ 22. 011
Sexual assault for anyone to intentionally or knowingly penetrate a person under age 17, other than his spouse. ......
Two to 20 years in prison"
All politics aside, I don't like the implication that is being broadcast to young women throughout this country. To wit: It's not so bad to make a mistake and get pregnant. Our political leaders will not only forgive but almost glorify your decision should you decide to keep the baby. Your “Christian” parents will take care of the child and certainly not separate the child from his/her mother which means the mother gets a free meal ticket.
And we know darn well, that had it been a democratic politician whose underage, unwed daughter got pregnant, we would have heard a very different response from the republicans. The parents would be demonized for poor parenting, lack of family values, teaching sex education, etc.
I am a Christian and I am sick and tired of being judged by other Christians for my political affiliations.
Christians are forgiving people, of that there is no doubt, but they forgive republicans far more then democrats.
Texas prosecutes what many other states consider statutory rape as sexual assault since it carries a stiffer penalty and sounds more ominous to a jury. I could amend my previous post to describe Palins’ future son in law as a sexual predator if you like.
Sep 4, 08 5:54 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
bristol palin - statutory rape?
i've been looking for info but no one seems to have posted anything about bristol palin's boyfriend 'levi'.
but what dawned on me is... SHE'S 17!!!! holy crap. if that dude is 18 or older... and alaska has a statutory rape law.... how in the world can that guy not be prosecuted when you consider the plight of genarlo wilson, the young black man here in georgia who was locked up for years (on a 10 year sentence) for giving a rim job to a 15 year old when he was 17. (yeah, the laws are different but...)
just asking...
rim job? seriously?
ok. here's the answer in terms of the alaskan law...
The age of consent is defined as 16 years old, according to Alaska statutory rape laws. If a person who is at least 18 years old engages in sexual activity with a person who is 16 years old or younger, he or she will be charged with sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. This charge is a felony in Alaska. And remember, it does not matter if you did not force or threaten the other person into performing this sexual act with you. It is still a crime under Alaska statutory rape laws.
Any person who is 16 years old or older who has sexual intercourse with a minor who is 13-, 14-, or 15-years-old will be charged with sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. Again, this charge is also a felony.
You can also be charged with a felony – sexual abuse in the third degree – if you are at least 16 years old and you have sex with anyone who is age 13-15, or if the person is a minor at least three years younger than you. In addition, Alaska statutory rape laws declare that anyone who is 18 years old or older who has sex with a person who is 16 or 17, or who is at least three years younger than the offender, can be charged with sexual abuse in the third degree. This is also a felony.
so, the boyfriend/soon to be husband could be charged sexual abuse in the third degree. a felony.
my guess, and i'm calling it here first, is that the 'they're going to get married' angle is as much to protect the young man against the inevitable calls for his arrest as it is because the two are 'meant to be'....
it was either a rim or a blow. can't remember. it was, though, caught on tape by someone and that's what led to his arrest.
what was interesting about his case is that the family of the girl not only did not want the case prosecuted, they worked for years to try and help free him.
Something tells me Levi isn't a Orthodox Jew....then again maybe is from the Chabad Lubavitch Jewish Sect . That would make for a wild story!
my reasoning for asking is thus:
if 'levi' was, in fact, 18 or older, surely gov. palin would know that, under the alaskan law, that levi had committed a felony (and one, i'll wager, does not need the victim to prosecute).
if she knew that he committed a felony, did she, as an officer of the law, follow her constitutional duty (the alaskan constitution) and turn the young man's name over for prosecution? if not, why not? was she, however inadvertently, obstructing justice? even in the best case scenario, does she think that her daughter's lover is above the law? or is it simply that she wished, like so many other parents, to protect him and her from an added layer of suffering? again, my guess is that in the end, we'll find out the marriage is to protect him and her - she wouldn't be able to testify against him and would make difficult for any jury to convict him based on the circumstances.
it's a worthy question for gov. palin to answer - it would speak volumes about her integrity and ability to put the rule of law above her own personal ambitions or situations. don't be surprised if she has to withdraw this week, if the angle i've outlined above is true....
dudes, get over it. this happens to many families. teenagers have sex. and yes, sometimes they forget condoms. they get preggers and we have to pay for it because some idiots in congress won't allow us to have over-the-counter emergency contraception.
if you dems want to win this election, don't play this game. you're no good at it and it will come back and bite you in the end. remember how much of an ass kerry looked like when he mentioned cheney's lesbian daughter? you have a great potential president. don't fuck it up for him.
just fyi:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/09/01/2008-09-01_bristol_palins_pregnancy_was_an_open_sec.html
"They've been together quite a while, more than a year"
genarlo wilson RECIEVED a blow job. It wasn't statutory rape, because he was also underage and there are provisions for similar ages to have consenting sex but it only applies to vaginal sex.... so recieving a blowjob was considered "child molestation". It's from a law that's like 100 years old and I believe being removed from the books because of his ordeal.
What a country we live in... what kind of DA would prosocute that?
Bristol is certainly an all american girl.
10 years for a rim job, I here its also a felony to have sex with your shoes on in Georgia.
how do people "forget" a condom? it's the most basic, obvious tool required to not be an idiot when having sex. it's complacency like this that leads to an astronomical 35% of all american pregnancies leading to abortion. and (nearly) all of those pregnancies would have been fully preventable if they had known a little bit about reality and spent the 50 cents and 10 seconds of their life on a condom.
also, she's lucky that the alaska law allows two 16 years olds to legally have sex. in many states, two 16 year olds having consentual sex would be prosecutable as statutory rape by both partners involved (i.e. they were both statutorily raping each other).
nicholas - maybe he had "a wardrobe failure"
to DJ Tanner "...some idiots in congress won't allow us to have over-the-counter emergency contraception." Just what "idiots" are these? Certainly not "you dems."
while it's probably a good idea to have emergency contraception available, shouldn't we be smart enough to use regular contraception ahead of time?
The morning after pill is abortion.
Bristol is a little doe eyed cutie.
"Well, if I'd known it was a statue, I wouldn't have bothered."
--Rip Taylor
The morning after pill is *not* abortion.
zoolander you talk a lot but I rarely hear any facts.
What the Puck was the Second Dude thinking?
hi LB!
Her pregnancy is sort of the result of the republican agenda of abstinence only education. Sort of fitting in a messed up way suppose.
Whats really disgusting about the whole situation is the way she threw her own family under the bus on this. She knew full well going into the campaign this stuff would come out, it was all over the alaska newspapers and she went head long into it.
It still seems like suspicious cover up for the possibility of the 5th child with down syndrome being her daughters also. All of this was admitted to avoid people questioning if the 5th child was hers. The 5 months pregnant is to show the other child (born 4 months ago) can't be hers. There still hasn't been any papers released and documents are "missing". A few simple documents would shut everyone up and take her kids out of the spotlight during what must be a very difficult time for them and the other family involved.
This thread is disgusting.
Their baby is a blessing. It's not a mistake, or an Abortion gone wrong....
You're the only one saying that, Poczatek. No one else here has said anything remotely implying what you just said.
"Her pregnancy is sort of the result of the republican agenda of abstinence only education. Sort of fitting in a messed up way suppose."
Translation: "Her unwanted pregnancy is payback for her mother's Ilk and their pro-life aganda"
Levi is destined to be the Fall Guy.....bet he tails his ass out of Alaska in a hurry!
Poczatek - maybe it would be better to acknowledge that Bristol Palin's pregnancy does little to prove the effectiveness of abstinence-only education. Best of luck to Bristol, I say.
poczatek -
in no way have i, as the originator of the thread, implied anything about a pro-life agenda (i am personally anti-abortion), nor that i wish anything but the best for bristol and her husband to be in that regard.
however, (and knowing now that it has been confirmed that the boyfriend is 18, although i'm not sure if he was at the time), my point for the thread is thus:
we are being asked to elect a candidate to be a heartbeat (or skin cancer gone wrong) away from being elected. her character and judgment are absolutely fair game. we already know she is under investigation for allegedly abusing her power in one instance. my question is did she do it again here?
where does she see the limits of her obligation as a civil servant to uphold the law?
does she believe she has the right to ignore the law if it's only a 'little white crime', where no one got hurt?
these are legitimate questions for gov. palin. the rest of what is being examined in the press is pretty much worthless to me.
Translation: unplanned pregnancy happens, especially by teenagers who don't understand biology, and the proponents of abstinence-only education are choosing to totally ignore study after study finding that abstinence-only doesn't work.
Sort of fitting in a messed up way (I) suppose
OK, that sentence does sound a bit judgmental, you're right, but it's mild and IMO tinged with sadness. NO ONE wants to see teenagers get pregnant. But no one here is saying this baby is a mistake, or an abortion gone wrong, or the 17 year old is a trollop, or whatever.
The questions in ALL personal politician scandals is: were any laws broken? When Larry Craig solicited bathroom sex: the solicitation is illegal, the sex itself isn't. When David Vitter hired a prostitute: the hiring of prostitution is illegal, the sex and cheating on his wife isn't. When Clinton got a blow job in the oval office, it wise unbelievably poor judgement, but I can't off the top of my head think of anything illegal about it unless it was non-consensual.
laru is asking that: in this scenario, did anything illegal actually happen? Because if it did, *that* is reasonable grounds for public questioning.
I suppose that's your translation of what i said. Personally the concept of a pregnancy as "payback" is pretty terrible.
Since you've questioned it, what i think it is, is a example of the failure of the abstinence only education model. With someone so outspoken as Palin was on these issues you can be sure the message was loud and clear to her children. Abstinence is the only option. We also know it didn't work, it rarely does as all studies have shown. I think whats sad is our inability to get past the religious beliefs, as someone has interpreted them, to prevent pregnancy before any of these decisions need to be made. I think to not take seriously all steps possible to prevent teen pregnancy is a crime. To call it only a blessing and not examine the downfalls also associated it with sends the wrong message.
As far as abortion i'm going to leave that alone since that will only bring in an unrelated debate.
That was directed at Poczatek btw, not Liberty.
The overwhelming acceptance by conservatives of Sarah Palin’s daughters’ pregnancy is a case of hypocrisy not criminality. I find it incredulous that conservatives are shielding Palin with Alaska’s State Law. When have conservatives cared about “the law” when arguing ethics or morality? When it comes to sexual morality, conservatives usually disregard, even denigrate laws that don’t align with the teachings of their religious leaders. To get a true reading on the conservative ideology regarding statutory rape one need only look at the laws in the red state where they have made the moral and legal determination of what constitutes statutory rape. Where conservative ethics directly translate into state law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent ) one must conclude that there was a rapist being glorified at the republican convention.
DR, Christian teaching says to shun the SIN, not the SINNER.
To everybody, its really not hypocracy, its more of a "Dont do this, but you did, and we still love you, and will stand by you."
Sarah,
With such love in your heart, I trust that you and other Christians will be making your way to the red states to try to free the hundreds of poor, mainly minority young men doing hard time in prison for statutory rape. Keep us informed of your progress and good luck. Let us know how many of them you put back on the streets.
DR, I believe statutory rape is a misdemeanor in the Great state of Texas, therefore, we have no young men doing hard time for it. So I guess they're all back on the streets.
Also, there is a 3 year rule whereby if one partner is 16, the other could be as old as 19.
Sarah,
"Texas
TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
CHAPTER 21. SEXUAL OFFENSES
.......
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony. "
"Texas
§ 22. 011
Sexual assault for anyone to intentionally or knowingly penetrate a person under age 17, other than his spouse. ......
Two to 20 years in prison"
Sounds like hard time to me.
Interesting the way that law is worded with regard to gender.
j,
All politics aside, I don't like the implication that is being broadcast to young women throughout this country. To wit: It's not so bad to make a mistake and get pregnant. Our political leaders will not only forgive but almost glorify your decision should you decide to keep the baby. Your “Christian” parents will take care of the child and certainly not separate the child from his/her mother which means the mother gets a free meal ticket.
And we know darn well, that had it been a democratic politician whose underage, unwed daughter got pregnant, we would have heard a very different response from the republicans. The parents would be demonized for poor parenting, lack of family values, teaching sex education, etc.
I am a Christian and I am sick and tired of being judged by other Christians for my political affiliations.
Christians are forgiving people, of that there is no doubt, but they forgive republicans far more then democrats.
DR, thats sexual assault, not statutory rape.
Also, as a Christian, I don't care what your political affiliations are.
Sarah,
Texas prosecutes what many other states consider statutory rape as sexual assault since it carries a stiffer penalty and sounds more ominous to a jury. I could amend my previous post to describe Palins’ future son in law as a sexual predator if you like.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.