The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

British Jury Acquits Lesbian, 40, Who Had Drunk Sex With Girl, 15

Posted on | April 17, 2014 | 20 Comments

The legal age of consent in England is 16, and if you tell a jury you didn’t know your partner’s age, you may go scot-free:

A female radio DJ who had sex with a 15-year-old girl after plying her with vodka has walked free from court because she did not know the teenager’s real age.
Emma Stanfield, 40, said she thought the girl was 16 and only found out her true age the morning after the night they spent together at her Oxford apartment.
The prosecution claimed that Ms Stanfield knew the girl was underage and then ‘recklessly’ pursued her, leaving her 29 missed calls and more than 100 Facebook messages in the days that followed.
However, the jury instead believed the emotional DJ’s account and she was acquitted of three counts of sexual activity with a child and one of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
Ms Stanfield met the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, on the afternoon of May 28 last year.
The DJ had stayed over at a friend’s house following a night out drinking in Oxford on May 27.
Her friend had left to go to work the following morning, leaving Ms Stanfield alone in the house with her friend’s 16-year-old daughter.
The jury heard Ms Stanfield and the young girl began drinking vodka and shared a kiss.
That girl then said she was not attracted to women but said her bisexual best friend was coming over soon.
Soon after [the bisexual best friend] arrived, Ms Stanfield gave the girl vodka and straddled her on the sofa with her top off, kissing her.
The DJ claimed she thought the bisexual girl was also aged 16 years, but prosecutors said both girls had made her aware that she was only 15 at the time.
Ms Stanfield said the girl was ‘very keen’ after they had kissed and fondled on the sofa.
She then left to present her 4-7pm radio show on community radio station OX105FM.
She returned to the house after 7pm and the girl asked to go back to her flat in Chapel Street, Oxford, where they had sex that night. . . .
Ms Stanfield said in her evidence: ‘We got up — it was quite early — and she said ‘there’s something I need to tell you.’
‘She told me her real age. She told me she had lied and she was really 15.’ . . .
In the days that followed, Ms Stanfield sent the girl more than 100 Facebook messages, including asking her if she enjoyed oral sex.
‘I really like you, I want you to know that and I would like you to be my girlfriend,’ she wrote.
The jury at Oxford Crown Court took just over 90 minutes to return their verdicts after the three-day trial.
As the verdicts were read out, Ms Stanfield gave a huge sigh of relief and said ‘thank you’ to the jury.

So, if you’re a 40-year-old lesbian giving vodka to a 15-year-old girl, having sex with her, asking her to be your girlfriend — perfectly OK in England, as long as you say you thought she was 16.

Of course, if Emma Stansfield had made a video of her teen lesbian vodka sex romp and put it on the Internet, you could go to federal prison for watching it. Meanwhile, in New Jersey:

A teenage boy sent nude pictures and sexually explicit videos of his ex-girlfriend to another girl, police said.
Now both the sender and the recipient are charged with distributing child pornography, authorities said.
A 16-year-old West Orange boy and a 16-year-old Little Falls girl were each charged with distributing child pornography under the state’s endangering the welfare of children statute, said Sgt. James Briggs of the Little Falls police.
The West Orange boy allegedly texted eight nude pictures of a 17-year-old Woodland Park girl to the Little Falls female, Briggs said. The Little Falls girl then showed the pictures to numerous other juveniles — and may have posted them to a social media site, police allege.
The Woodland Park girl is the ex-girlfriend of the West Orange boy, Briggs confirmed. Both teenage girls are students at Passaic Valley High School, the sergeant added.
The Little Falls girl also allegedly sent other videos and pictures of underage teenagers engaged in sexual acts to other local juveniles, Briggs said.

If you keep track of stories like this, you may have observed a noticeable drift in one direction. And it’s not a good direction.

One can foresee a time — in a few years, maybe — when basically every teenager will have a nude selfie online somewhere. The amateur teen porn stuff will just flood onto the Internet, so much of it that law enforcement will be powerless to stop it.

Once it becomes pervasive, we’ll see op-ed columnists in the New York Times telling us it’s not so bad that your 10th-grader has got an iPhone full of his classmates’ naked pictures and sex videos.

This Is Just How Kids Are in the 21st Century, the experts will say, and there will be tut-tutting about “old-fashioned” parents who object to their children’s nude photos being shared around via text-messages and email. It’s not difficult to imagine a Youth Liberation movement arguing for liberalization of child-pornography laws to create loopholes that will in effect legalize pornography created by kids themselves. And once it’s legal to log on and watch live streaming video of high school orgies . . .

The Road to Hell is paved with “rights.”

 

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • https://twitter.com/Mthomps016 M. Thompson

    “Rights talk” is nothing but a zero sum game these days.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    There are 13 US states which allow a “mistaken age” defense to statutory rape charges.

    There have been several prosecutions of teenagers for child porn over taking and sharing naked or sexual photos and videos of themselves. While it seems odd at first, it may be the only way to stop or slow the trend.

  • Anon Y. Mous

    So, if you’re a 40-year-old lesbian giving vodka to a 15-year-old girl, having sex with her, asking her to be your girlfriend — perfectly OK in England, as long as you say you thought she was 16.

    Of course, if Emma Stansfield had made a video of her teen lesbian vodka sex romp and put it on the Internet, you could go to federal prison for watching it.

    You don’t have to go all the way to England to run into that issue. The age of consent in the various US states:

    –age of consent 16 (31): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia

    –age of consent 17 (8): Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Wyoming

    –age of consent 18 (12): Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin

    But, the US federal law against child pornography uses the age of 18, and it applies in all states, regardless of the age of consent in any particular state.

    The only real difference with England is the drinking age. You have to be 18 to buy alcohol on your own, but there are no restrictions on juveniles over the age of 5 as far as drinking at a private residence.

    Or perhaps you are most disturbed by the idea that even though she was underage, if one thought she was of age, that would be a viable defense in England. But, is that really so bad? Does it seem better that even if it can be proven that the minor lied and claimed they were of age, perhaps even showing a fake id, that it is never a valid defense in the USA? I can see wanting to make sure that doesn’t become so easy to use the defense that anyone can get away with it based only on their word. But, it is not justice to send someone to prison if they were actually tricked into a situation that they tried to avoid because the minor lied about their age.

  • Anon Y. Mous

    I’m surprised they didn’t go for the trifecta and charge the 17 yo with being part of the production of the child porn in this case.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    Sixteen?

    Holy crap! No wonder they have so much trouble with “grooming” in the UK.

    I mean, it’s bad everywhere, but it’s in the news all the freaking time in Britain.

  • Anon Y. Mous

    No, age of consent and marriageable age are two different things, although the ages are sometimes the same. Age of Consent specifically refers to the age at which a person can legally consent to having sex.

    Age of Consent here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws
    Marriageable Age here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_United_States_of_America

    Appearing nude? Not sure what you mean by that. Nudist colonies, for example, are allowed in many places and do not run afoul of child pornography laws.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    In the United States, we’d call it “jury nullification.”

  • Pingback: The Daley Gator | Lesbians get away with everything these days

  • MediaLuddite

    “Once it becomes pervasive, we’ll see op-ed columnists in the New York Times telling us it’s not so bad that your 10th-grader has got an iPhone full of his classmates’ naked pictures and sex videos.”

    This is already happening:

    http://www.npr.org/2014/04/15/303216933/teen-sexting-not-so-bad

    A professor named Rey Junco appears to be leading the movement

  • Puma

    Where have you been? The ACLU has already argued that prosecuting teenagers for taking naked pictures of themselves, and their girlfriends, or boyfriends is not “child pornography” and by not allowing them to do so limits their free expression. Numerous states already have exemptions for it, and it’s been brought up on the floor of the house to decriminalize it nationally. And I personally agree. Only by the strict letter of the law does it rise to a case of “child pornography” but in reality is a victimless crime, and prosecuting a teenager for taking either a photo of themselves or a boyfriend or girlfriend with their consent is hysteria, pointless, and destructive to that individual, their family, and society as whole.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Aldous Huxley predicted this all in Brave New World.

  • Pingback: British Jury acquits 40 year old lesbian who had drunk sex with a 15 year old… | Batshit Crazy News

  • petetheelder

    Its extremely destructive to them since you are talking about felony charges and permanent sex offender statues. If the punishment was reasonable, say $100 fine and do some community service or attend a class about responsible computer use that would be fine with me. But its a life ruining punishment for doing something stupid, not doing something intentionally harmful.

  • PUMA!

    Yeah, that’s my point. “Distributing Child Pornography” can land you in jail for 15 years, and put you on a sex offender registry for a lifetime. To apply that to a teenager making a nude selfie or taking a nude photo of their bf, or gf with consent, as if they were a child sex predator, is not only draconian, but completely insane. I suppose a class on responsible computer use is apt, but that seems like a feel good measure, and pretty useless. Their parents should be the one’s to handle it.

    What’s really amazing about all this, and shows what a corrupt, two-tiered, system of justice we have is that banks that knowingly launder drug money for mass murdering drug cartels are given a fine, but yet we’ll destroy a 16 years old life over a nude photo. Despicable.

  • PUMA!!

    I’m surprised about that too, especially in an era of prosecutorial overreach where those tasked with serving justice are more concerned with their careers, than actually doing their job. They let corporate and finance criminals go, who cause damage on a mass scale, but the most vulnerable like teens, and the poor, are lit up for decades for far less.

  • Pingback: @JayCarney Helps with Heavy Lifting | Regular Right Guy

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    You can find out reeeel quick by posting a nude photo of someone under the age of eighteen.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    “Exquisite little creature!” said the Director, looking after her.

    Then, turning to his students, “What I’m going to tell you now,” he said, “may
    sound incredible. But then, when you’re not accustomed to history, most facts
    about the past do sound incredible.”

    He let out the amazing truth. For a very long period before the time of Our
    Ford, and even for some generations afterwards, erotic play between children
    had been regarded as abnormal (there was a roar of laughter); and not only
    abnormal, actually immoral (no!): and had therefore been rigorously suppressed.

    A look of astonished incredulity appeared on the faces of his listeners. Poor little kids not allowed to amuse themselves? They could not believe it.

    “Even adolescents,” the D.H.C. was saying, “even adolescents like yourselves…”

    “Not possible!”

    “Barring a little surreptitious auto-erotism and homosexuality — absolutely nothing.”

    “Nothing?”

    “In most cases, till they were over twenty years old.”

    “Twenty years old?” echoed the students in a chorus of loud disbelief.

    “Twenty,” the Director repeated. “I told you that you’d find it incredible.”

  • Anon Y. Mous

    I don’t have a blog, and RSM has not given me permission to do any such thing on his blog. Plus, I don’t own any nude photos of children, so I wouldn’t have anything to post anyway.

    However, look up Sally Mann at Wikipedia. She published some artistic nudes of her 3 children. Some of those images can also be seen by doing an image search of sally mann at both google and bing. I won’t link since I don’t know how our host would feel about it, but they are not hard to find. I feel confident that both bing and google are lawyered up sufficiently so that if there were any issues with the legalities, you would not see these images at their sites.

  • Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Shout : The Other McCain