Spent some real time looking over NY Sex Statutes, and I'm real glad Epstein's is a Federal Case ...

[mr_lebowski]

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm

*** TRIGGER WARNING ***

To start, please ... don't shoot the messenger, I had no idea what 'the laws' were like, I was just curious due to all the discussions going on, and thought I'd share what I read

So, I pored over these laws pretty thoroughly, with the lawyer's spiel and the accusations in mind today ... and get this ... someone of Epstein's age diddling a "consenting" 14 year old, under NY law ... if there's no penile penetration, nor 'oral' (performed by either party) of some sort?

(and before you say 'but she can't consent' ... turns out that's legalese, not literal)

It's considered a Class B misdemeanor,

130.55 Sexual abuse in the third degree

... and here I quote from another article on NY law: "The lowest degree of sexual abuse is a class B misdemeanor and thus subject to a sentence of up to 3 months in prison, a fine of up to $500, or both."

Yeah ... for real

On another thread I saw much gnashing of teeth over the seeming technicality of 'lack of penetration', but in fact, under NY law? The possible sentences show that actually it is (up to) 28X worse of a penalty for penetration or oral with a 14 year old vs. 'sexual contact'. It's Misdemeanor vs. Felony. While we may find it irrelevant, it's not a trivial distinction, legally-speaking. I'm just saying.

And to be clear, I'm not buying Epstein's lawyers present claims that there was no 'penetration', but that's what they're trying out at this point.

BUT ... if he had "consensual" sex with a 15 or 16 year old, it would be

Rape/Criminal sexual act in the third degree

a Class E Felony, punishable by 'up to 4 years'.

Or, if with a 13-14 year old, that would be

Rape/Criminal sexual act in the second degree

a Class D Felony, punishable by 'up to 7 years'.

Granted a whole bunch of those charges added up could amount to some serious time, but there's basically no 'minimum time' specified on any of these charges, which is the thing that would concern me most about the scenario if these were not Federal, more serious charges.

As a side note, the notion that 'unable to consent' is synonymous with 'your consent as the minor party is irrelevant' ... is mistaken, legally.

I say this because, in contrast, if ANY victim >12 years old actively DOES NOT consent, OR is 12 or under (in which case they literally 'cannot consent', period), any sex then is considered 'forcible sex', and becomes

Rape/Criminal sexual act in the first degree

which is a Class B felony, punishable by 5-25 years.

So a pervert's max penalty under NY law is up to nearly 9 times greater, with 5 year min vs. no min ... for sex with a 13-16 year old ... if they DON'T "consent", vs. if they do.

To wrap up ... even though you're legally unable to "consent" at <17 yo in NY state ... it still legally "matters" whether you do or don't.

A paradox, to be sure. But an interesting question is ... would we want it to be different?

[honest.abe]

1. I was suspecting something like this.

No doubt he had his lawyers predetermine what he could get away with. However, I think there will be other charges that will stick more tightly like the nude photos they found which would trigger child porn/exploitation charges. Also, I suspect he is lying and there are probably a few cases where there was some sort of "penetration". He seems like the type that is willing to take a risk for pleasure.

Hope they make an example out of this guy. If he gets away with this I fear there will be others who might get the idea this type of behavior is legal.

[blogslut]

2. He's been charged with sex trafficking and trafficking minors for sex

I don't know what NY state laws are but this is more than just a consent issue.