Showing posts with label New York. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York. Show all posts

Sunday, September 8, 2013

State of New York Still Prosecuting Consenting Adults


That's the impression given to me based on what I can read of this article by Mike Hibbard at fltimes.com. The article is partially hidden behind a pay wall, so I can only base this on what I could see for free.


Marvin Martin, 28, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Yates County Court to third-degree incest. The charge is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in prison.

That charge is for consensual sex. And notice the article says "having sex," which I consider entirely different than assaulting. "Having sex" implies mutual consent. This is what the law say in New York...
§ 255.25 Incest in the third degree. A person is guilty of incest in the third degree when he or she marries or engages in sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with a person whom he or she knows to be related to him or her, whether through marriage or not, as an ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or the half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. Incest in the third degree is a class E felony.
In New Jersey, this wouldn't be happening.

If this had been assault or molestation, he could have been charged with 1st or 2nd degree incest, which deal with assault.

If this was consensual, it shouldn't be a crime.

If this was assault, did the DA make a deal in exchange for the guilty plea? Someone who rapes someone else should face a lot more than four years in prison. Someone who has consensual sex with another adult shouldn't be arrested in the first place.

Here are the laws against assault of a family member...

§ 255.26 Incest in the second degree. A person is guilty of incest in the second degree when he or she commits the crime of rape in the second degree, as defined in section 130.30 of this part, or criminal sexual act in the second degree, as defined in section 130.45 of this part, against a person whom he or she knows to be related to him or her, whether through marriage or not, as an ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or the half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. Incest in the second degree is a class D felony.

§ 255.27 Incest in the first degree. A person is guilty of incest in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of rape in the first degree, as defined in subdivision three or four of section 130.35 of this part, or criminal sexual act in the first degree, as defined in subdivision three or four of section 130.50 of this part, against a person whom he or she knows to be related to him or her, whether through marriage or not, as an ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. Incest in the first degree is a class B felony.

If anyone in law enforcement or journalism, especially the ones involved in this case, what to explain, I'm all ears. You can leave a comment, including anonymously, if you'd like, and you have request in the comment for me to NOT publish it, if you'd like. Or you can email me. 

UPDATE Sept. 9 2013: 

A kind person responded to my email inquiry about this, telling me this was a plea deal. From the full article...

Martin pleaded guilty under an Alford plea, where a criminal defendant doesn’t admit an act but admits the prosecution could prove the charge. He was arrested earlier this year by state police, who allege Martin had sex with his sister dating back to 2006, when she was 15.

The arrest was not reported to the media. With the ages of 21 and 15, this was either rape or statutory rape. It this was a rape, the sentence limitations mean the sentence will be far too lenient. There are still unanswered questions, such as why it took until 2013 to arrest someone for something that happened in 2006. Was she so traumatized that she didn't come forward until this year? Or was this something law enforcement took up because of someone else's concerns? The laws need to be reformed. Remove separate laws against "incest," instead adding sentencing enhancements for rape/assault or molestation if it is by a guardian or someone with authority or power over the victim.

Monday, December 31, 2012

Another News Blurb Without Enough Information

I need to call more attention to examples of news reports that do contain enough information to get an idea of what is alleged to have happened in criminal cases. It can be done without compromising the identity of crime victims. When reports or "incest" are vague because law enforcement is not releasing enough information and newsrooms aren't asking enough questions before they publish items, we have no way of knowing if what is alleged to have happened was a matter of assault or consensual sex. Those are two very different things, and yet in many places, the latter is still treated as a criminal matter even though it shouldn't be.

The latest example I have is this blurb from wivb.com in Wellsville, New York by Liz Reiman...
A 16-year-boy of Wellsville was arrested Saturday around 4:30a.m. Sunday.

The youth was charged with Incest and was committed to the Allegany County Jail on $5,000 bail.

The 16-year-old, whose name has not been released,  is due back in Wellsville Village Court on January 15th at 1p.m.

That's it. A charge of "incest," without hearing a degree attached, doesn't tell us much at all. If this was a matter of assault, why isn't their a charge of assault or rape? If this was a matter of consensual sex between minors close in age (for example, with his 14-year-old niece, nephew, brother, or sister), and was reported by some freaked out family member or neighbor, then it is a far different matter than if you have, say, a 16-year-old assaulting an 8-year-old, but both could call under being "charged with Incest."

Another News Blurb Without Enough Information

I need to call more attention to examples of news reports that do contain enough information to get an idea of what is alleged to have happened in criminal cases. It can be done without compromising the identity of crime victims. When reports or "incest" are vague because law enforcement is not releasing enough information and newsrooms aren't asking enough questions before they publish items, we have no way of knowing if what is alleged to have happened was a matter of assault or consensual sex. Those are two very different things, and yet in many places, the latter is still treated as a criminal matter even though it shouldn't be.

The latest example I have is this blurb from wivb.com in Wellsville, New York by Liz Reiman...
A 16-year-boy of Wellsville was arrested Saturday around 4:30a.m. Sunday.

The youth was charged with Incest and was committed to the Allegany County Jail on $5,000 bail.

The 16-year-old, whose name has not been released,  is due back in Wellsville Village Court on January 15th at 1p.m.

That's it. A charge of "incest," without hearing a degree attached, doesn't tell us much at all. If this was a matter of assault, why isn't their a charge of assault or rape? If this was a matter of consensual sex between minors close in age (for example, with his 14-year-old niece, nephew, brother, or sister), and was reported by some freaked out family member or neighbor, then it is a far different matter than if you have, say, a 16-year-old assaulting an 8-year-old, but both could call under being "charged with Incest."

Saturday, June 25, 2011

New York Becomes 6th State to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage; California Next?

Albany, New York.  Last night, in a 33-29 vote, the New York Senate passed a same sex marriage bill expected to be signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo.  When this bill is signed by the governor, who lobbied for its passage, New York becomes the sixth state to legalize gay marriage.

A similar bill was defeated in New York in 2009.  The governor's persistent lobbying; some key Republican donors; an essentially absent Catholic Church; and voting senators that had gay family members, all factored into passage of the bill late Friday night.

Meanwhile, on the left coast, the seminal case from California continues its epic journey to the SCOTUS.  Perry vs Brown (formerly known as Perry vs Schwarzenegger) involves California's passage of Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage after it previously passed muster with California voters.  A conservative group sued in federal court; the ban was struck down, and the federal trial court's decision is now on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Vaughn Walker, the now-retired federal court judge that initially struck down Proposition 8, publicly came out as a gay man only after his recent retirement.  His ruling was immediately challenged based on grounds of bias, becoming the first judge in history to be challenged for recusal on the basis of sexual orientation.  The chief judge of the federal bench in San Francisco upheld Judge Walker's ruling.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Colombia are jurisdictions that all have previously legalized same sex marriage.

This has become the civil rights issue of our time.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Categories