Editor’s note: Editors Kristin Palpini and Jeff Good couldn’t come to an agreement on how to interpret the Labrie decisions, so they wrote their own opinion pieces.
Jeffrey Good:
There is no doubt that Owen Labrie was guilty of being an oaf, a striver and a young man who failed to respect the dignity of a younger classmate at the elite New Hampshire prep school where he was a top student.
But does that make Labrie a rapist, a felon and a man so dangerous that he must wear the label of sex offender for the rest of his days?
No, no and, emphatically, no.
By now, you know the basics: Labrie was an 18-year-old senior whose encounter with a 15-year-old freshman in a mechanical room at St. Paul’s School led to his trial on charges ranging from “aggravated felonious sexual assault” to using computer services to “seduce, lure, or entice” an underage girl.
The case became a media sensation, with Labrie not only facing the charges in this particular case but also standing as a symbol of a broader “rape culture.”
After hearing a full range of evidence, the jury acquitted Labrie of all three of the aggravated felonious sexual assault — i.e. rape — charges. To make those charges stick, prosecutors had to establish that the girl had not consented to sex with Labrie. In the end, jurors concluded that accusation had not been proven.
Instead, they convicted Labrie of three misdemeanors whose proof consisted simply of establishing that he was 18 and she was not yet 16, New Hampshire’s legal age of consent. And, in the decision that could leave him branded as a felon and a sex offender, they convicted him of using computer services — i.e. email and Facebook — to invite the girl.
This law was designed to keep predators from trolling the Internet for victims. But in this case it was applied to Labrie because had communicated with the girl in the same way that most teenagers (and most adults) communicate — electronically.
Much has been made of the online messages Labrie sent to his pals about his method for “slaying” girls in their cynical competition for conquests. He wrote to one: “Feign intimacy … then stab them in the back … THROW EM IN THE DUMPSTER.”
Those words, and the attitude they reflect, are appalling. They rightly spark outrage and underscore the need to teach young people — males especially — about a mutually respectful sexual culture. But, as infuriating as they are, they don’t constitute a felony offense.
No, in Owen Labrie’s case, the offense was being a jerk not in the locker room but on the Internet. In a society looking for easy scapegoats rather than complex solutions, he provided yet another way for us to avoid our own culpability.
Kristin Palpini:
An inability to convict someone on rape charges does not mean a rape didn’t occur — women have known this since the advent of the court system. It’s why only 3 percent of accused rapists ever spend any time in jail.
While the courts have ruled, the court of public opinion is still debating whether the victim consented to the sexual encounter with Labrie. This is bizarre because, according to the testimony of Labrie and the victim, she clearly did not consent.
The problem is, in the courts — and larger society — consent means no one heard “no.”
What consent actually is, however, is an enthusiastic “yes” from all involved. That didn’t happen that night in the secluded mechanical room to which Labrie had the keys.
Consent is not a constant. It can be given and rescinded in a matter of seconds. It can also be restored. Labrie got to have the sexual encounter on his terms. He was able to end it without even saying a word to the victim.
“I was standing over the blanket looking down at [her], and I thought to myself, maybe we shouldn’t do this,” Labrie said during testimony. “It wouldn’t have been a good move to have sex with this girl.” So he put his pants back on and left.
The victim didn’t have this opportunity. She says she felt “frozen” and fearful of Labrie and how her actions would be seen by all the people he would undoubtedly tell about this “salute.” The 15-year-old girl in the locked tower with the 18-year-old man says she said “no.”
That night Labrie had a plan to “slay” the girl and he definitely didn’t want to know if this was what she wanted. He didn’t care to ask.
In the verdict and sentencing the court upheld its definition of consent which continues to put women everywhere in danger. But on some lesser sexual assault charges Labrie was hit with guilty verdicts that landed him a one-year jail sentence, probation and a lifelong spot on the sex offender registry.
Some argue these laws were meant to catch sexual predators, not teens having consensual sex with each other. I agree. And in this case, they were properly applied. Labrie is a predator. Labrie is a sex offender.
While this form of sexual violence has long been accepted as regular, though mischievous, male teen behavior, it’s time for the U.S. to stop codling rapists and hold them accountable. Cracking down on Labrie was a good start.
