JS: thanks for the expert feedback. I’ve located the report on the Times on-line site
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article4629535.ece
This will amplify &/or correct the version I constructed from memory
Note first that the girl was only 11 when the hanky-panky started — quite a precocious lass to be cyber-seducing a 19-year old. Next, as my prev email indicated, it was not a question of the defendant’s guilt, which was freely admitted, but an appeal against the jail sentence already passed -- he was seeking a more lenient, non-custodial sentence on the grounds that the girl not only consented but actively initiated the liaison.
So, it would seem that UK and USA law agree that “underage consent” is NO DEFENSE” but I’m not clear whether the two systems share the same attitude when it comes to level of punisment.
skb
On 06/09/2008 18:01, "Nabokv-L" <nabokv-l@UTK.EDU> wrote:
Subject:
Re: [NABOKV-L] Lolita in America ...
From:
james studdard <studlaw2000@yahoo.com> <mailto:studlaw2000@yahoo.com>
Date:
Sat, 6 Sep 2008 05:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
To:
Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU> <mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
To SKB:
I have not seen the Times legal report either. However, accepting your narrative and juxtaposing it with USA law I can assure you (after 38 years of practicing criminal law) that a child under the age of (in this country) 16 cannot, absolutely, positively, end of story, give consent to sexual goings on. I have handled many cases where the child was 15, looked 25, but, alas it is the birthdate and not the appearance that controls. As to the (alleged) victim's sexual history, I will suggest that it is inadmissible into evidence protected by our "Rape Shield Law." Of course the logic behind the law is that a woman (or a man) can consent to sex a dozen times and refuse once and the gentleman or gentle lady who transgresses that one time will be found guilty of rape. These considerations rarely enter the minds of a pederast (the correct name for a pedophile). Usually, a practiced sexual predator knows the law and always seeks concealment of the fact.
BTW, HH would have never conveyed his amorous intentions via Email. His ego would have prevented it. HH needed the exhilaration of the empirical "reaction" "expression" etc. I have no doubt, however, that Lolita would have burned up cyber-space with her fantasies. JS
Search the archive <http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu=en> Contact the Editors <mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu> Visit "Nabokov Online Journal" <http://www.nabokovonline.com>
Visit Zembla <http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm> View Nabokv-L Policies <http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm> Manage subscription options <http://listserv.ucsb.edu/>
All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.