MCGREGOR
WHAT DO Debra LaFave, Mary Kay Letourneau and Michael Jackson have in common? They were all charged in highly publicised cases of child molestation involving young boys. While there was unanimous outrage in respect of the allegations against Michael Jackson, public comments on the cases involving Letourneau and LaFave reveal that those cases evoked mixed reactions.
Some who were of the view that these crimes had no victims, because the teachers only made the boys' pubescent fantasies come true. For this reason, it is felt that the boys did not suffer any psychological trauma. Still others recognise that this represents a double standard, because the abuse of young boys by older women raises the same issues of abuse of power and control as cases in which young girls are abused by older men.
In 1997, Letourneau, a married 43-year-old teacher and mother of four, had sexual relations with her 13-year-old student, Vili Fualaau. Shortly after her arrest, she gave birth to Vili's first child, before pleading guilty and being sentenced to 89 months in prison. She served only six months in jail after accepting a condition to stay away from Vili after her release. As soon as Letourneau was released, she went right back to Vili which resulted in a seven-and-a-half-year prison term. While in prison, she had Vili's second child. They eventually got married in 2004 and lived together with their two daughters.
Nine years after Letourneau's case, LaFave did not have to ponder the 15-year prison term which the crime attracted. The victim (a 14-year-old boy) refused to give evidence against the beautiful 25-year-old blond teacher, who was charged for lewd or lascivious battery on him. She was sentenced to three years' house arrest and seven years' sex offender probation although she was a repeat offender.
NO PROTECTION IN JAMAICA
How would this play itself out in Jamaica? Certainly, neither LaFave nor Letourneau would be charged for statutory rape, because there is no provision in the Offences Against the Person Act to protect young boys against female sexual predators. Likewise, there is no statutory age of consent for boys to engage in sexual activities. So, is it then presumed that young boys who engage in sexual acts with adult women are capable of consenting to the act?
This highlights one of the glaring deficiencies in the legislation with regard to the treatment of offences which may be committed against men. Although there is no provision in the act which protects young men from defilement by women, section 76 creates the absolute offence of buggery. On a charge of buggery, the prosecution need only prove that there was penetration of the anus of a man, woman or animal by the male organ. Unlike rape, consent is no defence to the crime of buggery.
The clauses of the proposed new legislation suggest that our legislators are slowly awakening to the reality that young boys may need protection against older women. However, one wonders what effect 10 years of change in the society may have had on the Bill to amend the Offences Against the Person Act which was last published on April 23, 1996.
Sherry-Ann McGregor is a partner and mediator with the firm Nunes, Scholefield, DeLeon & Co. Send feedback and questions to lawsofeve@yahoo.com.
