James Barbour Arrested- Page 7

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:33pm

Okay, I'm getting somewhere on this. In the state of New York, "sodomy" is defined as "deviate sexual intercourse."

How does the penal code of the state of New York define "deviate sexual intercourse?" Well, that's interesting... here it is:

2. "Deviate sexual intercourse" means sexual conduct between persons
not married to each other consisting of contact between the penis and
the anus, the mouth and penis, or the mouth and the vulva.

See, this is one of the things that always gets me about the inflammatory language that the media uses to get people up in arms. For instance, if a high school wrestling coach is accused on your local Fox news coverage of "repeatedly sodomizing" a group of 16 year olds, it immediately calls into mind brutal prison rape scenes that your average suburban dad has seen on "Oz," because it's not TV, it's HBO.

However, he is accused of this if he merely gave the fellas what the Artist Once Again Known as Prince was talking about in his early song "Head." Which, let's face it, is ENTIRELY different.

It'll be worth watching how the "s-word" is used in discussion of this case. Because, after all, Barbour IS an actor. And you know how they have historically been lumped in with the "deviates" by polite society.

Now, if you were to PUSH the squawking heads of the media to DEFINE a term like "sodomized" when they toss it around, they would demur, because it's too "explicit." PLUS, it's so much more effective to let the viewer imagine the "worst case scenario."

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 05:33 PM

[Craig]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:35pm

It is SO important to not make a game of "telephone" out of the "facts" in this story. No where does it say she was obsessive. That's a value judgement and/or assumption.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:38pm

Statutory rape laws are just one of many ways in which the law tries to protect children from themselves and from having to live with certain consequences of mistakes they make before they are fully mature.

Those under 18 also cannot sign contracts because the law recognizes that in most cases they are at a unfair disadvantage when it comes to bargaining and making deals with adults who are presumably more savvy and experienced and there is the potential of someone taking advantage of the child. Anytime you see a kid in a show or movie, know that it was their parent/guardian who signed the contract, not them and it is the parent who gets the checks and supervises the money (and while the money can be spent by the parents for expenses, there are specific laws governing what percentage of the income must be held in trust for the kid until he/she turns 18 ). The kid himself has signed nothing and in theory could just walk away at any time, quit the show and not be sued. A child cannot be held accountable in any way in a business contract (especially given the kid never signed it to begin with). Now, mind you, if a kid were to walk away, his name would be mud in the business and he'd never work again and the parent could be sued for breach -- but not the kid.

Kids under 16 also can't legally vote, drive, smoke, drink and do all sorts of other things. All in all it's good policy and many of us adults are grateful today that we weren't held responsible for some of the mistakes we made when we were younger (and thought we knew everything). Yes, there are kids who are very mature and intelligent and knowledgable and more responsible than adults twice their age, but the law has neither the time, resources nor inclination to take such things into account on a case-by-case basis. In certain cases, like this one, a blanket rule applies and that's the end of it.

One great result of that, though is that every single adult knows the rules -- they're clear, immistakable and not subject to interpretation. Sleep with a 15 year old, you're going to jail. Period. Hence, most adults with any sense avoid having sex with kids under ANY circumstances -- there's a reason the term "jailbait" was invented. Break the rules and you know exactly what the consequences are -- so if you get caught, you can't act like it's a surprise. You've ruined your life and have no one to blame but yourself.

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 05:38 PM

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:39pm

"Let's face it, Statuatory Rape laws are just Angry Parent laws. If this is true, this girl clearly willingly had sex with him, and now a) regrets it or b) wants money. It's like when a drunken girl has sex with a guy at a party, regrets it in the morning, and accuses him of rape. "
I couldn't agree MORE!

And yes I know people, that there are people who do get raped, legitimately so. But there are also people like that girl on 90210 who accused Steve of rape....that was awful! Remember.
Most of the people I've mentioned this to today, including my Mother who is a Victims of Rape counselor agree that the "victims" account and accusations are a little bit unfounded and ....tres ridiculous!

[gettinhep]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:39pm

Maybe Addy will be on this jury, too.

[Craig]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:40pm

Margo - I'll add that not every adult might "know" about the laws (although you'd hope they did).. But as any traffic cop will tell you - ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[Craig]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:43pm

Brody

If the girl did indeed have sex with Mr. Barbour, there's nothing unfounded. As a few (including myself) have stated - it's illegal under current laws. You, and everyone else can argue whatever points, scenarios, feelings, etc all you want but at the end of the day, if sex took place between a minor and an adult, a crime was committed.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:44pm

"...but the law has neither the time, resources nor inclination to take such things into account on a case-by-case basis."

Oh, on the contrary, Margo. In the State of New York, for instance, a minor can emancipate him or herself. Here's that definition:

The term emancipation applies to youth over the age of 16 and under 18 who are:

(1) living separate and apart from their parents;
(2) not receiving any financial support from them (except by court order or benefits to which they are entitled, i.e. Social Security);
(3) living beyond the parent's custody and control; and,
(4) not in foster care.

Emancipation involves the renunciation of the legal obligations of a parent and the surrender of parental rights over the child.

So, you may be right, the law may be "too busy" to look at SEX on a case by case basis, but right here's an example of an entire other circumstance, equally loaded but not "tainted" by sexuality, in which the law DOES take the time to look at things on a case by case basis.

And Craig, you're right about the "ignorance" excuse, but as the chart I linked shows, the laws DO differ from state to state and under different circumstances (I'd like to reiterate how the law makes homosexuals more vulnerable than their straight bretheren.)

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:47pm

Craig,
I AGREE WITH YOU! UNDERSTAND THAT!
I'm just saying...in terms of his punishment that can be fought for and argueed in terms of seriousness when it comes to the legistics on the girls part because I think it's a lot of BS. THAT'S my point.

[Craig]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:53pm

Fair enough. I'm not an extremist. And I trust that the courts will decide whether or not the allegations are true and what, if any punishment is warranted

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:57pm

The REAL tragedy here is that this is all going to put such a damper on the consiquence free, debauchery filled, sodomiy ridden evening that is BROADWAY BARES night...
I could cry....just one tear...
just one

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:00pm

an underage girl? man, and i was just kidding when i used to write those scenarios in which someone goes to the stage door and gets a bit of the nudge nudge, wink wink, hello, how do you do! a person in a position of power using that position to seduce a young person? drive nails through his testicles and tack him up outside the tkts booth to be spit on and mocked.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:01pm

To be fair, the law currently DOES make some level of distinction. You have sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, and rape. only rape is a felony. the others are misdemeanors. And each one has 3 degrees. Each one has maximum prison time, of course, as well.

What I will say in response to Margo is that the law protects minors from being responsible in the cases you listed -- this is about adults being responsible -- a different case entirely. Yes, I understand the point is that children are not responsible for their actions and shouldn't have to be. But, my point is that if it is determined that the child knew what they were doing (in the same way that children are tried as adults), that law should apply in these cases as well.

But, Craig is 100% correct. The law was broken (if this is true), and if the statute isn't up (is it still 5 years in NY?), Barbour could be looking at a few years singing in prison. I, however, would presume his innocence first.

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:02pm

Do you think she used to sit at home and sing "Unworthy of your love" to him?

[JimVukovich]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:05pm

Jim Barbour is my dear friend. I'm very sad for him and EVERYONE involved.

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:06pm

I'm sad for him too....I think IF this was what happened it was poor judgement. I'm confident if things went as I assume they did that he will be vindicated.
No doubt.
Lets just look on the bright side.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:07pm

And you're right, "Touchme," it irks me when people write, as somebody did earlier in this thread, "in this country you're innoncent until proven guilty."

Not exactly. It's a fine distinction, but it's "presumed innocnet until proven guilty."

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:07pm

Namo,

Huh? I wasn't speaking of EVERY situation, but this specific one. Of course there are tons of circumstances in the law where the court will examine the actual facts of a case involving a child and make a determination. For example, kids who commit crimes are generally considered juveniles, but in certain extreme cases, typically involving murder, they can be tried as an adult. Also, many years ago, family court was created so that matters of custody and visitation and other issues involving children and parental rights, could be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. There are lots of other examples.

Nowhere in this article was there a suggestion that she was or wanted to be an emancipated minor (and she was too young to do so anyway), thus I didn't see the point in mentioning it. I spoke specifically of the laws governing statutory rape and then gave other examples in the law of paternalistic policy wherein age and age alone is the main determining factor on whether or not a given action is legal or not.

Here, once it's established she was 15, if the judge believes that a sexual encounter occurred between them, that's the end of it -- no grey areas or motivations will be taken into account. Similarly, if you are caught selling a pack of cigarettes to a 15 year old, you have broken the law, plain and simple and regardless of the circumstances, the store's license to sell cigarettes can be revoked. That's all I was talking about -- specific instances where the law endeavors to protect children from themselves through pure statutory means. I wasn't referring to every scenario in the law regarding children.

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:11pm

As a wise puppet once said...
"There's a fine fine line..."

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:11pm

Right, and I have been making the point throughout this thread that age of consent laws seem to be haphazardly constructed, hypocritically invoked, and used to satisfy other cultural needs than what they seem intended to do.

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:14pm

Namo

wanna make out??

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:15pm

Thanks for that Jim. It IS a sad "sick in your heart" thing to deal with. And this has already created a wave of reactions and conversations taking place withing the industry. It is having a ripple affect even as it unfolds. This will set a precident and wake up call for some.

I personally don't appreciate the humor found in this as it affects people I know as well. But I'm trying to take it all in prospective, so I suppose a little levity in time, but not this soon.

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 06:15 PM

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:17pm

Okay, I'm not saying whether the woman is telling the truth or not, but the "now an aspiring actress" mention in the article alarms me.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:19pm

Well, you're right about that Namo. Like the sodomy laws (now overturned) they're a moralistic throwback to the beginnings of the republic (some have been on the books for hundreds of years) and the motivations behind their creation and continued existence are on some levels rather suspect. Kids definitely need to be protected, but given the wide disparity nationally of the ages of consent, these laws come off as being rather arbitrary.

[Brodybaby03]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 6:19pm

EXACTLY!