James Barbour Arrested — Page 7

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

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

Maybe Addy will be on this jury, too.

---

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.

---

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.

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

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.

---

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

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."

---

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

Namo

wanna make out??

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.

EXACTLY!