Is James Barbour ever going to be back on Broadway- Page 6

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 2:43pm

OK so this girl was what..15 at the time

How old was he?

[Eris0303]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 2:45pm

I think stupid may be too harsh a word. I think naive might be better.

Serving time isn't the question here. He's doing that now but, like any other criminal, there's no gaurantee that he'll be rehabilitated. The chances of him doing it again are very high especially since it is believed there are more victims that have not come forward yet.

He got caught for this one young woman. Can you be 100% sure that there were no others before or after her? Or that he won't do it again?

If there are more victims then he's a sexual predator. If not then he's not. We don't have the answer to that. We cannot say for sure that he won't be a threat again.

His probation officer will be thinking not only of any young castmates but the young woman Barbour would meet on backstage tours (school groups) or at the stagedoor.

Being in this show will bring him in contact with young women. There is no question of that. Which is why I think he shouldn't do the show.

Personally, I think Barbour should offer to back out. That would be the classy thing to do IMO.

"How old was he?"

Twice her age

Updated On: 3/31/08 at 02:45 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 2:48pm

Winston--YOU are the problem. YOU are the one raking this over the coals by defending the indefensible OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER.

If you really want to do James Barbour a favor: drop it.

Stop posting about it.

Leave it alone.

Let him do his time, do his probation and find out for himself what the future holds for him.

But by continually defending him, you re-try him OVER and OVER and OVER again.

YOU and TOTC are the problem. LET IT GO.

You can't fix it. You can only make it worse. So forget it.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 2:49pm

34 or 35, song.

stupid is not too harsh a word when people have pain-stakingly explained to him - repeatedly - the rationale behind their statements over and over and he blindly refuses to even engage them on the merits of their opinions.

she's not the only one. she's the only one that came forward. those quotes i posted were not made up. they came from one who found him less dreamy and more creepy. even at 15.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 3:08pm

PJ, Thanks for posting some documented facts about the outcome of the trial. It seems to have been forgotten with all the opinions flying around. Make no mistake, this ordeal will not soon be forgotten in this South Jersey community.

I feel badly that Santoriello's dream is shrouded by such negative feedback. I truly hope TPTB make the right decision when/if they present this on Broadway.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 3:17pm

"And Fosse76, most states do have what are known as "Romeo laws"."

Not true. Only a handful of states of such laws. Last year alone, a WHOPPING four states passed such laws: Connecticut, Florida, Indiana and Texas.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 3:36pm

california, colorado, delaware, florida, iowa, kentucky (kind of), maryland, minnesota, mississippi (kind of), new hampshire, new jersey, new york (kind of), north carolina, ohio, pennsylvania

more than a handful, but less than most.

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 3:37pm

Nope, Fosse76, you're absolutely wrong here. Here's the exact text from New York State law:

If the victim is under 15 and the perpetrator is at least 18, this constitutes a 2nd degree sexual offense. However, if the defendant is less than 4 years older than the victim, this may constitute an affirmative defense. Affirmative defenses are those in which the defendant introduces evidence which negates criminal liability.

Almost every single state, excepting Idaho and some others, has "close in age" exceptions which are designed to protect teenagers from statutory rape charges. You can find a rundown, state by state, with references, at this link.


Wikipedia--Age of consent in North America Updated On: 3/31/08 at 03:37 PM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 3:55pm

"california, colorado, delaware, florida, iowa, kentucky (kind of), maryland, minnesota, mississippi (kind of), new hampshire, new jersey, new york (kind of), north carolina, ohio, pennsylvania

more than a handful, but less than most."

There are 50 States in the U.S. That is merely a handful. And Marona Davies, I prefer my knowledge as a former assistant U.S. attorney as opposed to your wikipedia research. Call it snobbery if you will. And if you actually read that entry, you would see that the so-called romeo and juliet laws are only described by the states listed by myself and papalovesmambo. It's merely a handful of states. 32% is not "most states."

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 4:04pm

*shrug* I never said I did the research on Wiki; I'm actually involved with an organization for assault victims. But Wiki has direct links and references to the penal codes for every state which clearly back up what I've said. I quoted the New York law; you're welcome to look up the others, but your information is incorrect.

And you're a former attorney now? Riiiight. An attorney with no knowledge of current statutory laws...




Updated On: 3/31/08 at 04:04 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 4:06pm

"The fact is that this girl continued a friendship with him, and used him as her mentor for connections and advice, LONG after the incident(which, honestly, except for the oral sex, was NOT that big of a thing), for 4 years, and then she decided to accuse him(?) If this does not sound strange to you, then I don't know what else to say, really."

Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome. Look it up. Or maybe she didn't want to relive the experience. There are dozens of possible reasons for why she came forward beyond just "she wanted money."

I also remind people of what a coercive relationship is. It doesn't matter that she had a boyfriend at the time; if the boyfriend was within 4 years of her age, it is not coercive. 15 and 30's is definitely coercive, and especially when you consider Barbour's power over her as a professional in a business she wanted to break into.

You're saying that it's not considered unhealthy to be physically attracted to teenagers if they are physically developed. Assessment methods such as the penile plethysmograph consider this, but they do consider a sexual reaction unhealthy if it is not only to the teenaged pictures, but also to the story involved. That is, if the person is aware of the age of the girl or boy in the photograph.

Updated On: 3/31/08 at 04:06 PM

[ChiChi]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 4:17pm

I'd have a hard time complaining.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 5:59pm

"*shrug* I never said I did the research on Wiki; I'm actually involved with an organization for assault victims. But Wiki has direct links and references to the penal codes for every state which clearly back up what I've said. I quoted the New York law; you're welcome to look up the others, but your information is incorrect."

Many of the states on that list had those ages already built into the law. However, I stand corrected that it is mopre than the eight mentioned. However, you are more wrong than I. Only 21 of the 50 states have age difference exceptions...that still doesn't come close to the "most" that you claimed. And most of those laws have caveats.

"And you're a former attorney now? Riiiight. An attorney with no knowledge of current statutory laws..."

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Just because you've still been proven wrong? Like most professions, there are areas of expertise, mine is intellectual property. With jus minimal research I have acknowledged I was incorrect with the number of states with the close-in-age exceptions, however it still doesn't add up to half of the states.

[johnnyg]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 6:09pm

have to weigh in on the stupidity of these laws and the age gap distinctions anyway. if the argument against an underage person having sex is that they are not emotionally or intellectually mature enough to deal with it - how are they suddenly any more emotionally or intellectually mature enough to deal with it just because their partner is the same age or up to four years older older than them? Heck - my first relationship was with someone who was 16 when i was 15. That relationship ended with me being cheated on and dumped at the age of 16. It was devastating to me at the time and f'd me up pretty good for a full three years after that. would i have been more devastated if the person had been 35? i don't think so. and had my parents known we could have gone after my ex legally and destroyed that person's life - they probably would have. it would have been horribly wrong and unfair to do it (even though the person had technically broken the law) but they could have done it. there is just no logic behind the laws and the extremes of the possible punishments are incredibly unfair.
Updated On: 3/31/08 at 06:09 PM

[insertclevernamehere]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 6:32pm

Frankly my dear, there is a huge difference between a teenage couple and a 15 year old girl and thirty something year old man. Relationships are sometimes messed up. People do sometimes cheat on other people. That's not the point. When the age gap is that wide, there is a distinct power change. The older man has the desire and capibillity to make the relationship what he wants in a way that a 16 year old could do to a 15 year old.

[FranklyMyDear]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 6:41pm

i don't think you're getting my point - which is to say that in some states the law say it's ok if there's an arbitrary age similarity but not if you're say four years older than the person. and i don't believe that the pressure and coercive potential of someone the very same age as you can't be extremely convincing and manipulative. it's called peer pressure.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 7:09pm

You can engage in coerced sexual acts with any person, and that is not consentual either (or wouldn't be even if you were of the age to give consent), but it's automatically coercive if the person is 5+ years older. Sexual abuse is about power and control. The only difference is that someone who can legally give consent is of mature enough mind and development (in the law's eyes, anyway) to willingly put him or herself in that situation--whether it's good for them or not. With minors, they have no right to put themselves in that situation, nor is it legal for anyone to put them there.

[winston89]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 7:31pm

I mean what I find interesting about the sexual consent laws is this. That in many states if your 18 and your dating someone that is younger then you. Let's say 16 or so. It would be against the law for you to engage in anything sexual. The thought being that the person who is the legal adult is supposed to be the mature one emotionally. When in fact I know a ton of guys who when it comes to things like sex. Are about just as mature as they were when they were 16 or even 17.

And Pal Joey, I NEVER was once defending what Barbour did. I do and will continue to think it was wrong. And, I do think that he did have sex with the girl. There is a HUGE difference in thinking that you all are a bit over the top in your thinking that they will have protests, boycotts and all that. As much as I want to see Two Cities I can't get myself to buy the ticket knowing he is in the show. I first heard of Barbour because of these court cases not because I saw him in some show. So, Unlike, TOTC I have no passed knowledge of what Barbour was in prior to the event.

[amalou]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 9:01pm

While I think what he did was wrong and phenomenally stupid, I don't think it warrents people boycotting or protesting. It is bad. I don't think it's ok for adults to have sex with 15 year olds. But I don't think that anyone is going to protest anything he does in the future. What he did was bad, but I don't think that the masses are really furious about what he did. Everyone, for the most part, seems to think it was dumb of him and morally wrong, but I don't think anyone really cares enough to protest about it. He's paying his time. What else do people want?

I just have a feeling he's pretty much done. I can't imagine him being in anything ever again. It'd just be awkward as hell for all involved.

[winston89]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 9:04pm

Thanks amalou, that is pretty much what i am saying.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 10:12pm

amalou, if you don't think that people will hesitate before buying tickets to a show starring Barbour, you have another thing coming.

[whatever2]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 11:33pm

> I don't think it warrents [sic] people boycotting or protesting.

the point isn't what people *should* do ... the question all along -- buried above all this insanity -- is what they WILL do. and why the santoriellos would risk their DREAM on the outcome ...

[ChiChi]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 11:36pm

I'm a paralegal and I STILL wouldn't object.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 11:43pm

UGHHHHHHH!

It's not a question of LAW. He is, basically, LEGALLY allowed to perform on Broadway.

The question that we're debating here isn't whether he's guilty or not. It's not whether he should be backed by his producers.

Those of us with common sense are merely discussing the effects of continuing the show with Barbour. Do I, personally, object? Not. But do I think that casting Barbour might cause an early death of the show? Yes. Completely and absolutely. Anyone with half a brain would agree that casting him in the show might mean an early death.

[whatever2]

Posted: 4/1/08 at 12:21am

im not sure, but i think chichi may have been commenting on mr barbour's obvious physical appeal to most teenage girls and about 10% of most teenage boys?