Unintended consequences of "sex tourism" law?

[KBCraig]

I haven't read the law itself, but the description below raises a scary possibility: that anyone who crosses the border and has sex with someone under 18, could face a mandatory 30 years in prison, even if the sex would be legal in the U.S.!

Think of who could be affected: a New Hampshire 18 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend in Canada. Two 17 year old students on spring break in Cancun. A married couple on their honeymoon, if one of them is 17!

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-02-18-sex-tourists_x.htm

'Sex tourists' warned: Law is watching
By Donna Leinwand, USA TODAY

U.S. travelers who book trips to countries that are hot spots for child prostitution will begin this month to see ads, brochures and billboards warning that sexual adventures abroad could land them in prison here.

The warnings, written and distributed by religious organizations, child-welfare groups and the federal government, are a sign of a new assault by the Bush administration on the international child sex trade. They also reflect a new law intended to catch U.S. residents who engage in or promote sex with children overseas.

"People assume they can go out of the country and get away with exploiting children in this horrific way," says Mike Garcia, assistant secretary of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "We're sending a message. We have the power to (arrest them), and we have the will."

...snip...

Effects of new law

The arrests were made under a child-protection law President Bush signed April 30. It includes a provision that U.S. law enforcement officials say gives them a new tool to prosecute hard-core pedophiles and "sex tourists" who want to engage in sex with children.

Although it had been illegal since 1986 to go abroad with the intent to have sex with someone under 18, prosecutors say the crime was difficult to prove in court. To get a conviction under the new law, prosecutors do not have to prove that U.S. residents left the country specifically to have illegal sex ? only that they had illegal sex or tried to do so.

The law doubles the penalties to a mandatory 30 years in prison for each offense. Authorities can use it to arrest owners of travel websites and travel agencies that promote sex tours or arrange for clients to have sex with children.

...snip...

[eques]

Unintended consequences of a "law"?

No, never!

And... y'know... a lot of people seem to have some rather twisted ideas about sex... but, of course, these same people probably think that "laws" actually prevent crime. 

[error]

That's dated 2004...but I haven't heard of any string of 18 year olds being busted for honeymooning in Cancun.

This is going to wind up being one of those things that's on the books, which they pull out to throw at people they don't like.

[Rochelle]

I'm really sick and tired of people taking away MY rights to protect THEIR children.

Wait, it's not even their children. What the hell is going on here??? Since when did children become public goods?

[error]

Since socialism became in vogue here.

[eques]

Since socialism became in vogue here.

So, for about a century-ish?

[error]

Yeah, that sounds about right.

[KBCraig]

That's dated 2004...but I haven't heard of any string of 18 year olds being busted for honeymooning in Cancun.

This is going to wind up being one of those things that's on the books, which they pull out to throw at people they don't like.

That's my point: never look at laws as they're intended to be enforced; instead, look at how they could be enforced.

Income taxes were passed because they would only apply to "those people", not to "us regular people".

Gun control laws were passed because they would only apply to "those people", not to "us regular people".

Immigration restrictions were passed because they would only apply to "those people", not to "our kind of people".

Warrantless wiretaps and surveillance were accepted because they would only apply to "those people", not to "us regular people".

Laws defining "child pornography" to include toddlers in bathtubs were accepted because they would only apply to "those people", not to "us proud parents".

After any law passes, within a few years the intent of the law is forgotten, yet the letter remains. We all become "those people".

How long until parents are shocked to find that their 18 year old sons have become "those people" for getting frisky with their 17 year old girlfriends on the wrong side of Niagara Falls?

Kevin

[LiveFree]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

So I guess that whole "by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" isn't really taken very seriously these days, huh?

[aries]

What a silly idea

[lildog]

All they have to do is have sex with the underage here in NH.  And if that 13 or 14 year old girl gets pregnant, no problem just drive her to planned parenthood and she can get an abortion without her parents ever knowing!   

[KurtDaBear]

A married couple on their honeymoon, if one of them is 17!

One Midwestern state (I can't remember if it was Kansas or Nebraska because, as I recall, half the couple was from each state) a year or two ago arrested a husband on a felony sex charge for having sex with his under-aged wife, so you don't have to go to foreign lands to be victimized by that kind of idiocy.

[aries]

A married couple on their honeymoon, if one of them is 17!

One Midwestern state (I can't remember if it was Kansas or Nebraska because, as I recall, half the couple was from each state) a year or two ago arrested a husband on a felony sex charge for having sex with his under-aged wife, so you don't have to go to foreign lands to be victimized by that kind of idiocy.

Isn't NH's marriage age 12f/13m

[KBCraig]

A married couple on their honeymoon, if one of them is 17!

One Midwestern state (I can't remember if it was Kansas or Nebraska because, as I recall, half the couple was from each state) a year or two ago arrested a husband on a felony sex charge for having sex with his under-aged wife, so you don't have to go to foreign lands to be victimized by that kind of idiocy.

I don't recall which state was which, but the couple lived in one state, but went to the other to get married because she was pregnant. The second state allowed her to marry at that age with parental consent, but the home state did not. The husband was prosecuted because the pregnancy happened in the home state.

And I think you're right, at trial the argument that they were married was disallowed, because there was no exemption for married couples.

[Pat McCotter]

A married couple on their honeymoon, if one of them is 17!

One Midwestern state (I can't remember if it was Kansas or Nebraska because, as I recall, half the couple was from each state) a year or two ago arrested a husband on a felony sex charge for having sex with his under-aged wife, so you don't have to go to foreign lands to be victimized by that kind of idiocy.

I don't recall which state was which, but the couple lived in one state, but went to the other to get married because she was pregnant. The second state allowed her to marry at that age with parental consent, but the home state did not. The husband was prosecuted because the pregnancy happened in the home state.

And I think you're right, at trial the argument that they were married was disallowed, because there was no exemption for married couples.

The couple is from Nebraska and married in Kansas. The pregnancy, and therefore the sex, occurred before marriage when he was 21 and she was 13 - statutory rape in most any state.

Koso gets prison time
By BUTCH MABIN / Lincoln Journal Star
Tuesday, Feb 07, 2006 - 09:11:15 pm CST
FALLS CITY ? A Nebraska judge, unmoved by emotional testimony about a married couple?s love for each other, sentenced the husband Tuesday to 18 to 30 months in prison for having sex with the underage woman. Related: Attorney General Jon Bruning comments | Photo gallery of sentencing | A hard day for Koso family

Richardson County District Judge Daniel Bryan, in sentencing Matthew Koso, 23, of Falls City, said the criminal law in the case was ?very plain and direct.?

?Marriage can?t cover up a crime, and it can?t make it go away,? Bryan said. Koso pleaded guilty in December to first-degree sexual assault for having sex with the girl, Crystal, whom he later married. The sexual relationship began in 2004 when he was 21 and she was 13.

Nebraska law forbids sexual relations between adults 19 and older and children under 16.

Koso and the girl married in Kansas in May 2005 with the girl?s mother?s consent. Crystal Koso gave birth to the couple?s daughter, Samara, that September.

Kansas does not have a minimum age to marry, though parental consent or court approval is required for minors. A bill now before the Kansas Legislature, however, would ban anyone 15 and under from getting married.

Nebraska law forbids people 16 and under from marrying.

The charge against Koso, filed in July by Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, drew national media attention, as well as criticism of Bruning by some who said prosecution would only complicate the young couple?s lives.

On Tuesday, Bruning again defended his decision to charge Koso.

?Protecting our children is one of the most important things we do,? he said. ?Nebraska law is clear that a 22-year-old man cannot have sex with a 14-year-old child, regardless of whether it?s consensual.?

Bruning, whose office did not make a sentencing recommendation to Bryan, said the penalty imposed Tuesday was a ?fair and reasonable? one.

Koso could have received up to 50 years in prison.

His attorney, Willis Yoesel of Falls City, said no decision has been made on whether to appeal the sentence.

Yoesel asked Bryan at the sentencing hearing to impose a sentence of probation that Yoesel said would require Koso ?to continue to love and care for his family.?

Koso will be eligible for parole in nine months.

In comments after the sentencing hearing, Yoesel criticized the sexual assault statute at the center of the case as too ?inflexible.?

He said the law only considers the ages of the defendants and victims but does not consider their intent or whether the outlawed act involved malice.

?The only elements are the ages of the parties,? he said. ?I don?t know how you?d phrase it, but there should be some exceptions in the law.?

Yoesel made the same argument to Bryan during the hearing.

?The male is 19, the female under 16,? Yoesel said. ?Therefore it is illegal ... The law does not allow any leeway.?

Yoesel asked Bryan to consider the couple?s love for each other and for their child. Koso, Yoesel said to Bryan, once told the attorney that the happiest days of Koso?s life were when he married his wife and when their child was born.

Later, Yoesel asked the judge why Koso should serve any prison time, given that the only ?victim? in the case is his wife.

Yoesel said Koso, now a convicted felon who will have to register as a sex offender, has already been punished enough.

?I don?t know what further punishment he deserves,? Yoesel said.

Koso, seated next to Yoesel at the defense table, declined to speak. Crystal and Peggy Koso, his mother, made impassioned pleas for leniency, however.

?I loved my husband way before I got pregnant,? Crystal Koso, 15, said. ?I?m sorry. I don?t understand what this (potential prison time) is supposed to do.

?You can either send him away to jail, or let him come home (with) us.?

Peggy Koso said her son always struggled in school and did not fit in with his age peers.

?When he met Crystal, he found a purpose,? she said. ?I don?t think sending him to prison is a solution.?

Yoesel, seemingly in an attempt to diminish Crystal?s status as a victim in the case, said she, and not Matthew, was the more mature partner in the relationship.

?He?s 23, (but) his level of maturity is much lower than his age,? Yoesel said.

On the other hand, he said, ?Crystal is quite mature. In many ways (she is) in control of the relationship.?

Bryan appeared to dismiss the characterization as irrelevant. He also gave little weight to Crystal?s and Peggy Koso?s statements about the couple?s love for each other.

?A child is a child? in Nebraska law, he said earlier, and cannot give his or her consent to have sex with an adult, ?regardless of love.?

Bryan noted that Koso repeatedly violated a protection order taken out by Crystal?s mother in September 2004. The mother rescinded the order a few days after the marriage.

The judge also said Koso had a history of pursuing underage girls, including 12- and 14-year-old girls Koso tried to date when he was 19.

In addition, Bryan said, Koso continued to have sex with Crystal after Bruning charged him in July.

?The repetition of offenses is something I can?t ignore,? he said. ?That?s behavior I cannot reward with probation.?

After the sentencing, Matthew and Crystal Koso embraced and, followed by family, walked into a room adjacent to the court.

Emergency medical workers were later summoned to the room after Matthew Koso apparently fainted. He was not hospitalized.

Yoesel, during and after the hearing, reiterated his contention that Koso?s case was selective prosecution.

?There?re myriad other occasions (like Koso?s),? he said in court.

?Why? Why was this particular case selected for prosecution??

Bruning responded in an interview after the sentencing.

?Any time you break the law, you risk prosecution,? he said.

?He broke the law. Now he?s got to go to prison.?