Owen Labrie: Maxed For Melodrama

Merrimack County, New Hampshire Judge Larry Smukler imposed sentence on Owen Labrie, the former St. Paul’s student, for the rape he didn’t commit. With cameras in the courtroom to capture his judicialishness, he gratuitously added his own moral scolding.

Judge Smukler also said that Mr. Labrie, in maintaining that he and the girl had not had sex, had stuck to the mantra, “Deny ’til you die,” which is sometimes used by St. Paul’s students. “In some ways, you’re a very good liar,” the judge said.

Judges have magical powers to tell such things as which witness is a very good liar, no matter what the jury found. There’s a little-known red light behind the bench that goes off when a witness is lying, but they’re not allowed to tell the jury. They alone can see it. And, of course, no male student at St. Paul’s tells the truth, because “Deny ’til you die” is something they “sometimes use” there.

And so, Judge Smukler did what judges are empowered to do.

“You’re going to do a year in the House of Corrections and probation,” he told Mr. Labrie. “That’s the bottom line.”

Mr. Labrie, whose probation will total five years, must also register as a sex offender.

It looks like he won’t be needing that Halloween costume tonight. And what, one may wonder, gave rise to the need for a sentence of incarceration?

The jury found that the girl had not successfully communicated a lack of consent, but “that does not mean the victim consented to the sexual penetration,” he said. “Indeed, it is clear from the impact of this crime that she did not.”

Granted, under the affirmative consent standard, the girl had no duty to communicate lack of consent. But that’s not the law.  That the judge found she did not consent is, if words are to be believed, derived from the “impact.”

Appearing on a video screen, the victim of a sexual assault by an older student at one of the nation’s most exclusive boarding schools asked a judge here on Thursday to make sure her assailant was held accountable for a crime that, she said, had left her numb.

“What he did to me made me feel like I didn’t belong on this planet and that I would be better off dead,” the girl said.

She added: “Without just and right punishment, I really don’t know how I’ll put one foot in front of the other. I don’t want to feel imprisoned for the rest of my life. I want to be safe again. And I want justice.”

Very emotional. But that wasn’t all. That Labrie challenged the charges was yet another level of harm for which she demanded punishment.

The trial itself, she said, traumatized her further.

Of course, the only reason she was put through this final layer of trauma was the defendant’s intransigence in not pleading guilty for his crimes. The ones Judge Smukler says he lied about.

There was one felony conviction for using a computer to communicate with the victim.  What are the chances of a computer being used when teens communicate these days?  Smukler imposed a seven year suspended sentence for that conviction.

The victim appeared by video to give her impact statement, and it was quite melodramatic.  Not to say that she didn’t have strong feelings about what happened to her, but that she would be “better off dead”?  No doubt people will explain in agonizing language the horrors of a couple of teens engaging in some sort of sex where she failed to communicate her lack of consent.

But don’t blame the victim. That’s not allowed. After all, we don’t blame the victim of a robbery, right?  Even though the analogy fails on every level, it’s repeated often enough that the hard of thinking are certain it must be right.  Except it takes two to tango.

“My little girl stood up to this entitled young man,” her father said. “She stood up to the entitled culture at St. Paul’s School. She stood up to the rape culture that exists in our society and allows ‘boys to be boys.’ ”

Your “little girl” went to St. Paul’s too, and is every bit as “entitled” as this young man. Your “little girl” could have said “no” at any time, but she was attracted by this handsome, well-respected senior, and wanted to bask in the popularity that came with sex with him.  Your “little girl” didn’t stand up to societal “rape culture,” whatever that means, by deciding after the fact that the conduct in which she willingly got involved was not, after the fact, what she wanted to do.

But the most troubling phrase is “boys will be boys.”  Boys don’t rape. Men don’t rape. There is no “boys will be boys” excuse for rape. But this wasn’t rape. This was two kids who attended an elite boarding high school who did what kids who are sent away by the parents to be raised elsewhere do.

Kids will be kids, and that includes your “little girl.” A senior boy sought his “senior salute,” and a freshman girl was eager to give it to him. This is the sort of stuff kids do. No post-trial soliloquy makes kids behaving like kids the most horrible thing ever.

Owen Labrie, who remains out on bail pending appeal, will face a year in jail and a lifetime as a sex offender. His victim could get her own reality TV show on Bravo with the melodrama displayed at sentence. Judge Smukler will suffer no consequences for his part, even though he was supposed to be the grown-up in the room.

 

17 thoughts on “Owen Labrie: Maxed For Melodrama

  1. Fyodor

    “”Judge Smukler also said that Mr. Labrie, in maintaining that he and the girl had not had sex, had stuck to the mantra, “Deny ’til you die,” which is sometimes used by St. Paul’s students. “In some ways, you’re a very good liar,” the judge said.

    Judges have magical powers to tell such things as which witness is a very good liar, no matter what the jury found. There’s a little-known red light behind the bench that goes off when a witness is lying, but they’re not allowed to tell the jury. They alone can see it. And, of course, no male student at St. Paul’s tells the truth, because “Deny ’til you die,” is something they “sometimes use” there.””

    Didn’t the jury’s conviction on the misdemeanor sexual assault charge involve a factual finding that the students had intercourse and thus, Labrie’s claim that they had not, was untrue? Wasn’t what he said consistent with the jury’s conviction?

    1. SHG Post author

      Did you read the linked post? It answers your questions. Or was it just easier to ask, because my time in explaining it again is less valuable than your time in finding the answers to your questions?

  2. John Barleycorn

    Maxed for Melodrama.

    This could be your best headline of the month esteemed one. I am impressed!

    Seems to me like more of the same…The auxiliary convictions handed down in this case clearly refute the “victims” core alegations.

    It’s always informative though, to watch a judge’s hairy knuckles as his words attempt to hold up the juicy fruit of justice with a rotren core when the judge figures it wise to go on and on about the “bottom line” of the auxiliary convictions.

    Numb? Too bad that paper you read won’t do a follow up and instill a little numb disbelief in its readers by going into detail about the convictions themselves. If they actually chose to do so, I wonder how many of their readers would then be able to see their own chid or grandchild in the mirror?

    All aboard….If Smuklers nails running across the chalk board in this particular case had you running for the exits I get the distinct vibe that the “rape culture” train hasn’t even really left the station yet.

    Should be an interesting ride. I would advise fastening your seat belt but only the eingineer gets one of them.

  3. John S.

    And now the lives of two children are “ruined”, except that one has years of people refusing to meet his eyes, telling him to get the fuck away from them, saying they can’t hire him, lease apartments to him, aren’t comfortable with him being physically capable of seeing their children… And the other is finished with this as soon as she decides she is finished with this.

    There but for the grace of god. Good thing Smukler’s never needed any of that grace crap.

  4. Pingback: But that does not mean the victim consented | The Sun Also Rises

  5. mb

    As to blaming victims of robbery:

    I feel like it’s hard for me to decide whether it is fair to accuse people who make that argument of conflating violence and threats of violence with imperfect manners and lack of clairvoyance. I believe that much of the time, they are not conflating, but are, in fact, accurately describing their policy ideas. In the present context, however, I think that I do not disagree with you.

    See what I did, there?

  6. Paul

    Smukler’s comments are a bigger problem in New Hampshire because New Hampshire doesn’t allow a judge to consider acquitted conduct in sentencing. Smukler is bound by the jury’s verdict that Labrie did not rape the girl. And getting around that by saying the acquittal means she did not fully communicate lack of consent, but that Labrie still knew or should have known she didn’t consent is disingenuous at best. I think he is breaking the letter of the acquitted conduct rule, but even if he is technically correct he is butchering the spirit of the rule.

    1. SHG Post author

      If nothing else, it will hopefully serve at minimum on appeal as a basis for resentencing before a different judge, who will not sentencing him for acquitted conduct.

  7. Mario Machado

    It appears the Judge applied a “relevant conduct” factor that is used in federal sentencing. Whether that’s Kosher in NH state law is another thing.

Comments are closed.