Former Subway pitchman Jared Fogle will plead guilty to child pornography charges and to crossing state lines to pay for sex with minors, prosecutors and defense attorneys announced after his initial appearance in federal court.
Fogle "has notified the court that he intends to plead guilty," U.S. Attorney Josh Minkler said in Indianapolis. The prosecutor described the case as a "five-year criminal scheme to exploit children."
The plea deal, filed in court Wednesday, would see Fogle serve between five and 12½ years in prison.
The court will have to approve the agreement, in which Fogle pleads guilty to possessing and distributing child porn, and to traveling across state lines to have sex with at least two teenage girls.
Under the plea deal, the government agrees to recommend less than 13 years in prison for Fogle. Also, Fogle's lawyers agree to ask the judge for no less than a 5-year prison term.
Fogle, 37, also will pay restitution to the 14 victims who were secretly photographed in the images possessed by Fogle or who he paid for sex. Each victim will get $100,000, funds intended for counseling, support and other assistance.
According to court documents, the charges against Fogle are related to his relationship with Russell C. Taylor, the executive director of the Jared Foundation, who was arrested more than two months ago on federal child pornography charges.
According to the plea deal and indictment:
• Between 2011 and April 2015, Fogle received from Taylor multiple pornographic images of minors engaging in sexually explicit contact.
• Fogle had conversations with Taylor about the child porn, but instead of alerting authorities, he "chose to benefit from such production by obtaining access to a significant amount of such material."
• The images and videos were recorded by Taylor at his home through the use of hidden cameras.
• Between 2010 and February 2013, Fogle traveled from Indiana to New York to pay to have sex with minors.
• One victim told investigators she had sex with Fogle twice when she was 17 in exchange for money, once at the Plaza Hotel and once at the Ritz Carlton, both in New York City.
• The same minor also said that Fogle had sex with her three other times before 2012, when she was 16.
• Prosecutors say that text messages, travel records, hotel records and a search of Fogle's home provided evidence of these arrangements.
• The same minor said Fogle had sex with another 16-year-old girl on another occasion.
• Prosecutors say they have talked to witnesses who can testify about conversations Fogle had with them offering a "finder's fee" for seeking minors for him.
The agreement says Fogle will adhere to a pornography ban and sexual disorders treatment, and he will have no unsupervised visits with minors, among other requirements.
Computer monitoring will be required, too.
Wife wants to end marriage
By admitting to the crimes, Fogle is accepting responsibility and attempting to make amends, defense attorneys Ron Elberger, Andrew DeVooght and Jeremy Margolis said in a statement.
"Jared also understands that he requires significant psychiatric medical treatment and counseling. He has already begun that process by being extensively examined by a world-renowned expert in sexual conditions in order to chart a course to recovery. It is Jared's intent and goal to become healthy again," they said.
"Most importantly, Jared understands that he has hurt innocent people, vulnerable people, and his family. He has expressed remorse ... to his loved ones, and will, when given the opportunity, express that remorse to this court and to the people he has harmed. His intent is to spend the rest of his life making amends."
No date has been set for Fogle's next court date, where he will formally enter a change of plea, Margolis said.
On the same day the indictment and plea deal became known, Fogle's wife, Katie, released a statement saying she wants out of the marriage.
"Obviously, I am extremely shocked and disappointed by the recent developments involving Jared," she said in a statement via her attorney. "I am in the process of seeking a dissolution of the marriage. My focus is exclusively on the well-being of my children."
The family will offer no further comments.
In the brief glances that reporters got of Fogle as he entered the courthouse, it appeared he was not wearing a wedding ring.
Weight loss claim made him famous
Fogle became a household name as "Jared from Subway" after a dramatic weight loss that he attributed to eating at Subway restaurants. He became famous in 2000 when the sandwich chain released a commercial centered on his claims that he dropped about 245 pounds -- from a peak weight of 425 -- in one year as an Indiana University student, thanks in part to exercise and a simpler diet involving Subway subs.
The sandwich chain suspended its relationship with Fogle earlier this year after investigators raided his Indiana home.
After the charges and plea deal were revealed, Subway put out a brief statement.
"Jared Fogle's actions are inexcusable and do not represent our brand's values," the company said via Twitter. "We had already ended our relationship with Jared."
Authorities previously said that Taylor, 43, of Indianapolis, was charged in May with seven counts of production of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography.
During an April search at Taylor's home, authorities found "a cache of sexually explicit photos and videos Taylor allegedly produced by secretly filming minor children" there, federal prosecutors said in statement.
Celebrity status
After Subway heard his story and hired him, Fogle was globetrotting from Canada to Australia, talking health and hoagies.
His celebrity grew. He was asked to serve as grand marshal in NASCAR races, and he helped ferry the Olympic torch through Indiana ahead of the Salt Lake City Games.
Fogle flipped the coin before the 2003 Fiesta Bowl and began traveling the world visiting troops. In 2006, the same year he started the Jared Foundation, he penned a memoir, "Jared, the Subway Guy: Winning Through Losing: 13 Lessons for Turning Your Life Around."
This fame helped him become one of the biggest -- and most effective -- faces in advertising, according to a 2013 study by Technomic's Consumer Brand Metrics, which monitors 120 eateries' brands on attributes including image and customer loyalty, according to Advertising Age.
How will this affect a company like Subway? Will it jeopardize the image of the brand or will it increase because of all the publicity?
Subway ended the partnership as soon as there was suspicion and denounced things pretty firmly. I'd be surprised if there's notable backlash.
On August 20 2015 09:08 Grollicus wrote: Do the US really not distinguish between children and adolescents when talking about child porn? As far as I read this here the victims were all 16+?
Nope. Media certainly doesn't. Don't think the law does either. One fun consequence of that is that two 16 year olds, who can legally have sex in a lot of states, can be arrested for sending each other nude photos.
State by state certainly, but I've seen in the news charges distinguishing for example sexual misconduct with a minor vs sexual misconduct with a minor under the age of X, where X is like 11-13. The only reason to have that charge in a state where the age of consent is 18, is to allow for a more harsh sentence.
I'm taking a few minutes to look up Indiana laws, and I don't see them making a distinction in the age of the minor with respect to the pornography. With respect to the sex, it's a worse charge if the minor was under 14.
Is "sexual disorders treatment" even a real thing? I feel like trying to get a guy who really likes underage girls to stop is like trying to turning a gay person straight. You cant change there sexual preference.
This is nuts, a punishment this hard for such little things.
Poor guy, if I was a benevolent ruler, he'd get a $5,000 fine max. Sex with a 16 and 17 year old, on no - equivalent to being a murderer, lol. Oh, being sent a few images of someones children naked and not reporting the authorities, hell, that's almost identical to showing someone baby pictures of your children.
This will be one part of law in western countries that I will never ever agree with. It's so fucked up.
edit: A girl that is 17 years old, and then turns 18 doesn't simply undergo some immediate transformation that makes a healthy person go from not attracted to her, to attracted to her.
edit2: I've know 16 year old girls that looked 20, and vice versa. There's no cure for being attracted to mature teenagers, I'm sure most people can get hard by looking at girls in their late teens, and the fact that the most common search on pornhub.com is "teen", suggests that this is the case.
edit3: A 70y/o marrying a 19 year old will catch the eye of a couple people, but oh no, now it's a 17 year old, lets give him 25 years in prison, unless you're someone wealthy, have good lawyers, etc... And you're able to get away with 8-10.
edit4: There need to be serious distinctions between underage groups. When I was in high school, there were easily at least 30-50 girls I knew that partied with 20 year old guys and older, and slept with many of them. Should all of these guys go to prison for a quarter of their life now? (or even better, me, for not reporting it to the police) sigh...
I actually read the plea agreement (it was pretty short), and what really got him was his association with a Man who was producing real child pornography. Though it seems to suggest that wasn't the images/videos he was specifically getting from the other Man.
As for the Age of Consent issue, the charges are around specifically traversing state-lines with the intention of knowingly having paid-sex with an underage prostitute. He also, apparently, was actively looking for them, from other prostitutes that he had sex with. Each state makes up its laws and he obviously actively aware of them. He also had no issues otherwise having sex with of-legal-age prostitutes.
I wouldn't call a Man sick or a pervert for being attracted to 16-year old girls, but the Law is the Law and he most definitely knew it. This is why you don't get involved with Child Pornography rings. That logic ain't hard!
Incidentally, did you guys notice he's been gaining weight over the last couple of years? And how does one lose weight on the subway diet anyway? It's all carbs. I bet it was all a fraud and he just got lipo.
Back to the topic, why couldn't he just set his Tinder filter to 18? I know he eats fresh, but he doesn't have to eat -that- fresh.
Fair enough, I was a bit hasty to my conclusions, just due my experience of reading other such cases. I simply think there needs to be a significant distinction between a teenager that would gladly have sex for some money to buy weed (I've known plenty of these), which imo is a minor crime, similar in severity to shoplifting... Versus having sex or taking advantage of a child that has nowhere to run for help, for which the punishments currently are more or less where they should be.
Yes, I know the law is the law, but many people consciously break the law every day - such as watching pirated movies. How would you feel like if the police knocked on your door and told you you're going to prison for 3 years for watching GoT or something - or for sending a link to a website to your friend over facebook).
And the case is always so unfavorable to the offender, because of course the girls will say how they are innocent because they want the slice of the money that they realistically wont use for therapy/counselling etc. Geez, these were underage prostitutes who knew what they were doing.
edit: But like you said, if it's mainly due to his relationship with the guy who was creating the child porn, it puts me much more at ease.
On August 20 2015 11:44 Sonnington wrote: Incidentally, did you guys notice he's been gaining weight over the last couple of years? And how does one lose weight on the subway diet anyway? It's all carbs. I bet it was all a fraud and he just got lipo.
Back to the topic, why couldn't he just set his Tinder filter to 18? I know he eats fresh, but he doesn't have to eat -that- fresh.
You can lose weight eating literally anything, given you don't eat too much of it. Veggies fill you up with relatively few calories, and in that sense, you don't feel the need to eat that much.
everyone knows about these laws. apparently he didn't have enough self control to not break them, and while the basis of the laws may not have as much merit as when they pertain to pre-pubescents, it's the breaking of the law that he will be on trial for.
if he didn't have enough self control to not break this law for a 16 year old or w/e, one could assume it is likely he would not have enough self control to keep from breaking the law if he did decide to have sex with even younger people.
I mean come on... even if u think the law is stupid just follow it anyways...
On August 20 2015 11:02 FiWiFaKi wrote: edit4: There need to be serious distinctions between underage groups. When I was in high school, there were easily at least 30-50 girls I knew that partied with 20 year old guys and older, and slept with many of them. Should all of these guys go to prison for a quarter of their life now? (or even better, me, for not reporting it to the police) sigh...
its that old saying man.. "15 gets you 20"
to your point, i think raping a 5 year old and having consensual sex with a 17 year old when you are 18 are totally different things though.
i recall when i was 19 i was making out with my 19 year old ex-gf from high school in my 1997 Toyota Tercel ( what a chick magnet that thing was). we're going at it in a park known for as the place to go for that kind of thing.. but all our clothes are on.. 2 cops shine 2 giant lights into the window and say "how old are we tonight"... they spent like 20 seconds staring straight at my gf. i wonder what would've happened than night if she were 17?
On August 20 2015 08:30 whatisthisasheep wrote: How will this affect a company like Subway? Will it jeopardize the image of the brand or will it increase because of all the publicity?
i trust the meat in a Subway in Canada about as far as i can throw Jared. and this event does not impact my mistrust for the meat processing performed by the guys who put rubber in their bread.
So sorry to read people posting that "child prostitutes" "knew what they were doing" "no real prroblems there".
The object of such laws is meant to protect the minors in spite of themselves.
Really awful when kids do this, and please don't kid yourselves, no one wants to do this ; they might rationalize it and might even convince you, however no one wants to be a sex slave for money.
As a clear reminder to them too (even if they had no choice about it one way or another), the "law" wants to clearly bring these kids back to an axiom/realization: kids are not mature enough for certain things and even if they disagree and fight it, the law is there to remind them! Societies actually imprison people who cross the line, with years of prison! How can the message be clearer?
The rationale of "going from 17 to 18 nothing special has changed" is a 12 year old kid's lack of experience talking.. you should try to understand the law's stance. The great change happening: the law grants you your sexual freedom as of your 18th birthday! (this age varies in many cultures, just simplifying it to make a "quick"point).
As for the age of sexual maturity, it is not so ill defined. No! a 14 year old is not and should not be held in the same respect as an adult. Two 14 year old having sex can be "fine" within the understanding that it is "their adventure" (not fine intrinsically (getting pregnant or other.. but morally non reprehensible)), they are both "untutored". A "rich" 40 year old guy with SERIES of one time kleenex under age relationships is not comparable in the least. Having the tools to perform sexuality does not mean you are ready to use them, it takes years to "situate" one's self in this new "field" that is/means something for teenagers and something else completely for adults and is mostly anathema to anything childhood related.
As for any kind of "I am sick, I need to be furbished with a few dozen kids (for their sexual abuse) for the next few decades to make me all better".. wtf! NO WAY! This grave problem (rich sick selfish and soulless people shopping for kids) is still very much taboo and as such, few offenders really get thwarted in their ""consumerism" habit. That does mean WE ALL should work at it, not look away and/or ignore thinking "it only happens to other people". Yes! a 16 year old is most often still a clueless kid, yes at 18 you are a kid awaiting permission for everything, that's the way it is supposed to be, because one needs to be an adult and take certain things seriously and not "wtf I'll do it anyway! "yolo" it some way some how" to everything, like a kid does.
TLDR:, the law grants you your sexual "freedom" for yourself and for others towards you.
On August 20 2015 16:59 fluidrone wrote: The object of such laws is meant to protect the minors in spite of themselves.
with a simple phone call u can get "call girls" in every city in NA.
in the city where i live, Toronto, there is constant talk about illegal human trafficking going on. as usual this happens with very young women. if u r going to buy sex and use these prostitution ads stay clear of any girl advertised as 19. stick to women 25+ and when u call the # in the ad make sure u speak directly to her and make damn sure she is 100% pure canadian. and read between the lines during the phone call... women who've lived near Toronto their entire lives know the city inside and out. also, during the call you can usually figure out if she is independent or "works with" a gang of other girls. Stick to the independent ones.
guys who buy sex and do not follow the above guidelines are asking for a world of pain if it turns out they are having sex with an illegal immigrant, non-Canadian who is under 19.
all this advice comes 2nd hand from friends of mine who've done this stuff before. i never have. honestly, i never. ever. ever have. i swear.
On August 20 2015 16:36 arbiter_md wrote: What happens if you have sex with a girl without knowing her age. Or maybe being lied about her age?
In france we have a saying: "no one should ignore law" This is a "fiction" that is required to make the law system / rule of law apply-able. Of course you cannot know every law, but by the time you are sexually active enough to "go through with it", you are clearly aware that there is an issue, to ignore it is the mistake. The real issue is if you are not "concerned/ready" yet and someone else is imposing it on you.
Ask the girl and she might not want to do it (and you want her to want to do it).. she lied and wishes to "get back at you" = you are f...ed! Nothing so precious is so easy. It is a simple rule in life, some things have a universe of consequences, sex is one of those.
On August 20 2015 16:59 fluidrone wrote: So sorry to read people posting that "child prostitutes" "knew what they were doing" "no real prroblems there".
The object of such laws is meant to protect the minors in spite of themselves.
Really awful when kids do this, and please don't kid yourselves, no one wants to do this ; they might rationalize it and might even convince you, however no one wants to be a sex slave for money.
As a clear reminder to them too (even if they had no choice about it one way or another), the "laws" wants to clearly bring these kids back to an axiom/realization: kids are not mature enough for certain things and even if they disagree and fight it, the law is there to remind them! Societies actually imprison people who cross the line, with years of prison! How can the message be clearer?
The rationale of "going from 17 to 18 nothing special has changed" is a 12 year old kid's lack of experience talking.. you should try to understand the law's stance. The great change happening: the law grants you your sexual freedom as of your 18th birthday! (this age varies in many cultures, just simplifying it to make a "quick"point).
As for the age of sexual maturity, it is not so ill defined. No! a 14 year old is not and should not be held in the same respect as an adult. Two 14 year old having sex can be "fine" within the understanding that it is "their adventure" (not fine intrinsically (getting pregnant or other.. but morally non reprehensible), they are both "untutored". A "rich" 40 year old guy with SERIES of one time kleenex under age relationships is not comparable in the least. Having the tools to perform sexuality does not mean you are ready to use them, it takes years to "situate" one's self in this new "field" that is/means something for teenagers and something else completely for adults and is mostly anathema to anything childhood related.
As for any kind of "I am sick, I need to be furbished with a few dozen kids (for their sexual abuse) for the next few decades to make me all better".. wtf! NO WAY! This grave problem (rich sick selfish and soulless people shopping for kids) is still very much taboo and as such, few offenders really get thwarted in their ""consumerism" habit. That does mean WE ALL should work at it, not look away and/or ignore thinking "it only happens to other people". Yes! a 16 year old is most often still a clueless kid, yes at 18 you are a kid awaiting permission for everything, that's the way it is supposed to be, because one needs to be an adult and take certain things seriously and not "wtf I'll do it anyway! "yolo" it some way some how" to everything, like a kid does.
TLDR:, the law grants you your sexual "freedom" for yourself and for others towards you.
What stuck out to me about your perspective is that two 14 year olds having sex can be justified, even though it's technically against the law in most places in the US and Canada I believe.
Now lets take a 23 year old virgin who has been socially awkward, never got to be with a girl, not the most well-versed in how the real world works. Then you have an older looking 16-17 year old (and make-up can add plenty)... This is a girl that goes party all the time, and she kind of knows how things are when it comes to this. This situation could feel similar to both parties, experimental, etc. Really, the only difference is the age of the person, while their maturity might be the same, so in the same sense, is it justified?
I know a lot of this is situational, but it's something that needs to be analysed on a case-by-case basis. It's not like you'll have a ten million of these cases a year, so sure, it'd be more workload for the justice system, but nothing unreasonable. I knew a girl when I was 15, she was 16, and her boyfriend was 21. She told him she's 20, and they were dating for quite a few months... Then somehow the police caught on (I don't remember, but she didn't tell on him), and he went to join for 3-4 years. Like what the fuck, I legit felt bad for that guy. Fundamentally I don't think the law is working correctly if that kind of shit happens.
Yes, making the rules too lenient can open up avenues for abuse - and that's why you analyse it on a case-by-case basis, on not equate sleeping with a teenager to murder. When a law would send 10-20% (just going from what I saw in my high school, and from the parties I went to, and extrapolating it to the entire population during their high school days) of the population to prison if the agency was able to enforce it properly, there is something fundamentally wrong with its implementation is my viewpoint.
edit: Anyway, I think I'll be done with this topic. I understand both sides to the picture, and it's possible that what we have right now is the best solution (preventing abuse, deterrence, etc), but god damn, it works so poorly in certain circumstances (not necessarily this case in particular).
the 23 year old guy should stick to women of legal age. period, end of story.
my concern with these laws occurs when its a bf/gf thing and both are right on the border of the legal limit. say (X) is the legal age... and the guy is (X)+1 month old and the girl is (X)-1 month old. so the guy gets charged with statutory rape because he is 2 months older than his gf? whatever man.
On August 20 2015 17:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the 23 year old guy should stick to women of legal age. period, end of story.
my concern with these laws occurs when its a bf/gf thing and both are right on the border of the legal limit. say (X) is the legal age... and the guy is (X)+1 month old and the girl is (X)-1 month old. so the guy gets charged with statutory rape because he is 2 months older than his gf? whatever man.
No, I think it's like if you're over 18, you're able to do "stuff" with people who are within two years of your age, so 17 + 19 together are fine. And you need to be over 16 to have sex legally from what I last read (in Canada).
And I was pointing out, that it's very similar to the case of the two 14 y/o kids, with the only differentiating things being a number, while the social interaction may be completely unchanged. In essence we're using a number (the age), as an indicator. Often times, it does a good job, but this number doesn't always explain the whole situation every single time, and that's why it should be handled on a case by case basis (unlike say something like drug trafficking, where the numbers speak much more).
edit: Society and the justice system treats all child prostitution offenders very similarly, when there's a big difference between someone pressing charges against you 10 years later, for something you did when you were 20, and only because you've gotten wealthy, and they will say anything because they need the money... They will say how they got manipulated and blah blah, when it's quite unrealistic (long explanation, I hope most can agree), but because you are the one being accused of being the child prostitution offender, the weight of what you say bears very little meaning. I'm not even discussing this case specifically anymore, just the topic in general... Versus, being what we associate with the stereotypical child offender videotaping little children.
I feel bad for some of them, in the same way I feel bad for some people who gets years in jail for posting a torrent or pirated link on a forum.
On August 20 2015 17:41 FiWiFaKi wrote: No, I think it's like if you're over 18, you're able to do "stuff" with people who are within two years of your age, so 17 + 19 together are fine.
On August 20 2015 17:41 FiWiFaKi wrote: No, I think it's like if you're over 18, you're able to do "stuff" with people who are within two years of your age, so 17 + 19 together are fine.
Edit: laws vary very much in different countries, the two year law is merely a "guideline" added to "recognize" circumstances.
Going to prison ("the joint") for that is awful. But again, there should never be any "judiciary" clotting on the "case by case mechanic" necessity. Our disinterest/disgust for this as citizens is to blame!
To be crystal clear, the law has to be stupid and be unfair. Such is the price we all pay for letting abuse be carried out so blatantly on "arguably" the future of our societies (kids).
It starts with us not caring enough about other "unknown" people and ends with your (possibly innocent/clueless) kid in jail for years.
There are serious/deadly issues in both "extremes" that suffer from this "line in the sand" law - a few less than innocent minors are overly protected while most if not all who are facing horror are left wanting (not defended enough / left to their own devices) - some innocents pay an unfair price for love .. and the law itself fails to be enforced reinforced on a case by case bases, most people not wanting to "take part" in the "resolution" of each of those. This issue is the bases for destroying families for instance (not that that would have to be a bad thing (family dispersion can be in some cases a good thing)) but just to state that the stories do not stop at the headline judgement, it is something that carries on FOREVER.
Overall as a society we are willing to pay such a price (a line in the sand "guillotine" law applied unfairly) seeing as we are unable to destroy this particular type of slavery practices thriving in our societies.
in before jokes about 5 dollars for a foot long >_>
in all seriousness this shouldn't be a big deal. people commit crimes all the time, the fact that it is a famous person shouldn't make it more special than if it is a mundane person.
Sorry for thinking this specific type of crime is of vital importance to showcase:
A rich guy getting caught because someone got money from making him get caught.
"Crimes are done every day" : lol at how cynic can one want to be seen as, this is exactly the problem #sigh#.
We report crimes and debate their correlated issues because it is part of the process, read: you are on a forum and many other people read what you right, many young uninformed people.
Slavery needs to be seen for what it is and fought with every once of one's might!
On August 20 2015 18:03 fluidrone wrote: Going to prison ("the joint") for that is awful. But again, there should never be any "judiciary" clotting on the case by case necessity. Our disinterest/disgust for this as citizens is to blame!
To be crystal clear, the law has to be stupid and be unfair. Such is the price we all pay for letting abuse be carried out so blatantly on "arguably" the future of our societies (kids).
It starts with us not caring enough about other "unknown" people and ends with your (possibly innocent/clueless) kid in jail for years.
There are serious/deadly issues in both "extremes" that suffer from this "line in the sand" law - a few less than innocent minors are overly protected while most if not all who are facing horror are left wanted - some innocents pay an unfair price for love .. and the law itself fails to be enforced reinforced on a case by case bases, most people not wanting to "take part" in the "resolution" of each of those. This issue is the bases for destroying families for instance (not that that would have to be a bad thing (family dispersion can be in some cases a good thing)) but just to state that the stories do not stop at the headline judgement, it is something that carries on FOREVER.
Overall as a society we are willing to pay such a price (a line in the sand law applied unfairly) seeing as we are unable to destroy this particular type of slavery practices thriving in our societies.
Yeah, it might be. That's why I was also suggesting that it might be the best solution... Even though it can give an unfairly harsh punishment to someone relatively innocent. It's just in the current system, I feel like enforcement turns a blind eye to when it's seen as more normal (ie parties, etc), versus other cases, and what this leads to, is that nobody breaking the law will be impacted, unless they want to specifically want to target you. This leads to unfair assertion of the law.
Maybe it was because I was surrounded by a lot of this "child prostitution" when I was younger in cases that are deemed more ethically acceptable, I'm quicker to defend this position... As I've never really got to know just what the true disgusting sex offenders are like, all I've experienced is people who seemed more or less innocent. When I was teenager, sleeping with older people was "cooler", you'd always want to party with the older kids, you felt more like a delinquent - you didn't really think about "oh, this is the age difference, or this is wrong". For the people who didn't go to university afterwards, or just stayed in that party lifestyle, I can easily see them thinking they aren't doing anything wrong... It's just how it is.
Anyway, getting late here - 3am, but there are many further paths to continue the discussion that I find interesting.
edit: For people getting caught, I know of the one that mentioned previously, and one girl pressing charges when she got mad at someone, not sure how that ended up, as it was mostly gossip about people I didn't know well. So most don't get caught, but you don't know what's going to happen in their life 10 years down the road, and it'd be awful to get dragged down for something so silly. "Oh, this politician, I remember him from highschool, we did stuff when I was drunk once... Oh, let's go sue him and destroy his life since I'm a single mom, and it's tough paying for stuff" etc. (I'm not looking at both sides here, I'm just showing in how many cases this can be such a bullshit law for the accused).
The teenager, by essence is going to do "wrong" stuff.
It is perfectly possible for a 15 year old to be in love with his teacher. One can wait 3/5 years to sleep with her/him. Sounds unfair if they are in love but not insurmountable if the love is genuine.
I had sex while under age with older girls, even if I would have wanted to "protect" them if they were accused of abusing me, I would not have been "allowed" to be part of the "discussion". I loved so many "illegal" stuff when I was that age that now I feel almost "sorry" that at the time I was moreover comforted by the fact that I was aware of the fact that, in my country, under age people are overly protected!
That teenagers (or even kids, i started at 13 ) jump out the high dive (take risks and should try to learn stuff, go out and discover / conquer the world) is the human way (hormones come to mind), that is not any reason to protect kids forever. That subway guy is a kid. he made beaucoup bucks (too much money) and is spending it as a selfish soulless person = that is my "p o v". That subway guy is one out of thousands who do it, he got caught = fact!
So yes, it is an occasion not to shy away from the debate.
No, I am not mean and old (as in I wouldn't care about it since I am not concerned by those "kid laws" and I'm allowed "consensual sexual practices"), I do hope teenagers will continue to enjoy this "lul" in the law, but trust me (I'm old) that lul will disappear and laws will become even more unfair and harsh. This abstract notion of freedom still awarded to some teenagers (depending on geography) will not survive the horror of what sex slavery is / means to some people. What people will lobby for from having not psychologically survived its impact on their personal lives is unimaginable and the increasing number of "concerned citizens" ("concerned about their kids' future") is sky-rocketing as we speak. Such is the case that these "worried parents" will condemn their own kids because they wanted to protect them.
On the darker side, some will object and defend the kid's right to be sexual earlier and earlier.. while I understand it, I reject it nonetheless, precisely because the arbitrary line is not that good and lowering it does nothing to help.
In a world where/when 12 year old kids ask you if you can get babies from doing it "in another hole" (excuse my nsfw ; from discovering sex through overly accessible online pornographic content), in a world where/when information/culture/criticism/thought and analysis are so downplayed (while "imperial wants/needs" are put forward in every facet of our lives), the time is not to award more latitude but again and again to help people in an "each individual's own semantic" context, and try to help restrain/destroy what loopholes still remain to eradicate the worst slave practice that ever was. (you can debate that 16 18 is not a kid, you will meet me in such a debate ; most people remain kids well over their 30ies!)
The fact that we live in a media world is no excuse, it is even an extra guilt we should bare / be sorry for / try to overcome. That guy is "fair game" since he has been charged/proven guilty? Let us take this occasion to speak about the unspeakable! #could care less about the symptoms, go for the diseases responsible:
apathetic laziness towards "other" people cult of success sordid sex is the only thing that sells papers feeling righteous indignation is easy, it is really hard to talk/help someone else in real vital need
On August 20 2015 18:16 FiWiFaKi wrote: Anyway, getting late here - 3am, but there are many further paths to continue the discussion that I find interesting.
On August 20 2015 18:04 evanthebouncy! wrote: in before jokes about 5 dollars for a foot long >_>
in all seriousness this shouldn't be a big deal. people commit crimes all the time, the fact that it is a famous person shouldn't make it more special than if it is a mundane person.
He used the non-profit he owns to gain access to the kids. It's a big deal.
On August 20 2015 18:04 evanthebouncy! wrote: in before jokes about 5 dollars for a foot long >_>
in all seriousness this shouldn't be a big deal. people commit crimes all the time, the fact that it is a famous person shouldn't make it more special than if it is a mundane person.
He used the non-profit he owns to gain access to the kids. It's a big deal.
didn't know that. wow. i did know it was 14 girls under 18. so its not like one single 6 foot athletic 17 year old blonde lied to him and said she was 19. the "she lied about her age" is a BS excuse any way.
On August 20 2015 18:04 evanthebouncy! wrote: in before jokes about 5 dollars for a foot long >_>
in all seriousness this shouldn't be a big deal. people commit crimes all the time, the fact that it is a famous person shouldn't make it more special than if it is a mundane person.
He used the non-profit he owns to gain access to the kids. It's a big deal.
didn't know that. wow. i did know it was 14 girls under 18. so its not like one single 6 foot athletic 17 year old blonde lied to him and said she was 19. the "she lied about her age" is a BS excuse any way.
The prosecuting line is that he hired a friend as executive director for his non profit, commissioned him for videos, knew he was exploiting a 14 year old and requested footage instead of reporting. For the physical part, said to have been hunting for young flesh through prostitution networks rather than his charity.
On August 20 2015 18:04 evanthebouncy! wrote: in before jokes about 5 dollars for a foot long >_>
in all seriousness this shouldn't be a big deal. people commit crimes all the time, the fact that it is a famous person shouldn't make it more special than if it is a mundane person.
He used the non-profit he owns to gain access to the kids. It's a big deal.
didn't know that. wow. i did know it was 14 girls under 18. so its not like one single 6 foot athletic 17 year old blonde lied to him and said she was 19. the "she lied about her age" is a BS excuse any way.
The prosecuting line is that he hired a friend as executive director for his non profit, commissioned him for videos, knew he was exploiting a 14 year old and requested footage instead of reporting. For the physical part, said to have been hunting for young flesh through prostitution networks rather than his charity.
Hey, its a big deal.
Surely its a healthy debate, but honestly there is no polemic here. Dude is a criminal and got arrested.