You be the Judge

[MrBishop]

LINCOLN, Neb. - A 22-year-old man accused of impregnating then marrying a 14-year-old girl pleaded not guilty Tuesday to raping her.

Matthew Koso was arraigned in Richardson County District Court, where he is charged with first-degree sexual assault, punishable by up to 50 years in prison.

The girl, Crystal Koso, gave birth Aug. 24 to a 7-pound, 1-ounce girl, Samara.

Nebraska requires people to be at least 17 before they can marry.

But after the girl became pregnant, her mother gave permission in May for Koso to take her daughter to Kansas, which allows younger minors to get married with parental consent.

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius recently said she was asking legislators to establish a minimum age for marriage. She said the age should be 16, 17 or 18, "so we don't, after the fact, cover up abuse of children."

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said again Tuesday that additional charges against Koso involving other young girls are possible.

"Our investigation's continuing," he said. "Obviously, it is dependent on very young girls telling us that they had sexual relations with Mr. Koso, which is not an easy fact to elicit from a very young girl."

Koso's trial date was set for Oct. 13.

Bruning acknowledged that he has received a "significant" amount of mail from the public saying he should leave the couple alone.

"But this is not a job we do to win popularity points," Bruning said. "I was elected to enforce the law. And anytime a grown man has sex with a child, it's not a close call for me."

A Falls City Police investigator testified earlier that the case began last May when the state Health and Human Services System asked the department to look into a report that the girl might be pregnant.

Bruning said that Koso is a friend of the girl's half brother and began a relationship with her when she was 12.

Koso's lawyer, Willis Yoesel, did not immediately return a call to his office seeking comment.

On your Docket

Additional info.
They first met when he was 16 and she was 8
They didn't start 'dating' until approx. age 12 (girl)
The relationship was obviously sexual
She got pregnant.
They obviously decided not to abort.
He married her (with both their parent's permissions) in Kansas *where it's legal to marry at age 14.
Now, they're back in Tenn...where it's not legal.

The girl is asking for the prosecutors to not break up her family. She's denying the rape charge.

So...you be the Judge. What would you do?

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

The evidence supports the notion that by having sex with the girl, he broke the law of the state in which the sex occurred. The later mitigating factor of her mother, who is legally responsible for her, gave permission for them to marry in a state that legally recognizes the marriage, is to be entertained as well. Their moving to yet another state where their marriage is not recognized plays zero factor in the criminality of the act.

My ruling: guilty of a lesser included offense; the marriage stands as legally recognized; he's a sick fuck; the marriage will not last as long as the court procedings will; the child of this union has a snowbal's chance in hell of ever making a productive citizen; Danny Bonaduce is a pimple on the face of popular society; I want a salami and colby on wheat roll sandwich; we as a nation spend too much money on space exploration; and Sprite is far superior to Sierra Mist. Court adjourned.

 

[catocom]

Guilty, and the parents might need prosecuting too.

 

[unclehobart]

Its also a violation of the Mann Act as well. That'll get you 5 years all by itself.

 

[HomeLAN]

The marriage is legal in the state where they got married, and should stand. However, there seems to be plenty of evidence that he committed statutory rape and sexual assualt by the laws of the state where he did it. Guilty.

The laws of both states apply to the acts committed in those states. Bye-bye. Enjoy prison.

 

[BigDadday]

Guilty Period but once again we have a child having a child and the child's child is the one who will suffer.

 

[Sharky]

Too appalled to comment, other than guilty as charged.

Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?

 

[rrfield]

With statutory rape, do the parents of the minor have to ask for charges to be pressed or is it up to the prosecutor? Does this vary by state? It seems that LEGALLY that's all he could be charged with, assuming the prosecutor can press charges without the intervention of the parents.

Either way the dude's got problems and should rot somewhere, be it hell or jail. Either is fine by me. I feel sorry for the baby.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

The State can bring charges, but usually won't prosecute if a parent intervenes due to the expense.

 

[PostCode]

the child of this union has a snowbal's chance in hell of ever making a productive citizen

Not even born yet and you are already judging?

No offence intended, but who is being biased here?

 

[Gonz]

Since the charges weren't brought before the marriage, it's too late. Let the marriage stand. In the event of a miracle, the marriage lasts, the fools manage to bring up a decent human being & all is right with the world. In all probablity, the marriage lasts a week & he has hangovers that mean more to him than his kid. The mother becomes a welfare queen & starts a family tradition. As long as he is forever (alright, 18 years) bound to pay child support. The original parents, perhaps, ought to be brought up on negelct charges.

 

[BigDadday]

Not even born yet and you are already judging?

No offence intended, but who is being biased here?

I don't think we are biased but realistic and in my case I have seen this with some of my family members and their lives were ruined as they never got to enjoy some of the things we did. Going to the Prom, Education,and just living and having fun with their friends.

 

[chcr]

Guilty, and the parents might need prosecuting too.

And anytime a grown man has sex with a child, it's not a close call for me.

Couldn't put it any better.

 

[rrfield]

Not even born yet and you are already judging?

No offence intended, but who is being biased here?

Good point, I missed that little tidbit the first time around.

If this were true I would be in jail or dead or some dude dragging society down. One may agree with the third option, but I did work my way through college, got a job and bought a house at age 23. It's not hopeless.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Not even born yet and you are already judging?

No offence intended, but who is being biased here?

Yes, exceptions exist. I'll stand on the majority though. Hope I'm wrong, doubt I will be, neither of us will ever know.

 

[JJR512]

The girl may be too young to think responsibly as an adult, and thus may not be competent to decide if having sex was a good idea, having a baby was a good idea, etc. That's why there are the statutory rape laws, laws that let the older man be prosecuted even if the younger girl says it was consentual.

But in this case we have the parents involved as well. The parents of the girl do not believe this situation is so bad that the older man needs to go to jail, and in fact they support the marriage. Hopefully this isn't what they wanted for their daughter, but they seem to believe that, under the circumstances, it's the best thing.

It's one thing for the legal system to say the girl couldn't make the choice on her own, because she's too young. But now that the parents are involved, and this is the way they want to do it, I feel it's quite another thing for the legal system to step in. The court is interfering with the parents' parenting of the girl if this is prosecuted. Do we as a nation want to say it's OK for the courts to tell us how to be parents? Will raising children become the responsibility of the courts or of the parents?

There is a line here, and the court is standing right on it. On one side of the line, you say the parents are responsible enough to raise their daughter, and let the situation stand as-is, and leave the father alone. On the other side, if you say the father needs to be prosecuted, then you are effectively saying the girl's parents are not capable of making responsible decisions about her, thus you need to remove the girl (and her newborn baby) from the custody of her parents and make her (them) a ward of the state. The court and the prosecutor needs to decide which side of the line it wants to be on, and jump fully onto that side.

My vote: There are too many things I do not know to say one way or another. Just because the girl is 14, it does not mean she's not capable of making mature, responsible decisions.

 

[HomeLAN]

What if she'd become pregnant by her father? In that case, there was parental approval as well, but it's been well recognized that the state has to step in. You're right, there's a line that needs to be crossed before the state suprecedes parental rights. In this case, with statutory rape laws being what they are, the law says it's been crossed. I tend to agree.

BTW, I've never seen a 14 YO capable of truly making those types of decisions with any competence. Certainly nothing in this story leads me to believe that this one's any different.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Good points JJR, and well stated. However,

My vote: There are too many things I do not know to say one way or another. Just because the girl is 14, it does not mean she's not capable of making mature, responsible decisions.

is another slippery slope deal. In the eyes of the law, 18 means 18, and it means 18 for a reason. No matter how mature her thinking may or may not be, she is still a minor, and therefore her parents have the ultimate say, regardless of the kid's capabilities. She would be far from the first I've seen who really was smarter than her folks. But the courts cannot take than into consideration.

Good points, though.

 

[Luis G]

Yet another case where getting an illegal abortion would have been better than being responsible for your acts.

 

[JJR512]

Yet another case where getting an illegal abortion would have been better than being responsible for your acts.

But it wouldn't have to be illegal, because it's not illegal to get an abortion.

But that's a whole other issue. In my point of view, what you're saying is kill the baby because the mother and/or her parents made a mistake. That doesn't seem right to me.

[add-on by edit]Let me expand on that by saying that there are plenty of mature, responsible, adult married couples who cannot have a baby and would be overjoyed and thrilled to adopt this baby if it were decided that the mother could not or should not be responsible for it. An abortion would not only punish the baby (with death!) for something beyond its control (namely, being created), but would also deny a deserving couple of a joy they cannot have naturally.