[B]Should some laws allow for flexibility? Sexual predator: Mary Kay Letourneau[/B]

[freakazoid]

Mary Kay Letourneau Fualaau, Vili Fualaau Detail Their Path From Teacher-Student Sex Scandal to Raising Teenagers

By JENNIFER JOSEPH, BROOKE STANGELAND, LAUREN PUTRINO and LAUREN EFFRON
9 hours ago

When Mary Kay Letourneau Fualaau was forced to go public in 1997 with an affair she was having with her former sixth grade student, Vili Fualaau, after she became pregnant with his child, it was the teacher-student sex scandal heard around the world.

At the time, Mary was a 34-year-old, married teacher in Seattle, who already had four children of her own. Vili was just 13 years old. Mary was arrested and served seven and a half years in prison.

Today, Mary is 53 and Vili is 31. The couple is still together and are about to celebrate their 10th wedding anniversary. The two daughters they have together are now teenagers -- older than Vili was when the affair started.

Mary and Vili sat down for an exclusive interview with Barbara Walters to talk about how they managed to stay together all these years, despite their very public and forbidden relationship.

“If it wasn't strong enough in the beginning, it wouldn't have carried through those years,” Mary told Walters.

Watch Barbara Walters' full exclusive interview with Mary Kay Letourneau Fualaau and Vili Fualaau, and meet their two daughters, on ABC News “20/20” Friday, April 10, at 10 p.m. ET.




This interview is a part of Barbara Walters' upcoming new series, "American Scandal," on Investigation Discovery, which revisits some of her most famous interviews.

During the interview, Mary described how her and Vili's relationship moved from emotional to sexual when he was in middle school. When she was his teacher, she began to spend more and more time with Vili to help him develop what she thought was a gift for drawing. By the end of the school year, she said the two had bonded. By summer, they started having an affair.




"The incident was a late night that it didn't stop with a kiss," Mary said. "And I thought that it would and it didn't."
When asked if she felt guilty or disgusted with herself for having the affair, Mary said, "I loved him very much, and I kind of thought, 'why can't it ever just be a kiss?'"

By the end of summer 1996, Mary was pregnant with Vili's child, their first daughter. Shortly after the new year in 1997, Mary's husband discovered a love letter Mary had written. The authorities were alerted, and Mary was arrested.

The story of the Seattle teacher-student sex scandal caught wide national attention. She gave birth to her and Vili’s first child, Audrey, on May 29, 1997. Three months later, Mary pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree child rape. On Friday, Nov. 14, 1997, she was sentenced to 89 months in prison.

Mary was paroled after serving six months on the condition that she stay away from Vili and attend counseling sessions for sex offenders. But within a month of being paroled, she was back in prison for ignoring the court order and her sentence was reinstated. While on parole, Mary became pregnant again with Vili's child and gave birth to a second daughter, Georgia, behind bars on October 16, 1998. Mary's husband then filed for divorce and moved their four children to Alaska.





For Vili, the journey to get where he is today has not been easy. He said he battled depression over the years.





“I’m surprised I’m still alive today,” Vili said. “I went through a really dark time.”
Vili grew up impoverished without a father and had a tumultuous relationship with his mother. When his affair with Mary began, and after she became pregnant with his child, Vili said he felt that he had no support system to help him through it.

“It was a huge change in my life, for sure,” he said. “I don’t feel like I had the right support, the right help behind me ... from my family, from anyone, in general. I mean, my friends couldn't help me because they had no idea what it was like to be a parent, I mean, because we were all 14, 15.”

Vili said he had counseling sessions, but even then he struggled because he said counselors wanted him to take antidepressant medication to "even him out."

“I don’t even think the counselors knew how to deal with it. It was just weird,” he said. “I was like, ‘Why do I need to be on an antidepressant pill?’ And they said it was to level you out so they can have a conversation with you. ... It just kind of just really annoyed me through the years.”

Vili was forbidden from visiting Mary in prison, but he said it would have helped him if he had been able to talk to her during that time.

“I think the only person that I really ... needed to talk to-- I mean, if they gave me more options or choices to make instead of just saying, ‘Oh, you can’t talk to her anymore,’ and I was like, ‘I really do want to talk to her, though,’” Vili said.





Mary was released from prison in August 2004, and the couple was married 10 months later in a lavish ceremony at a winery in Washington state. Vili was 21 years old.






"It was a huge relief to actually get married... [after] just going through all those years and then having so many questions and them not being answered," he said.
Mary and Vili have stayed in the same Seattle community where Mary had lived with her first husband. When she and Vili got married, Mary said they didn’t move because they wanted to focus on "getting on track with life.” Through all of this, Mary said her four children from her previous marriage have remained part of their family.

“All of our holidays were always together,” she said. “And they're very close with their sisters.”

But for Vili, who is only about a year and a half older than Mary’s oldest son, it has been more difficult.

“It's an awkward feeling, for sure, to be close in age with someone technically your stepson or stepdaughter,” he said.

Today, Vili works at a home and garden center, but his passion is working his night job as a DJ. His DJ name is “DJ Headline.”

"I do a lot of weddings, private parties," he said. "Eventually, I want to get into producing."

Mary is working as a legal assistant but hopes she can return to teaching. Her teaching license was revoked during the scandal, but she has now started tutoring and giving piano lessons. She is still registered as a sex offender, but is trying to get her name removed from the registry.





Their two teenage girls, who are in the same school district where Mary used to teach, said their parents have told them how they met, and they knew their mother was different from others when their interaction was limited to prison visits. But the girls seem unfazed by the controversial circumstances of how their family was formed.

“There was never a sit-down chat: ‘Now is the time we're going to talk to our children about this,” Mary said. “They seemed to already know ... because they grew up with it. ... There's just never been a, ‘Wow, we better explain.’”

Audrey graduates from high school this coming June, and will attend community college in the fall. Georgia is a sophomore and a cheerleader. Both sing in their high school choir. Their parents are very protective, and Vili said he has warned his daughters against having boyfriends.

“The reason for me telling them that was just from, out of experience,” he said. “A relationship could lead to something that you think you wanted back then. You don't really want it, maybe, years later.”

If either of their girls did what they did, if they came home one day and said they were sleeping with their teacher, both Mary and Vili said they would be shocked and upset.

“I don't support younger kids being married or having a relationship with someone older,” Vili said. “I don't support it.”

Watch Barbara Walters' full exclusive interview with Mary Kay Letourneau Fualaau and Vili Fualaau, and meet their two daughters, on ABC News “20/20” Friday, April 10, at 10 p.m. ET.

 

[babe]

well, what can anyone say that isn't just shock and revulsion?

She says "why can't a kiss just be a kiss". . . . well, maybe if it's like a parent caring for a child in a healthy way.

But notice the facts, the kid was already abused by his mother, and no one helped. Kissing a kid whose mother was abusing him sexually, who didn't have a real idea of anything being "just a kiss". . . .
The teacher lost her marriage, spent time in jail, and was still the only person who cared about that kid. Well, maybe if she had just dumped the kid, he might have found some normal relationship???? We just don't know, really, but it was the intent of the courts and society to try to drive him that way. She might have considered the resulting children as reason to stay involved???? I just don't know how to judge all that.
Ten years' marriage does not prove things have gotten on track or "normalized", but what they say now comes close to proving things have healed up better than most of us would expect.

Look at what they say about their teen kids. It appears they understand something about how difficult life can be, and want a normal life path for their kids. Still, I'm pretty sure those kids will always have some challenges to face stemming from their parents. Even with the parents "working on" normalizing things.

Should we change our laws regarding what constitutes exploitation of minors by adults, abuse and rape? I'm sure the pedophiliac community wants their lifestyle accepted on grounds that some adults really care about kids, and that their relationships are wholesome and positive. But the primary function of "law" is to protect individual rights, including the right to grow up without exploitative or manipulative adults having special projects focused on abusing you.

I don't see where even this unusual couple really wants to change the laws to fit their case somehow. I say leave the laws as they are because kids need to be protected by our laws from people whose judgment/predilections are impaired. Better to set the standard that personal relationships based on significant difference in knowledge, experience, and power are generally exploitative. Laws that protect individuals, particularly kids, from abuses fit the basic definition of what government can and should do for us.

 

[TroutBum]

I'm all for it, as long as both chicks are hot.

 

[freakazoid]

I'm all for it, as long as both chicks are hot.

You know I'm one of your biggest fans, even when I joke about your alts. Having said that, I'd really appreciate and respect your opinion in this matter. It matters. TIA.

 

[freakazoid]

Also, from what I take from babes post, we need to punish this couple that has been together for 15+ years. Maybe we can provide a jail for the two teenagers and their parents. No chance we should consider that this boy was not abused like a girl of the same age might have been. Destroy this family, otherwise babe will never be happy. Damn sad.

 

[Gameface]

Also, from what I take from babes post, we need to punish this couple that has been together for 15+ years. Maybe we can provide a jail for the two teenagers and their parents. No chance we should consider that this boy was not abused like a girl of the same age might have been. Destroy this family, otherwise babe will never be happy. Damn sad.

Any relationship where there's an unequal balance of power is an abusive relationship.

So like all relationships are abusive.

I'm tired of being a victim.

 

[babe]

Also, from what I take from babes post, we need to punish this couple that has been together for 15+ years. Maybe we can provide a jail for the two teenagers and their parents. No chance we should consider that this boy was not abused like a girl of the same age might have been. Destroy this family, otherwise babe will never be happy. Damn sad.

Oh, I happy no matter what you do, or think. You ask for people to tell you what they think, then if they don't just agree with you, you have to insult them.

actually, in this case, you did not even understand what I said. hmmm. . . .. I cut out one sentence in my post. . . . something about how difficult it is to write a law that judges won't abuse more than is good. It's like people making fun of me because I write too much, when the actual problem is they don't want to understand that much.

Mandatory sentences are a bad idea generally because they limit the common sense judges or juries can have. However, bad judges are a reality in todays world. What is a bad judge? In my view, a bad judge is one that wants the power to just do whatever he thinks is best, the written law be damned. In some cases, they cover this attitude with nice terms, even formally institutionalize it, as "administrative law", meaning law made up by judges. So some legislators felt they had to restrict that trend, of letting some judges slide by their laws, by legislating mandatory sentencing.

As the relevant law now stands, in the case cited in the OP, the couple are legally married and nobody is questioning that. There was parole after a very minimal time served, and because of violating parole she served pretty much her full 90 months' jail sentence. Or maybe it was reduced by parole hearings or a pardon? those facts aren't in the OP. The time she spent in jail is presented as a further hardship on the abused boy.

I presume from Game's remark that since all relationships are abusive we should have no laws attempting, however vainly, to protect children taken off the books, and no legally sanctioned "marriage". Just day to day whatever goes, I suppose. I guess you (zoid) would like absolute judicial vagary? An amended law allowing a child victim to waive prosecution of an adult offender because. . .. why? whatever?

The sentence I deleted from my response was about how difficult it is to write laws that work right. If legislators try to nail down every contingency they lose support for the bill with every allowance that makes another legislator cringe. Or the law gets too big to understand or implement with a thousand exceptions?

OK, so maybe we should pass a constitutional amendment that limits legislators and judges from abusing their power, requiring them to have a section in every law they pass, or every conviction and sentence they hand down, that specifies the intent of the law and the constitutional authority for that law. Then, if a jury thinks the law is still a bad law, we could again allow for "Jury nullification" of legislators' laws and judges' convictions and sentencing, too. In this case, it might be to the effect that "this law is predicated upon individual personal rights the government is empowered by the state/federal constitution to protect, and it presumes that a child does not have adult experience and knowledge necessary to make valid personal decisions about forming a lifetime adult relationship." A judge or jury could find in some case, perhaps, that since a child did have the experience and knowledge generally, or the adult was acting constructively rather than exploitatively, that the law just didn't fit the case. If we did that, then a judge or a jury could look at the fact of a twelve year old boy actually knowing all the facts of life, and validate his decision to turn to another adult, in this case, his teacher, who actually was acting constructively or responsibly, for his partner.

I'd be unwilling to support that as "legal", still, because in this case the kid was just too messed up at age 12, and the teacher was just about as messed up herself. That would be a rather personal view, however, that some others, like you and Game, might if you were sitting on a jury, or on a parole panel, if not in the judge's seat or the governor's seat, could prevail over my opinion.

I'd like the law to read, to an adult with designs on a youth, "no way am I going to get away with this."

The law as it stands protects a thousand kids for every kid it limits or damages.

That said, I have no reason at this point why the teacher can't win her appeal to have the sexual exploitation conviction taken off the books. She has backed up her action with twenty years of commitment.

 

[babe]

Game, I know it's hard for you to bear with a knowitall in the JF forum, and that you maintain I actually have changed no one's opinions in here. I'm sorry you take it so hard, but you are wrong, in one detail. I change my opinions sometimes when I read what you or others have to say about mine. To state the case more precisely, I am a "would-be" sort of knowitall, exercising a rather annoying, to some, personal quest for a little more understanding.

 

[TroutBum]

This is one of those grey areas that I am not going to comment on.

A) I am an idiot and don't really know too much about it.
B) I have young kids, so they skew my opinions.

Sorry Harpring, I'm bowing out of this one.

 

[LogGrad98]

Hindsight does not change the facts of the crime at the time they occurred. Just because there is some weird warped happy ending does not change the fact that a 34 year old teacher allowed a relationship with a 13 year old student to become sexual. There is nothing right or good about that, period. End of story. They both even said they would not approve of that, but for some reason they want us to approve of them doing the same damn thing.


That said, I largely agree with babe. It is tough to have such laws on the books. In Reno we knew a great kid who was a bit older (21 or 22 I believe) and trying to get his paperwork together to go on a mission. He was having some problems because when he turned 18 he had sex with his long-time girl who was a couple of weeks away from being 17. So most of the time they were a year apart, but for a month or so they were 2 years apart. Oh and her parents hated the kid, who admittedly at 17/18 from what we hear was kind of a douche and a stereotypical stupid kid. But of course they pressed charges, and of course he was convicted. Interestingly enough he served no real time for it, but now carries permanently the sexual predator badge. Fixed sentences like this are ******** imo. Let the crime determine the time and the rest of the punishment, with a permanent label as a sex offender one possible outcome.

I can even live with bad judges because they are all still people, just like we have bad lawyers, and doctors, and mechanics, and food-service workers, etc. Put a review board, maybe with a collection of ordinary citizens and law professors or other judges or whatever, in place that reviews cases and sentences and gives a grade with no name attached and if that grade falls below a B then oust the sucker.

 

[moevillini]

This is one of those grey areas that I am not going to comment on.

A) I am an idiot and don't really know too much about it.
B) I have young kids, so they skew my opinions.

Sorry Harpring, I'm bowing out of this one.

I'm 100% with you on this Trout, although it's still not going to stop me from commenting...

...Mandatory sentences are a bad idea generally because they limit the common sense judges or juries can have....

I think mandatory minimum sentences can be very helpful to a jury as it's deliberating, whether the sentence is determined by the jury or by the judge.

Six months served was far too short the first time around, though it is truly unfortunate that effective counseling was not provided for Vili. Though I understand that the uniqueness of his situation might have made it difficult to find an effective counseling situation. His unstable and damaging childhood; his participation in an abusive sexual relationship a teacher who was more than 20 years older than he was... so many disturbing things to sort through...

I wish the article explained who raised the girls during the 6 years Mary was in prison. Were they with Vili? What financial support was provided?

It is a credit to both of them that they seemed to have a decent life together and raised two seemingly balanced teen-age daughters, so after time has passed, it doesn't seem fair to call this a tragedy or miscarriage of justice.

...I'd like the law to read, to an adult with designs on a youth, "no way am I going to get away with this."

The law as it stands protects a thousand kids for every kid it limits or damages.

That said, I have no reason at this point why the teacher can't win her appeal to have the sexual exploitation conviction taken off the books. She has backed up her action with twenty years of commitment.

I pretty much agree with this.

I think this particular situation is truly unusual. I am not sure how exactly I feel about her getting the sexual predator label removed. Maybe there should be another category that kicks in if someone has gone 10 - 15 years without recidivism - so it stays on their record but doesn't automatically exclude them from certain life situations.

 

[moevillini]

Should some laws allow for flexibility? Sexual predator: Mary Kay Letourne...

the thread on the death penalty seems to have gotten a bit off-track and devolved into a discussion of rape vs. "violent" rape

Some of the comments (one in particular) seemed to imply that certain scenarios in the case of "statutory" rape were utterly ridiculous - - just to show that it's not such a ridiculous scenario for a young man to face a severe punishment for something that most people would not even consider a crime at all - - how would you like to be this young man:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/indiana-teen-zach-anderson-labeled-sex-offender-after-sex-girl-lied-about-age/

UPDATE: A Detroit judge told a 19-year-old from Indiana on Wedneday that he would consider a request for a new sentence, months after ordering the teen to register as a sex offender in both states and refrain from having a computer or smartphone because he had consensual sex with a 14-year-old Michigan girl he met online who said she was 17.

The life of 19-year-old Zach Anderson, who was ordered to register as a sex offender in two states, is "ruined," according to CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman.

The Indiana teen was convicted of criminal sexual conduct for having sex with a 14-year-old girl. The two met on a dating app and the girl told Anderson she was 17.

But after serving 73 days of a 90-day sentence in jail, the Indiana teen appeared in court Wednesday afternoon in order to withdraw his guilty plea. A judge told him he would consider the request for a new sentence….


...Anderson traveled from Indiana to Michigan to meet the girl he had been chatting with on the Hot or Not app and they had consensual sex.

Under the law, Anderson could be considered to have committed statutory rape, but this case has several mitigating factors: he is a first time offender, the girl and her mother have come to his defense and the girl lied about her age.


But the judge didn't see it that way. He mandated Anderson remain on the offender registry for 25 years.


...Judge Dennis Wiley could have referred Anderson to counseling under Michigan's Juvenile Diversion Act, but instead he chose to use the case to set an example.

"You went online, to use a fisherman's expression, trolling for women, to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now. Meet, hookup, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior," Wiley said in court….

In addition to the 90-day jail sentence and sex-offender status, Anderson also faces 61 conditions including restrictions that bar him from going online, dining at restaurants that serve alcohol and even living at home, because he has a 15-year-old brother.

...Anderson is not alone in his nightmarish situation -- 25 percent of people on the sex offender registry are under the age of 18.

pathetic and sad, there's so much wrong with this case - hopefully it will be sent to a new judge with a more realistic attitude

 

[moevillini]

here's a link to an online petition requesting reconsideration of the sentence

https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-zachery-anderson?source_location=petition_footer&algorithm=promoted