Daycare worker arrested on two counts of rape of infants

Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2013-10-06 16:03

Story here. Can you imagine a more disgusting, reprehensible crime short of mass-murder/genocide? Anyway, note that the story uses "having sex with", right at the start. "Having sex" implies mutual consent. Infants can't give consent to anything. Also, note the suspect is charged with a second rape count after yet a second victim was identified. Also looks like birds of a feather flock: her registered sex offender bf was also charged with something after he was nabbed with one of her laptops at his apartment. Will there be a he-made-her-do-it defense? Guess we'll see. Excerpt:

'Police say they have video of Heather Koon, 25, having sex with a baby. The video was found on Koon's laptop.
...
"They tried to act like it was a simple assault. A few hours later they called us back again and asked us to keep it discrete," said the dad.
...
Police arrested Koon after checking up on her boyfriend, James Osborne. Osborne is listed on Lorain County's sex offender website as living at another address. Police arrested him and confiscated a laptop found in the apartment. A police report shows it belonged to Koon and contained a video file of her "engaging in sexual conduct with an unknown infant".
...
Koon faces two counts of rape after police identified a second victim.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I'm pretty sure you can't have sex with an infant, surely it's just molesting the poor child ?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Dantheman123 on Tue, 2013-10-08 17:44

Rape is legally defined at the state level to include any number of possible acts. Generally, coercing by force, threat of force, or extorting someone into performing a sex act (oral sex, vaginal sex, anal sex, digital penetration, giving or receiving of any of these) is rape, though some states are still in the Dark Ages in that the wording of their laws excludes the possibility of women being perps. Also engaging in these acts with someone who is not in a lawful state to consent is considered rape, with certain modifiers based on the age(s) of those involved. The modifiers may lead the crime to be considered not as serious an offense and thus get a lesser punishment. The other crimes could be "statutory rape", "unlawful carnal knowledge", "sexual molestation", "corrupting the morals of a minor", etc., and to varying degrees. Some states have quite extensive distinctions. But I'm pretty sure all of them by this time have laws on their books declaring any kind of penetration of an infant's body without lawful purpose (e.g.: medical exam) by an adult to be rape, or in some states, a more-than-rape law such as "rape of an infant child" that carries a more severe penalty than "just" rape in the first degree.

So it's entirely possible the charges she faces stem from acts that entailed digital penetration of the victims, which'd qualify as rape-- at least. Or maybe, something else. But really, it isn't something I want to put too much imagination into. Makes my skin crawl.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2013-10-09 03:05