Friday, December 21, 2007
Casey Aldridge's uncle went down to the Kentwood Sheriff's Department and provided documentation to show that Casey is just 18 years old, and not 19 as earlier reported, including by me. The sheriff's department in Kentwood, Louisiana confirmed that no complaint had been lodged against Spears' boyfriend and that "no criminal investigation is currently underway".
The lack of investigation appears to be valid in regards to any possible felony charges against Casey, BUT, unless Casey is declining in age daily, he should still be guilty of a misdemeanor in both Louisiana and California.
In Louisiana, the relevant portion of the penal code is:
Misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile is sexual intercourse with consent between someone age 17 to 19 and someone age 15 to 17 when the difference in their ages is greater than two years
Casey is at least two years older than Jamie Lynn Spears. His birthday is later than hers and 18-16 = 2 + the extra days. I guess that the investigating officer in Kentwood must be missing some fingers or toes.
In California, the relevant portion of the penal code is:
1. If the minor is less than three years younger than the defendant, the offense is a misdemeanor.
I'm not saying here that I agree that this should be a crime. What I am saying is that the law is a strict liability law, and that under the law, if applied equally to all people, Casey is guilty. Strict liability means basically that there is no excuse under the law. There doesn't have to be intent, and believing someone to be older than they actually are is no excuse. Strict Liability just says, if this happened, you are guilty. I'm sure there are plenty of guys who have been convicted of this sex crime who had sex under the exact same age difference as happened here. If Casey walks, don't you think they might be just a wee bit pissed.