So what is considered "deviate sexual intercourse" under the law?

 

According to KRS 510.010:

 

"Deviate sexual intercourse" means any act of sexual gratification involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another; or penetration of the anus of one person by any body part or a foreign object manipulated by another person.

 

"Deviate sexual intercourse" does not include penetration of the anus by any body part or a foreign object in the course of the performance of generally recognized health-care practices;

So what is considered "deviate sexual intercourse" under the law?

 

According to KRS 510.010:

 

"Deviate sexual intercourse" means any act of sexual gratification involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another; or penetration of the anus of one person by any body part or a foreign object manipulated by another person.

 

"Deviate sexual intercourse" does not include penetration of the anus by any body part or a foreign object in the course of the performance of generally recognized health-care practices;

 

I think it is easy to get caught up in the word "deviate" when really all it is, is a way for the Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) to differentiate between vaginal sex and anal/oral sex.

 

In other words everyone, it is just a word, don't read anything negative into it.

Very interesting response from the community. Folks I have talked to are throwing around names. Multiple women is what I am hearing. Quite a few people I have spoken to don’t feel like the women are victims and that Coach Duffy needs to be left alone.

 

“It wasn’t a secret what was going on.”

Very interesting response from the community. Folks I have talked to are throwing around names. Multiple women is what I am hearing. Quite a few people I have spoken to don’t feel like the women are victims and that Coach Duffy needs to be left alone.

 

“It wasn’t a secret what was going on.”

 

We can see from what Duffy was charged with and what he wasn't charged with that the sex was consensual.

We can see from what Duffy was charged with and what he wasn't charged with that the sex was consensual.

 

Considering that it was consensual, I wonder why is it now suddenly becoming an issue 36 years later?

Considering that it was consensual, I wonder why is it now suddenly becoming an issue 36 years later?

 

Enquirer said this morning that the complaint alleges the victims were of an age at which consent is not legally possible.

Considering that it was consensual, I wonder why is it now suddenly becoming an issue 36 years later?

 

Enquirer said this morning that the complaint alleges the victims were of an age at which consent is not legally possible.

 

Correct, it is "Statutory Sodomy" due to the age of the victims being under 16 and not any type of forcible compulsion which would make the criminal charge much, much more severe. In other words, the charge tells us the victims were willing participants in the sexual acts but as Getslow pointed out due to the age of the victims consent is not legally possible.

This makes me sick to my stomach. Now I wonder if more will come forward, how many, and where from during his time in different schools coaching.

I think it is easy to get caught up in the word "deviate" when really all it is, is a way for the Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) to differentiate between vaginal sex and anal/oral sex.

 

In other words everyone, it is just a word, don't read anything negative into it.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I was thrown by it. I don't read the legalese too often in this type of thing, and it was obvious that the inclusion of the word deviate was there to differentiate it from just sex. The logical conclusion I suppose was that in this case it was probably oral, and possibly anal sex that drew that categorization, but I wanted to know for sure what it meant, legally.

 

Now I know. Regardless, the whole thing makes me cringe.

Enquirer said this morning that the complaint alleges the victims were of an age at which consent is not legally possible.

 

Ok, but do we know who is pushing the charges. Did the victims have a change of heart about the consent. I guess what I'm getting at is if they consented, albeit illegally, unless something changed, who is upset enough decades later to press charges?

Ok, but do we know who is pushing the charges. Did the victims have a change of heart about the consent. I guess what I'm getting at is if they consented, albeit illegally, unless something changed, who is upset enough decades later to press charges?

 

From the public information available we don't know.

 

It was a crime all along that went unreported (at least I assume it went unreported) and now someone(s) decided to report it and since there is no statute of limitations it doesn't matter whether the crimes took place 36 years ago or 36 minutes ago.

I guess the question I have at this point is how do you prove a crime like this after this many years? Assuming he doesn't admit to anything, how can they undeniably prove that he did something wrong?

I guess the question I have at this point is how do you prove a crime like this after this many years? Assuming he doesn't admit to anything, how can they undeniably prove that he did something wrong?

 

Well, in most of the abuse cases involving clergy, there is a significant amount of benefit of the doubt that is given to the plaintiffs - at least that's what the number of guilty verdicts would seem to imply when it comes to older cases like this when it's left to little more than finger pointing.

 

However, if there are multiple individuals who end up coming forward with multiple similarities in their claims, then I would see this as a pretty easy conviction.

The only question I have is why is this an issue now? It’s probably none of my business and I don’t ask that question in a malicious or doubting tone. I just wonder what happened recently to bring up things that happened decades ago. I understand that there isn’t a statute of limitations and by all means I fully support the desire for justice. The timing of these charges has made me curious is all I am saying.

A person who was 16ish in 1982 would be what, 52ish or so now?

 

I’m all for justice but I agree that it just seems odd with the timing and stuff. Then again, if someone was abused, there should be justice regardless of timing.