Originally Posted by :
A 28-year-old Lake Charles-area woman faces a bevy of charges after Louisiana police said she repeatedly had sex with a 13-year-old boy who she met at the Bible camp where she was a teacher/aide.
According to the Sulphur Daily News, Heather Daughdrill initiated the relationship in June and it continued until a complaint was filed in October. After her arrest on November 29, police told the paper that Daughdrill would pick her victim up from school without his parents' knowledge and subject him to sexual encounters. Louisiana cops also reportedly found sexually explicit texts between Daughdrill and her victim.
Originally Posted by frozenchief: I doubt there's a specific charge for jizz-filled cupcakes. In most states, I would be willing to bet there is a charge related to giving someone adulterated food. In my state, an offensive touching with a bodily fluid (blood, semen, feces, blood or saliva) is an A level misdemeanor. Punishable by up to a year in custody. Delivery of adulterated food is likewise an A misdemeanor. Even if convicted of both charges, they would merge at sentencing so she would face only one sentence.
While the offense is certainly disgusting, the reality is that it is not likely to harm anyone. Baking the cupcakes would kill the vast majority of pathogens and ingesting semen by itself is not harmful. On the other hand, it's pretty gross outside of certain contexts and her being a teacher and doing this to students would be a major, major aggravating factor.
For the most part, then, I would anticipate the cupcake portion of this offense would, by itself, be viewed as a serious misdemeanor, so, the maximum sentence would be 1 year in jail.
I can't imagine that's true. Seeing someone naked doesn't "harm" anyone directly, but I'd suggest one not expose themselves to kids or anyone in public, as the laws don't take kindly to that sort of behavior. It's often the "thought" or motivation behind the act that makes it more serious. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
I can't imagine that's true. Seeing someone naked doesn't "harm" anyone directly, but I'd suggest one not expose themselves to kids or anyone in public, as the laws don't take kindly to that sort of behavior. It's often the "thought" or motivation behind the act that makes it more serious.
What I mean is that there is not likely to be a law that specifically prohibits you from putting your semen into cupcake batter, cooking it, and then giving it to someone. That's why I cited the laws that I think would potentially be applicable. The most likely law is one against adulterating food based upon the rules for statutory interpretation.
As far as public nudity, there are laws against public nudity in most jurisdictions in this country. So you can say "California statute 123.456.789 (or whatever) prohibits the knowing lewd exhibition of the genitals, anus, or female breast of any person in a public place or a place reasonably accessible by members of the public" or whatever statutory language is used by California or some other jurisdiction. That is a quite specific law that focuses upon the conduct you are describing.
I do not know of any specific law that says, "A person commits a criminal violation by adding semen to cupcake batter, preparing the cupcakes, and then distributing them to persons without their knowledge" or whatever. Rather, I would anticipate that she would face charges that relate to adulterating food because that is the closest statutory prohibition that I could think of as related to this act. If Louisiana has laws specifically against baking semen in cupcake, I would expect that this issue has arisen before because this isn't really conduct that legislatures consider when crafting criminal codes out of whole cloth.
The reason I discussed the harm to someone is that would be a factor for the court to consider in sentencing. If I give someone a brownie laced with a laxative and they have diarrhea to the point that they become dehydrated and need hospital treatment, that degree of harm will factor into sentencing. Contrast that with someone who pees in the office coffee. Is it disgusting? Absolutely. But such conduct is not likely to cause physical harm to those who drink the coffee. In such an instance, the person who put the laxative into the food is likely to receive a harsher sentence than the one who peed in the office coffee even though the coffee pee-r conduct is undoubtedly far more disgusting. The discussion was about reasonable sentences for this conduct and I was explaining factors that would drive down a sentence (lack of harm) versus factors that would increase a sentence (abuse of a position of trust). [Reply]
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
What I mean is that there is not likely to be a law that specifically prohibits you from putting your semen into cupcake batter, cooking it, and then giving it to someone.
That's pretty easily disproven. Just search for something like "Arrested for putting semen in food." You'll find tons of results. A quick search shows Assault with Bodily Fluids as the charge.
If that was the only thing she did, she would have been charged as such. They likely didn't need to bother with those kinds of charges here, because it wasn't necessary for a conviction due to the other much worse charges. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
That's pretty easily disproven. Just search for something like "Arrested for putting semen in food." You'll find tons of results. A quick search shows Assault with Bodily Fluids as the charge.
If that was the only thing she did, she would have been charged as such. They likely didn't need to bother with those kinds of charges here, because it wasn't necessary for a conviction due to the other much worse charges.
You're missing my point. Notice that 'assault with bodily fluids' does not address which fluid or cupcakes or anything like that. My original post described harassment in the first degree as a similar statute.
I am not saying that people cannot be charged for putting semen into food. I am saying that any charges for this type of conduct are brought under a statute of broad applicability that is applied to those circumstances rather than a narrow law specifically tailored to specific circumstances. Assault with bodily fluids can cover a wide variety of circumstances. A statute like "Possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver" is a much narrower statute and isn't broadly applied.
The cupcake charges got the press because those charges will sell news ads, not because they're the most serious or because they're driving the charges. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
You're missing my point. Notice that 'assault with bodily fluids' does not address which fluid or cupcakes or anything like that. My original post described harassment in the first degree as a similar statute.
I am not saying that people cannot be charged for putting semen into food. I am saying that any charges for this type of conduct are brought under a statute of broad applicability that is applied to those circumstances rather than a narrow law specifically tailored to specific circumstances. Assault with bodily fluids can cover a wide variety of circumstances. A statute like "Possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver" is a much narrower statute and isn't broadly applied.
The cupcake charges got the press because those charges will sell news ads, not because they're the most serious or because they're driving the charges.
What? So, your point is that there aren't laws specifying the exact combination of semen and cupcakes? LOL, OK you win I guess. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frozenchief:
What I mean is that there is not likely to be a law that specifically prohibits you from putting your semen into cupcake batter, cooking it, and then giving it to someone. That's why I cited the laws that I think would potentially be applicable. The most likely law is one against adulterating food based upon the rules for statutory interpretation.
Come to think about it I've never heard of a fast food fapper getting time... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
What? So, your point is that there aren't laws specifying the exact combination of semen and cupcakes? LOL, OK you win I guess.
No. I had posted I thought 41 years for putting semen in cupcake was excessive and someone asked about it. So I posted that while there is no particular statute, there are some broad statutes that would be used to cover the behavior and they were misdemeanors and that you don't get 41 years for a misdemeanor. It was part of a discussion about what would be an appropriate punishment and why. [Reply]
