Is Mary Kaye Letourneau a Sex Offender?
Humbert Humbert-Lolita
When she is released in 2004, Mary K. Letourneau will have a felony on her record. She will register with the state of Washington as a child sex offender, convicted of the “rape of a child in the second degree: (9RCW9A.44.076). Scorned by a childhood with a philandering father, a dissolving marriage and a life of disarray, she fell in love with her then thirteen-year-old student. Now, seven and a half years later, society has all too quickly accepted the Mary K. Lerourneaus’ as sex offenders. By all legal standards, that is what she is. The question however, is just that: should the Letourneaus be in the same category as those who have violently raped women or molested numerous young boys? What should society do with a convicted child rapist who truly believes that she has done nothing wrong? What is the appropriate treatment of statutory rape offenders?
In the movie Lolita, based on the book of the same name, Humbert Humbert, a man in his mid thirties falls in love with Lolita, a fourteen-year-old girl. She was wise beyond her years, sexually curious during a period where it was unheard of. Humbert was weak emotionally: his first and only true love died at the age of fourteen of Typhus. He never was able to escape this. “Something froze in me, that child, that love of my life was gone. The movie was deeply criticized for its sexual nature and exploitation of Lolita. One year prior, in 1997, when the movie was released, society was unable to cope with the fact that thirteen and fourteen year olds can be the iniator in age-defying relationships.
Mary K.Letourneau was born to a prominent political family in California. Her father was a staunch conservative and a devout Catholic. Two of Mary’s siblings went into public service, but Mary opted to be a teacher. To an extent, she followed her father’s example: it was revealed that he had two children with a student he taught at Santa Ana College. Though this revelation devastated Letourneau in the beginning, she delved into her family and new marriage to Steve Letourneau. She had gotten pregnant by him in college, and they married soon thereafter. After four children and allegations of abuse, their marriage began to fall apart. Mary was now vulnerable and depressed. Then Vili, a thirteen-year-old student entered her life more and more. He started to help at school and stay at the Letourneau’s home to escape his abusive family. He came from a Philippine household, very rough, with several allegations of abuse. Villi, like Lolita was wise well beyond his years. Michael Kuehl writes:
Sexually and biologically, a pubescent teenage male is a man. Villi Fualaau was pubescent at age 10. Thus, his physiologically age was 16 or 17. Put differently, he attained a level of maturity at 13 that most males reach at 16 or 17. And indeed, he acted more like a 17 year old than a 13 year old. In this case, as in nearly all cases involving adult women who engage in de facto consensual sex with underage teenage males, the ‘victim’ and ‘child’ was bigger, stronger, more sexually aggressive, and more physically intimidating than the adult child molester. (Kuehl 5). In a story on PrimeTime Live in 1998 it was reported that Vili made a bet with friends that he could [expletive] the teacher.” Kuehl continued in his analysis “Women as Rapists” that Vili forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse, and had been sexually active before his first encounter with Letourneau.”
After Mary became pregnant, knowing it was Vili’s child, suspicions arose-and Mary later was charged with rape of a child in the second degree. She received a six-month sentence, and was not to see or have any contact with Vili. Letourneau broke probation, and was caught with Vili with $6200, baby clothes and steamed up windows. She had also become pregnant for the second time with Vili’s baby. The violations of probation lead to a seven and a half year prison sentence. Some critics lashed out, calling the sentence too long, others felt it was not long enough. Kuehl in his analyses quotes Judge Judith Sheindlin; known as Judge Judy in a McCall’s magazine interview in 1998 of the Letourneau case “I Don’t condone her behavior. But three years ago thee was a Manhattan teacher who took a 15-year-old girl across county for two months. Did he go to jail, absolutely not” (1).
Mary K. Letourneau is a regressed sex offender. However, she is not a classic example. Female sex offenders are rare. Letourneau’s primary sexual orientations are to those of her own age. However, in some respects her marriage to Steve Letourneau seemed more out of convenience, or adapting to a mistake, rather than love. It is hard to classify Letourneau as a “pedophile” or suffering from “pedophilic interests,” since Vili was the iniator. Therefore, technically he consented to the sexual relations. Stress was evident in Letourneaus’s life: her father had been diagnosed with terminal cancer, the abuse allegations in her marriage surfaced, and the marriage itself was failing. Vili could be seen as a stress reliever. Though they spent an abundant amount of time together, Mary at times tried to dissolve the relationship. However, she kept back going to the young boy. She was not having sexual relations with her husband, but on the outside, they looked like the nuclear family. These all feed into the typology of a regressed sex offender.
An important characteristic of the regressed sex offender is substitution. This is where the “offender replaces conflictual adult relationship with involvement with a child; victim is a pseudo-adult substitute” (Typology 1). This has a dual meaning in the Letourneau case. This conflictual relationship could be with her husband, or it distantly could be her father. In the instance of her husband, Vili was fulfilling the emotional and sexual needs that Mary was not receiving from her husband. This left her vulnerable. In this aspect, Vili was her lover. He had crossed a psychological line in Mary’s mind, and was now an adult. In the instance of Letourneau’s father, Vili deeply fulfilled her emotional needs and desire for strength. Mary consistently refers to her father as full of strength and courage, and in a Court TV interview called both Vili and her father “remarkable men” (Court TV 6). Her father had been diagnosed with terminal cancer; therefore, that strength he had always provided was gone. Letourneau substituted Vili’s swagger and sexual advances as an underlying maturity.
It is hard to deduce what the best punishment/treatment would be for Mary K. Letourneau. She is different from the majority of sex offender cases. Society calls on the legal system to be gender neutral, if this is so, then Mary has been in prison for too long. Prison, in statutory rape cases is not the answer. Treatment such as chemical castration would be too radical. In actuality, if Letourneau was a violent rapist, and she was a repeat offender, there is no real form of “chemical castration” for women. In her case, she would be forced to have a hysterectomy. Ethically, would this be the correct decision? As previously stated, the goal of policy-makers is to make laws gender neutral. The outcome would be no preferential treatment because of gender. This question must be posed then in regards to chemical castration: if a male fathered two children with a thirteen-year-old girl, (of which he had been convicted of statutory rape) would he be chemically castrated? The answer in most cases would be no. Society still sees it as a far too radical way to try to solve the problem. Both Mary K. Letourneau and that man, being non-violent offenders should not receive this radical punishment/treatment. However, it does deserve a closer look by all policy makers.
The best form of treatment for these individuals who are non-violent would be cognitive group therapy. In such a setting, where offenders can build confidence, learn ways to deal with their problems and pinpoint the cause, can be very positive. However, it must be stressed that Letourneau’s case is different. While in prison, Letourneau has repeatedly refused to participate in sex offender therapy. The basis of the program in Washington State (where she is sentenced) is radical: the sex offenders are put through “empathy sessions” where an actor goes through their crime and forces the offender to feel. The outcome ranges from tears, to rage and fright. If Letourneau was classified as a “sexual predator”, she could stay in prison until she could prove that she was no longer a threat. In addition, Letourneau could be tried again for “what she might do” (Monsters among Us). In some respects, Mary could be seen as a repeat offender, not just for breaking probation. Letourneau has consistently said that she will be with Vili once she is released. This statement could be easily used against her according to Washington’s Sexual Predator laws.
These treatment options are much too drastic.Letourneau’s mindset, that she has done nothing wrong, and her inability to accept that she has done something illegal would hinder any of these treatments. In her 27 points, a note written in prison in 2000 she wrote:
“If I realize and support the importance of laws in general that protect our young people from real violations to them, and I am willing to go to prison for the time necessary to preserve the deterrent value of these lawsâÂ?¦Then why or how can anyone say that my fight for a just application of this law, or my fight for an honest representation of my image and the facts of this case, is not a fight that expresses the highest respect for the law?” (marykayletourneau.com).
To be “rehabilitated” one must participate, not just sit in therapy sessions to shorten their sentence .When offenders see themselves as martyrs, the rehabilitation process becomes very difficult. Violent and non -violent sex offenders can both be treated chemically to prevent further problems. However, there is one major difference-violent offenders must spend more time in prison. With injectables like Depo-Provera and Lupron-Depot, it can take well over 30 days for the female hormones to start diminishing the sex drive. By the institution of this treatment on a case-by-case basis, the state would become capable of separating the treatable versus the non-treatable. According to studies, offenders (non-violent) have a high rehabilitation rate (with a tailor made program) than rapists. However, chemical castration should not be the single protocol for treatment of sex offenders. In fact, there is no real protocol that will ensure satisfactory results. Rape and crimes similar are not about sex, but about the violence that occurs with it. If a man is unable to rape a woman using his penis, the violence can occur through other objects as well. Injections such as Depo-Provera can also be reversed using male hormones, such as Testoderm or Androgel.
In the video “Monsters among Us” Washington State was heralded as a pioneer in sexual predator laws. However, the protocol that Washington State introduces also raises many questions. In plain terms, when an offender serves out their sentence, they are evaluated as to their threat to society; this is somewhat similar to a parole board. If the offender cannot prove to the board that they are safe to be released, Washington State then has the right to keep the offender in prison until they prove otherwise. This raises great questions about civil liberties of offenders in a “free” society. These laws also provide comfort to American citizens, yet in actuality, are nothing more than words on paper to satisfy the media or politicians looking for a cheap, easy and suitable answer. This is the general problem with the treatment/punishment of sex offenders. The only way is to sentence on a case-by-case basis. By taking away a judges discretion and requiring mandatory sentences of life in prison with no chance of parole, (dependent on the violent nature of the offense) seems to be the only comparable treatment.
Mary. K Letourneau is not a “Monster among Us.” When looking at sexual offenders, society and policy makers need to focus on the Westley Allan Dodd’s and Jeffrey Dahlmers. Is Mary K. Letourneau a sex offender? Yes, by all legal means. Is this how she will be perceived for the rest of her life? Primarily, yes. Rather than focusing on the statutory rape cases more closely, it is pivotal to look at how violent sex offenders and predators are dealt with. Is chemical castration the answer? What about cognitive group therapy or empathy sessions? The problem is that there will never be a finite answer to any of these. When Mary K. Letourneau walks out of the Washington State prison in July of 2004, society must turn its head and turn to the Dodd’s and Dahlmers released everyday by the justice system.
Works Cited
Holmes, Stephen T and Ronald M Holmes. Sex Crimes: Patterns and Behavior.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 2002.
Kuehl, Michael. Women as Rapists.
Letourneau, Mary Kay. Twenty-Seven Points.
Chat Transcript-Court TV.com
Moody, Fred. Light of my life, fire of my loins: what’s unsettling about Letourneau isn’t
how she preys, it’s how she doesn’t. Seattle Weekly. 6 1998.
Vachss,Andrew. How to Handle Sex Offenders. The World and I. Aug 1993.
– – Sex Predators Can’t Be Saved. The New York Time. 5 Jan 1993.
Typology of Sex Offenders
Whitely, Peyton. Once student and teacher, now they’re newlyweds. Seattle Weekly. 5
Feb 2001.
