Pastor Who Claimed He Raped Teenage Boys to Keep Them "Sexually Pure" Will Not Serve Jail Time

[jberryhill]

76. There is no crime called "rape" in Iowa

...which is one of the reasons for the weird reporting on the story.

Chapter 709 of the Iowa code defines various species of "sexual abuse":

http://search.legis.state.ia.us/nxt/gateway.dll/ic/1/13/25874/25875/26104

The sections of interest are these:

709.2 Sexual abuse in the first degree.
709.3 Sexual abuse in the second degree.
709.4 Sexual abuse in the third degree.
[...]
709.15 Sexual exploitation by a counselor, therapist, or school employee.

What you generally pick up is that, in general, the "age of consent" is sixteen, as the last age-dependent category is that of a person who is more than four years older than a 15 year old (in other words, a 19 year old may lawfully have sex with a 15 year old).

I haven't seen any reports which are specific about ages other than "teen" - which can include anything from 16 to 19, and with whom, but for 709.15, sexual relations would not be unlawful.

At least one story does mention that what he specifically pled guilty to was 709.15, which says:

2. Sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist occurs when any of the following are found:

a. A pattern or practice or scheme of conduct to engage in any of the conduct described in paragraph “b” or “c”.

b. Any sexual conduct, with an emotionally dependent patient or client or emotionally dependent former patient or client for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of the counselor or therapist or the emotionally dependent patient or client or emotionally dependent former patient or client, which includes but is not limited to the following: kissing; touching of the clothed or unclothed inner thigh, breast, groin, buttock, anus, pubes, or genitals; or a sex act as defined in section 702.17.

c. Any sexual conduct with a patient or client or former patient or client within one year of the termination of the provision of mental health services by the counselor or therapist for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of the counselor or therapist or the patient or client or former patient or client which includes but is not limited to the following: kissing; touching of the clothed or unclothed inner thigh, breast, groin, buttock, anus, pubes, or genitals; or a sex act as defined in section 702.17.

Sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist does not include touching which is part of a necessary examination or treatment provided a patient or client by a counselor or therapist acting within the scope of the practice or employment in which the counselor or therapist is engaged.

Now what it looks like, and this is just a wild-ass guess, is that this whole business of having sex being part of the therapy is designed to fall into the exception in 709.15 which I've highlighted.

In other words, leaving aside the entire issue of age, as none of the articles seems specific about that, you have a situation where a guy was using his position as counselor to obtain sex from his patients. Ah, but what if the "therapy" included, as a necessary component, having sex with the patients!

Now, sure, someone could say that's just right round the bend nutty, but when you throw in a "religious" component to it, then there is no end to what would otherwise be nuttery that is transformed, by the good old First Amendment, into a protected practice.