Talk:Tom Green (polygamist)

Linda Kunz's date of birth
An anonymous user just changed Linda Kunz's date of birth to 1972. I changed it back because her date of birth is 1973, according to her birth certificate, her child's birth certificate was 1986. --Kewp (t) 12:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Linda Kunz was born in 1972, that link says it was a 1973 birth certificate but does not state that that was the year on the certificate. I happen to know that she was born in 1972 because I have been in close relationship to her for many years. i am going to verify that she was born 1972. i hapen to be one of her relatives. and shame on the person who thinks it was 1973, because that would mean she got married at 12 not 13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.47.230 (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move
This person is most commonly known by the name "Tom Green". I propose a move to Tom Green (polygamist) or Tom Green (Mormon fundamentalist). Before proceeding I'll wait a few days for "votes" on if to move it, and where. –SESmith 07:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, and "polygamist" is better for three reasons: (1) Latter-day Saints tend to resent the expression "Mormon fundamentalist" and may someday convince the world not to use it; (2) Tom Green is controversial enough that he makes most Mormon fundamentalists cringe and disassociate with him; and, most importantly, (3) "polygamist" is the term that the press most often uses in headlines about him. Cool Hand Luke 08:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, use Tom Green (polygamist). Bearian 13:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Those reasons sound convincing to me. I'll move the page. –SESmith 10:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

child rape
Was he convicted of "child rape" or statutory "child rape"? Because the rape charge appears based on age and the "victim" refused to testafy or press charges. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources I'm looking at from the article (e.g., CNN article on his release) just say he was convicted of "child rape". I don't know for sure, but it's possible that Utah law doesn't draw a distinction between child rape and statutory child rape. Some jurisdictions don't have two separate crimes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your insight. Also thank you for the speedy reply.  This article was small and talk page didn't seem watched so I thought maybe no one would answer.  Maybe the edit summary "child rape" made someone look.  Tom Green married her when he was 13 it looks and well I have a vague recollection that statutory rape sometimes is 14-17 and  below 14 is considered "child". Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I do watch the page. What you say may be so. Perhaps they just draw the line under 14 and say it can never be statutory if it is a "child". To make sure, it may require finding a more detailed source on his conviction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Green was convicted of "Rape of a Child", a First Degree Felony in Utah. Anyone under 14-years-old is considered a "child" in Utah, and therefor unable to consent to sex (even through marriage), thus the "rape." At the time of his conviction, this charge brought a sentence of six-, ten-, or fifteen-years-to-life. Green served the minimum, six years.GreenGlass1972 (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My research is turning up something slightly different but arriving at the same place. 13- and 14-year olds are both considered "children". Female "children" in Utah can consent to sex if they are (1) married or (2) at least 16 years old, whether the sex occurs inside or outside of marriage. However, no one under age 14 can be married under Utah law. Thus, there was no valid marriage, and so the sex was extra-marital and therefore legally non-consensual because the female was not at least 16 years old. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You can view the statute online at www.le.state.ut.us/~code/code.htm . It's 76-5-402.1. Rape of a child. A 14-year-old can consent to sex if they are married, which is why Green wasn't charged for having sex with his other wives, several of whom he married when they were 14. He married Linda in Mexico when she was 13, and later in Utah when she was 14. Her first child was conceived while she was 13, and that was the crux of the prosecution's case. He also wasn't charged for fathering other children he had with Linda once she was 14.GreenGlass1972 (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link; very helpful. Do you know of any sources that explicitly refer to Green's prosecution under this section of the code? I suppose they say "child rape", so we can assume the section being used is "rape of a child" in the code, but I'm wondering if there is some more technical secondary source out there that might mention the code number (in a publication targeted to lawyers, for instance). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I looked but can't find any good links. My knowledge comes first-hand (Green is a friend of mine, we've discussed the case many times and I'm very familiar with it), so unfortunately I have nothing "Cite-able". I'll keep looking, however.GreenGlass1972 (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)