Statutory Rape

[Steezie]

What is your view on the Statutory Rape laws?

Statutory Rape is defined as willing sexual contact between a person at or above the age of consent and a person below the age of consent. The argument is that while the minor was willing, they were not able or did not have all the necessary information/experience to make an informed decision on the matter.

http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm
Age of consent information for the US

I feel that the Age of Consent is an out-dated concept and is either in-effective or ethically improper for several reasons (In no specific order)

1. The law is next to impossible to enforce. You must have proof of a sexual relationship between the accused and the victim (Photographs showing sexual intercourse, verbal confirmation and sworn statement from minor, forensic evidence supporting a sexual relationship) Law enforcement has better things to attend to than busting Romeo and Juliet.

2. Even if you get someone into court, noboddy is going to want to send Romeo to jail, especially if both of the people involved are in love and show it in court.

3. Age does not guarantee wisdom. There are people who go through life who NEVER gain the ability to make smart choices when it comes to sex. The argument that the younger you are, the less likely you are to recover from the emotional trauma of someone just wanting you for sex. Which doesnt make much sense because you're going to probably have to face that sooner or later in life and nothing can really prepare you to handle that except actually going through it. There is no magic spell that happens at 18 or 16 that makes a person suddenly wise enough to make smart choices about thier sex lives.

4. It punishes people who may actually be in love. It is not impossible for people of greatly different ages to love each other. Our society tends to look down on relationships where people are greatly varried in age ("Oh shes just with him for the money" "Oh he just wants a sex toy/arm candy") but that does not mean people of varried ages cant fall in love and for couples who love each other and choose to have sex, I fail to see the crime.

5. It becomes a tool in the hands of parents to get rid of boyfriends/girlfriends. The law is sometimes used by parents
to threaten thier child's significant other, even if no sexual relationship can be proved.

6. Its easy to lie. If you meet someone at a public place and start going out or even just go home for a night of fun, its easy enough to find someone willing to lie about thier age. Fake IDs are easy enough to get and while they may not fool a bouncer or a bar tender, the average person probably couldnt tell the difference between even a bad fake and a real one.

If the sex is un-willing, I will be the first one to kick down the door and haul the person out for the cops, but punish REAL rapists. Not people who love each other and want to be together.

 

[tocis]

What is your view on the Statutory Rape laws?

Tough subject.
Basically, I agree that kids below a certain age should not be confronted with sex as I doubt that you can fully understand what's going on if your own sex drive hasn't come awake yet (read: puberty...). Aaah, but how to judge when "the time is right" for a particular youngster?

On the other hand, any age limit you decide on will catch some people on the wrong side.
Yes, if two people are in love, know what they're talking about (and feeling for each other) and thus fully consent what's happening, I'd say there's no crime - whether they are both of legal age or not. It's the clarification of whether this is really the case that makes things so darn difficult.

And yes, such laws can be abused easily... but then, so can many other laws too (for example, if you're female and want to stick it to a male you know, claiming he raped you may well destroy his good reputation for a loooong time, even if it is finally found out that your claim is totally bogus)

 

[Lynden1000]

You're right, it's a tough subject.

It reminds me of an interesting case a few years back. I don't remember names but some of you may recall it. An underage boy was tried as an adult for murdering his father because his father disapproved of his sexual relationship with an older man. This older lover, meanwhile, was charged with statutory rape for having had sex with the boy.

For the purpose of one trial, the boy was considered an adult, capable of consenting to an act and understanding and accepting the consequences. For the purpose of the other trial, this same boy was considered a minor, and incapable of providing consent and understanding consequences.

I couldn't figure that one out. If he's an adult who can willfully commit murder, then he's an adult who can consent to sex.

 

[Robinsegg]

What other things do we allow minors to consent to? Well, let's see:
Can they buy a car?
Obtain a loan?
Make their own medical descisions?
Decide whether to go to school?
Obtain a driver's license (w/o parental consent)?
Leave the country (sometimes the state) w/o parental consent?

Uh . . . no. Thus, why should a possibly life-altering descision be able to be made for a minor child by another adult? Now, if the parents consent to a marriage between the two (an adult and their minor child), it's totally different. Also, if a child is legally emancipated to make his/her own descisions.

Now, why do we restrict minor children from such activities w/o parental consent? Well, there are at least two things involved:
1. The parent is legally responsible for the welfare and actions of their minor child. Therefore, the parent should have some say in the decision-making process.
2. To protect minor children from manipulative/deceptive/whatever adults.

Rachel

 

[Lynden1000]

What other things do we allow minors to consent to? Well, let's see:
Can they buy a car?
Obtain a loan?
Make their own medical descisions?
Decide whether to go to school?
Obtain a driver's license (w/o parental consent)?
Leave the country (sometimes the state) w/o parental consent?

Uh . . . no. Thus, why should a possibly life-altering descision be able to be made for a minor child by another adult? Now, if the parents consent to a marriage between the two (an adult and their minor child), it's totally different. Also, if a child is legally emancipated to make his/her own descisions.

Now, why do we restrict minor children from such activities w/o parental consent? Well, there are at least two things involved:
1. The parent is legally responsible for the welfare and actions of their minor child. Therefore, the parent should have some say in the decision-making process.
2. To protect minor children from manipulative/deceptive/whatever adults.

Rachel

I agree. However, we do allow minors to be tried as adults for crimes they commit, which sets a precedent for other exceptions to be made. It's a toughie.

 

[comana]

What other things do we allow minors to consent to? Well, let's see:
Can they buy a car?
Obtain a loan?
Make their own medical descisions?
Decide whether to go to school?
Obtain a driver's license (w/o parental consent)?
Leave the country (sometimes the state) w/o parental consent?

Uh . . . no. Thus, why should a possibly life-altering descision be able to be made for a minor child by another adult? Now, if the parents consent to a marriage between the two (an adult and their minor child), it's totally different. Also, if a child is legally emancipated to make his/her own descisions.

Now, why do we restrict minor children from such activities w/o parental consent? Well, there are at least two things involved:
1. The parent is legally responsible for the welfare and actions of their minor child. Therefore, the parent should have some say in the decision-making process.
2. To protect minor children from manipulative/deceptive/whatever adults.

Rachel

The problem seems to be the arbitrary line for adult and minor child. Why is a 17yr old a minor and an 18 yr old and adult?

There is also a lack of consistency from state to state on age of consent. Why is a 16yr old in one state able to make a decision to have sex while a 17yr old in another state is considered unable to consent?

The nature of the relationship should be considered when determining inability to consent, not arbitrary age limits.

 

[Robinsegg]

The problem seems to be the arbitrary line for adult and minor child. Why is a 17yr old a minor and an 18 yr old and adult?

There is also a lack of consistency from state to state on age of consent. Why is a 16yr old in one state able to make a decision to have sex while a 17yr old in another state is considered unable to consent?

The nature of the relationship should be considered when determining inability to consent, not arbitrary age limits.

I agree that the nature of the relationship should be looked at as well as the age. However, I believe that age 18 (when most have attained an high school education in the US and have the ability to support themselves and have better information on their choices) is a good benchmark for this sort of thing. Yes, the system should look at the nature of the relationship, but if the minor is at all being taken undue advantage of, it's wrong.

Rachel

 

[Robinsegg]

I agree. However, we do allow minors to be tried as adults for crimes they commit, which sets a precedent for other exceptions to be made. It's a toughie.

Yes, there is a precedent for execptions. What is the criteria for those exceptions? I believe (but don't have sources, right now) that it's usually a true understanding of the consequences of the action (crime in those cases) taken. In this case, does the 15yo really understand the implications of having a sexual relationship? Is he/she really ready to be a parent, if that comes up? Is he/she really ready to deal with STDs? The maturity really does make a difference. However, if the minor is really mature, they'll realize the danger to the partner and lobby for waiting (imo).

Rachel

 

[united4Peace]

I think one needs to go by a case by case scenerio...

I had just turned 17 when I started dating my husband, though I had met him when I was 16 originally...blew him off at that time
He was 23 going on 24...
Before he dated me his common law whom he was with for 4 years (was about to marry-had the Church booked-long story there), they were 5 years apart, she was 15 and he was 20 when they first met...

Now before I started dating my husband I met this guy...we were out on a date, just driving around when I asked how old he was...he said 37... (20 yrs older).
I never saw him again after that LOL.

I went out on dates though with guys 10 - 12 yrs older and didnt find a problem however (didnt sleep with them)...

 

[Paulos23]

They are a necessary evil at this point, but they do backfire. They are designed to stop older people from taking advantage of younger inexperienced folks who don't have the experience to know what can be harmful. But they also tend to catch the guy that went off to college and came back to have a romantic night with his high school sweetheart. IMO the laws work fine for the former, but most don't work well for the later.

My own state's laws try to deal with this, but in the process have become very confusing. I honestly think that there is no law that will ever deal with this successfully, but they need to be there for the worst case scenario.

 

[Steezie]

What other things do we allow minors to consent to? Well, let's see:
Can they buy a car?
Obtain a loan?
Make their own medical descisions?
Decide whether to go to school?
Obtain a driver's license (w/o parental consent)?
Leave the country (sometimes the state) w/o parental consent?

Uh . . . no. Thus, why should a possibly life-altering descision be able to be made for a minor child by another adult? Now, if the parents consent to a marriage between the two (an adult and their minor child), it's totally different. Also, if a child is legally emancipated to make his/her own descisions.

Minors engage in such decisions on a daily basis. EVERYTHING you do is possibly life altering. Getting in a car is possibly life altering. Should we bubble-wrap our kids till they get to be 18?

1. The parent is legally responsible for the welfare and actions of their minor child. Therefore, the parent should have some say in the decision-making process.

Parents are rarely objective about thier children. If your 16 year old daughter came to you and said she was having sex with a 25 year old man and she really loved him, what would you do?

2. To protect minor children from manipulative/deceptive/whatever adults.

This dumb on two levels.

One, this is not the 1950's anymore. Kids are not stupid. Even before puberty, kids know the drill. I work with kids and sometimes it floors me how much they know about the whole process and about the people involved.

Two, manipulative/deceptive/whatever adults are ALWAYS around. So why should we protect people UNDER 18 from them....but once they turn 18 they dont matter enough anymore?

 

[ebia]

What is your view on the Statutory Rape laws?

[...]

If the sex is un-willing, I will be the first one to kick down the door and haul the person out for the cops, but punish REAL rapists. Not people who love each other and want to be together.

But that's the point. Staturory Rape was invented precisely to do that. It's an offense invented to protect children from being forced, coerced or paid into sexual relationships without having to do the very difficult job of proving that force, coercion or exchange of money took place. And you would need to enact and deal with complex legislation that dealt with the situation when the older party is abusing a position of authority (eg a teacher).

It always has been an imperfect law, but if you remove it you make it very much harder to protect children.

As a compromise many countries make exceptions when there is only a one or two year age difference between the parties.

 

[ebia]

The problem seems to be the arbitrary line for adult and minor child. Why is a 17yr old a minor and an 18 yr old and adult?

There is also a lack of consistency from state to state on age of consent. Why is a 16yr old in one state able to make a decision to have sex while a 17yr old in another state is considered unable to consent?

The nature of the relationship should be considered when determining inability to consent, not arbitrary age limits.

Most laws rely on arbitrary lines - it's next to impossible to write or enforce legislation that doesn't.

 

[Gentle]

Parents are rarely objective about thier children. If your 16 year old daughter came to you and said she was having sex with a 25 year old man and she really loved him, what would you do?

thats interesting having a daughter just slightly younger than that and my g/f and I are not in accord on this one.
She would kill the man whereas if she seems happy and I like the guy I don't care how old he is if nothing seems off in her behaviour or controlled ect
if he is nice to her, respectful, treats her well it's better than a boy her age who is a total load.
Consent by age is weird b/c it has nothing to do with intellect or 'maturity' but yet the line has to be drawn somewhere as a 50 year old and a 10 year old doesn't seem right lol
but then that 18, 17 age difference with kids getting charged is ridiculous so I guess each case somehow has to be handled not dogmatically but individually
I couldn't have been taken advantage of at 16, 14, 12 or younger for that matter and quite knew what I was doing but see others so innicent an naive at 18, 20 and up
it's like all the judical system, it's flawed but there has to be something there.
And I dated a 14 year old when I was 19 so Im a rapist in this sense as well but yet the girl was and still is so much more mature than I was then or ever will be. Likewise when I was 17 I was with a 38 year old woman so she raped me but I don't see it that way.
peace
Gentle

 

[Steezie]

But that's the point. Staturory Rape was invented precisely to do that. It's an offense invented to protect children from being forced, coerced or paid into sexual relationships without having to do the very difficult job of proving that force, coercion or exchange of money took place. And you would need to enact and deal with complex legislation that dealt with the situation when the older party is abusing a position of authority (eg a teacher).

It always has been an imperfect law, but if you remove it you make it very much harder to protect children.

As a compromise many countries make exceptions when there is only a one or two year age difference between the parties.

How many people does this law actually protect as opposed to hinder? If someone is forcing someone or coercing someone, thats rape and should be treated as such.

But if we're making laws to protect people from stupid mistakes, thats a dangerous road to go down. Especially considering these are mistakes that you are gonna eventually have to make.

 

[KarateCowboy]

It's a tough subject, but you have to draw the line somewhere, so I see our current age limit as ok.

 

[united4Peace]

Rape and Consent are two different things...

As a mom of boys I pray that they wait until marriage because I don't need some 12 or 13 year old girl pretending they are 16 or 17 flirting with them when they are 18 or 19 and getting them into trouble.
I was once a teenager...Im not dumb...I lived, did stupid things...flirted with older guys

 

[ebia]

How many people does this law actually protect as opposed to hinder?

Historically an awful lot. The offense was invented, IIRC, to deal with child prostitution because it was next to impossible to prove in court that prostitution was happening. I don't have figures for how many are protected by it now but I suspect the vast majority of child sexual abuses cases rely on it. I also suspect it's clarity prevents quite a lot more from being comitted in the first place.

someone is forcing someone or coercing someone, thats rape and should be treated as such.

Rape is very hard to prove at the best of times, even when the force is quite overt. It's next to impossible to prove when the coercion is subtle and manipulative, particularly when the subject is a child. If you remove Statutory Rape offenses then you will leave a lot of child abuse unprosecutable and a further proportion will involve much more traumatic court appearances for the children involved. Given the difficulty of obtaining reliable witness evidence from children without affecting or even implanting memories there would be all sorts of complications if rape or prostitution had to be proven in every instance.

But if we're making laws to protect people from stupid mistakes, thats a dangerous road to go down.

We make laws to protect children from stupid mistakes all the time. But, as I've said, that's not primarily what statutory rape laws are about. They are about making abuse as easy to prosecute as possible. If a few people have to hold off sex for a couple of years that's the price that has to be paid for protecting children from abuse.

 

[Steezie]

Historically an awful lot. The offense was invented, IIRC, to deal with child prostitution because it was next to impossible to prove in court that prostitution was happening. I don't have figures for how many are protected by it now but I suspect the vast majority of child sexual abuses cases rely on it. I also suspect it's clarity prevents quite a lot more from being comitted in the first place.

Do you have any actual information to back that up?

We make laws to protect children from stupid mistakes all the time. But, as I've said, that's not primarily what statutory rape laws are about. They are about making abuse as easy to prosecute as possible. If a few people have to hold off sex for a couple of years that's the price that has to be paid for protecting children from abuse.

A noble goal, but in the process, innocent people get caught in the crossfire. Should we ban free speech to avoid someone saying something dumb in a bar and starting a bar fight? Its the same thing, a law thats intended to do good but punishes far more innocent people than guilty people

 

[Robinsegg]

Parents are rarely objective about thier children. If your 16 year old daughter came to you and said she was having sex with a 25 year old man and she really loved him, what would you do?

Well, it would depend a lot on the guy. Another poster spoke on this subject about his daughter, and I have a tendency to agree, with a caveat: If a young woman becomes pregnant before high school graduation, that could seriously diminish the number of opportunities available for her education and career.

You need to understand that I'm married to a man 10 years older than I am. We started dating when I was 18, got married when I was 21, etc. I don't have a problem with age differences. I have a problem with the exploitation of children.

This dumb on two levels.

One, this is not the 1950's anymore. Kids are not stupid. Even before puberty, kids know the drill. I work with kids and sometimes it floors me how much they know about the whole process and about the people involved.

There are kids who know all of that. I tend to think that knowledge at a young age is damaging, but I won't speak for other peoples' kids (I'm talking about information about how sex works at 6 or 8 years old). Anyway, while there are kids who know how it all works, that doesn't mean they can't be exploited by a clever adult.

I don't think kids are stupid. I do think they're inexperienced and (in some cases) ignorant.

Two, manipulative/deceptive/whatever adults are ALWAYS around. So why should we protect people UNDER 18 from them....but once they turn 18 they dont matter enough anymore?

We protect children as long as they're in our care. We protect children while we can but try to do so w/o keeping them from learning. It's a difficult line to draw. But once a child is an adult, we (society) assume they can make decisions better and are more informed to make those choices.

Rachel