Statutory Rape

[ebia]

Do you have any actual information to back that up?

Not to hand, no. But, since the large majority of adult rape cases never get to trial it's hardly rocket science to deduce that the proportion of child cases that would be successfully prosecuted would be very small. How on earth could you prove to the satisfaction of a court that subtle manipulation of the child had taken place? Where and how would you even draw the line?

A noble goal, but in the process, innocent people get caught in the crossfire.

Happens all the time with any laws. Legal systems are inherently imperfect - one has to balance the two.

Should we ban free speech to avoid someone saying something dumb in a bar and starting a bar fight?

No, but we may well have an age limit on who can be in that bar.

Its the same thing, a law thats intended to do good but punishes far more innocent people than guilty people

Do you have any evidence for this? I don't think I know of anybody who has been 'innocent' but punished by statutory rape or equivalent laws.

 

[ebia]

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

And easily manipulated.

 

[Steezie]

How on earth could you prove to the satisfaction of a court that subtle manipulation of the child had taken place?

Thats one of my points

Happens all the time with any laws. Legal systems are inherently imperfect - one has to balance the two.

So because it happens other times, we should just not sweat that it happens this time?

No, but we may well have an age limit on who can be in that bar.

Fake IDs are not hard to get and bouncers are not hard to bribe.

Do you have any evidence for this? I don't think I know of anybody who has been 'innocent' but punished by statutory rape or equivalent laws.

I do

 

[WalkingforHim]

Statutory rape shouldn't be aply when the two people are within 4 or 5 years of the same age.

 

[Robinsegg]

Steezie,
I don't think I'm understanding what you're saying correctly. It sounds like you're saying that if a 45yo guy subtlely manipulates my 14yo daughter, that you don't want me or my daughter to have legal recourse because we can't prove she was manipulated. Please tell me that's not what you're saying?

Rachel

 

[ebia]

Thats one of my points

What is exactly?

I do hope you aren't suggesting that it's ok for children to be subtly manipulated into sex by adults.

So because it happens other times, we should just not sweat that it happens this time?

No. We should look carefully and critically at the pros and cons of the legislation and be prepared to change it if the balance is wrong.

Fake IDs are not hard to get and bouncers are not hard to bribe.

That's beside the point.

I do

Unless you present it that claim is empty.

 

[Steezie]

I don't think I'm understanding what you're saying correctly. It sounds like you're saying that if a 45yo guy subtlely manipulates my 14yo daughter, that you don't want me or my daughter to have legal recourse because we can't prove she was manipulated. Please tell me that's not what you're saying?

What Im saying is that this law is designed to do something that parents should have done.

The ACTUAL outcomes of the law can often involve innocent people who did nothing more criminal than fall in love

I do hope you aren't suggesting that it's ok for children to be subtly manipulated into sex by adults.

See previous post

No. We should look carefully and critically at the pros and cons of the legislation and be prepared to change it if the balance is wrong.

The balance seems wrong to me

That's beside the point.

Not at all. What's to stop some 16 year old girl from bribing her way into a bar, seducing an older man, and him getting arrested for statutory rape? Or vice versa, it happens both ways. What do you do then?

Unless you present it that claim is empty.

I personally was threatend by my ex-girlfriend's parents. I was 18 and she was 16. They couldnt prove anything but that wouldnt stop them from dragging me to court and having the accusation on record.

One of my classmates from high school is now in jail for 5 years for having sex with his girlfriend. Shes 15 and he was 19. It was not rape in any way, shape, or form. Dekkie is a good guy but...not that bright, the day he seduced a younger woman is the day my fiancee agrees to share me with Angelina Jolie.

 

[Robinsegg]

What Im saying is that this law is designed to do something that parents should have done.

The ACTUAL outcomes of the law can often involve innocent people who did nothing more criminal than fall in love

No, they also have to have sex, remember? So, having sex with an underage person is not that bright . . . I know, I know . . . who wants to think before having sex? But thinking is what keeps us out of trouble (legal, medical, future trouble). Remember the life changes a minor takes when he/she has sex . . . their entire futures can be ruined, esp. if pregnancy results before they've attained an high school education.

Rachel

 

[Steezie]

No, they also have to have sex, remember? So, having sex with an underage person is not that bright . . . I know, I know . . . who wants to think before having sex? But thinking is what keeps us out of trouble (legal, medical, future trouble). Remember the life changes a minor takes when he/she has sex . . . their entire futures can be ruined, esp. if pregnancy results before they've attained an high school education.

Rachel

Again you want to make a law on a "maybe" that exists in ALL people's lives, not just minors. And yet again ANYTHING in a minor's life my "ruin thier future"

 

[flicka]

It's a toughy. I would say that cases where a girl actually files a complaint should be considered more seriously than cases where she doesn't. Consent, even from a minor, shouldn't just be blown off just because of age since human sexuality can't be boxed in by man made laws. We need to watch out for predatory behavior while not punishing people just because they have sex, even if mom and dad don't approve. I don't know the answer.

 

[ebia]

What Im saying is that this law is designed to do something that parents should have done.

? What ?
It's a law designed to make it possible to prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit children. I'm not sure how parents can do that.

The ACTUAL outcomes of the law can often involve innocent people who did nothing more criminal than fall in love

No. They have to have had sex, and that is criminal (if not necessarly immoral).

See previous post

The balance seems wrong to me

Clearly so. But if you want to convince anyone else you need to persuade us.

It seems to me that the law protects a huge number of children that otherwise could not otherwise be protected. In return a small number of people are prosecuted when the relationship was genuinely equal and consental. Most of those happened knowingly and could have been avoided.

Not at all. What's to stop some 16 year old girl from bribing her way into a bar, seducing an older man, and him getting arrested for statutory rape? Or vice versa, it happens both ways. What do you do then?

In most juristictions the court would take that into consideration, as they would if one were tricked into breaking any other law.

I personally was threatend by my ex-girlfriend's parents. I was 18 and she was 16. They couldnt prove anything but that wouldnt stop them from dragging me to court and having the accusation on record.

And? That could still happen if statutory rape did not exist and only rape did. It can apply to any other law. If one threw out laws because it was possible to falsly accuse someone of breaking it there would be no laws left.

One of my classmates from high school is now in jail for 5 years for having sex with his girlfriend. Shes 15 and he was 19. It was not rape in any way, shape, or form. Dekkie is a good guy but...not that bright, the day he seduced a younger woman is the day my fiancee agrees to share me with Angelina Jolie.

If he knew she was under-age they he knowingly chose to break the law. In most juristictions he wouldn't get 5 years in jail for it unless there was some indication of force or coercian because of the relatively small difference in ages and (presumably) he didn't hold any position of responsibilty or authority over her.

You claimed, and were asked to provide evidence to support, the idea that significantly more people were harmed by the law than helped. One instance doesn't demonstrate that - I know several people sexually abused as children whose abusers could never be brought to justice without statutory rape legislation.

 

[ebia]

It's a toughy. I would say that cases where a girl actually files a complaint should be considered more seriously than cases where she doesn't. Consent, even from a minor, shouldn't just be blown off just because of age since human sexuality can't be boxed in by man made laws. We need to watch out for predatory behavior while not punishing people just because they have sex, even if mom and dad don't approve. I don't know the answer.

In most places Statutory Rape laws do an ok job of that. The laws enable prosecution of those who's behaviour is unacceptable while courts normally have sufficient flexibility to avoid custodial sentences where no predatory behaviour is evident.

 

[Robinsegg]

Again you want to make a law on a "maybe" that exists in ALL people's lives, not just minors. And yet again ANYTHING in a minor's life my "ruin thier future"

I'm talking about ruining their chances for education, which would cripple their chances for employment and supporting themselves and the child involved. Advocating abstinence until high school graduation is just logical to me.

Rachel

 

[TheBellman]

You claimed, and were asked to provide evidence to support, the idea that significantly more people were harmed by the law than helped. One instance doesn't demonstrate that - I know several people sexually abused as children whose abusers could never be brought to justice without statutory rape legislation.

It seems to be accepted that the 'bad' which accompanies statutory rape laws - otherwise reasonable sexual relationships, such as a 19 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend resulting in criminal charages for someone - are outweighed by the 'good' which accompanies them - the use of them to prosecute those who sexually abuse children.

I find this a disturbing approach. Other judicial/legal avenues bend over backwards so that the innocent do not get punished - the idea being that it is better to let ten offenders go free than punish one non-offender. Yet in this instance, it's fine to punish a 'non-offender' if we are, in so doing, also punishing a bunch of offenders.

 

[flicka]

Advocating abstinence until high school graduation is just logical to me.

It is logical. But it shouldn't be punishable by law.

 

[Steezie]

It's a law designed to make it possible to prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit children. I'm not sure how parents can do that.

Parents should teach thier children to watch out for predatory behavior and use good judgement. Not that its the parent's fault if anything happens, but the parents should educate thier children and not try to punish other people if they fail to educate.

If he knew she was under-age they he knowingly chose to break the law. In most juristictions he wouldn't get 5 years in jail for it unless there was some indication of force or coercian because of the relatively small difference in ages and (presumably) he didn't hold any position of responsibilty or authority over her.

Again, I fail to see how what he did was wrong. Simply because something is "the law" doesnt mean its right or ok. It was not coercive nor forceful.

I'm talking about ruining their chances for education, which would cripple their chances for employment and supporting themselves and the child involved.

You are making a boatload of assumptions right there

 

[ebia]

It seems to be accepted that the 'bad' which accompanies statutory rape laws - otherwise reasonable sexual relationships, such as a 19 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend resulting in criminal charages for someone - are outweighed by the 'good' which accompanies them - the use of them to prosecute those who sexually abuse children.

I find this a disturbing approach. Other judicial/legal avenues bend over backwards so that the innocent do not get punished - the idea being that it is better to let ten offenders go free than punish one non-offender. Yet in this instance, it's fine to punish a 'non-offender' if we are, in so doing, also punishing a bunch of offenders.

Hang on a second. Those who choose to have sex with someone under the age of consent are choosing to break the law. They may not agree that it's a good law but they are choosing to commit a criminal act. No-one forced them.

The people I know who were abused as children were very seriously damaged by that experience. As in many other areas of law, society accepts that some freedom of action is worth sacrificing in an attempt to combat that harm - in this case the freedom of people over the age of consent to have sex with those under the age of consent.

 

[TheBellman]

Hang on a second. Those who choose to have sex with someone under the age of consent is choosing to break the law. They may not agree that it's a good law but they are choosing to commit a criminal act. No-one forced them.

I realise that. However, the notion of someone technically breaking the law - say a 19 year old with his 17 year old girlfriend has been treated in this thread as someone who is a victim of a bad law to the extent that it targets him. The general consensus seems to be that putting a 19 year old in jail for havnig sex with his 17 year old girlfriend is a bad thing, but it's worth having this bad thing because of the good that comes of the same law.

The people I know who were abused as children were very seriously damaged by that experience. As in many other areas of law, society accepts that some freedom of action is worth sacrificing in an attempt to combat that harm - in this case the freedom of people over the age of consent to have sex with those under the age of consent.

And by the same token we COULD say that since murder victims are (obviously) very badly off, we accept that some freedom is worth sacrificing to combat that harm - so we won't get too upset over the idea of convicting an innocent man so long as we're sure that in so doing we get all the guilty ones.

It's a question of on which side do we err - caution, and potentially let bad guys get away with it but punish less good guys, or incaution and stop bad guys getting away with it but potentially punish more good guys. The western justice system errs on the caution side, but it seems the predominant thought in this thread is to err on the other side.

 

[ebia]

Parents should teach thier children to watch out for predatory behavior and use good judgement. Not that its the parent's fault if anything happens, but the parents should educate thier children and not try to punish other people if they fail to educate.

In the case of the people I know there is nothing more the parents could reasonably have done to prevent their children being abused. I'm sorry, but if you think parents can make that big a difference without the necessary laws you are living in cloud-cookoo land.

Again, I fail to see how what he did was wrong. Simply because something is "the law" doesnt mean its right or ok. It was not coercive nor forceful.

No, but it was illegal and he chose to go ahead anyway. It's illegal for the reasons I've outlined above. Most western societies have decided that the protection of children is worth limitations on freedom. Your friend choose to go ahead anyway.

In his case I would say 5 years in prison is definitely an excessive penalty and I would suggest in many countries he would not have had to serve a custodial sentence at all if the facts are as you've outlined, but he chose to break the law.

I for one would rather people's freedoms were limited in this way (and those who choose to flout the law punished in some manner if necessary) than for one of the strongest pieces of child-protection legislation to be removed and many more children have their lives ruined by those who would abuse them.

We make these kinds of 'arbitrary' rules to solve problems all the time - we set a speed limit on our roads (even in the Northern Territory as of this week). It doesn't matter if you are an advanced driver with a first rate car who can safely drive on that piece of road at twice that speed and need to get to your appointment in a hurry - the speed limit is the speed limit and if you choose to break it then you can't whinge too much if you get caught. Setting a speed limit makes a clear rule that is easy to enforce without grey areas. It would be 'fairer' for the law to just limit people to the speed they and their car can safely drive at on that piece of road, but such a law is unworkable, so we go for the simple limit.

 

[flicka]

Hang on a second. Those who choose to have sex with someone under the age of consent is choosing to break the law. They may not agree that it's a good law but they are choosing to commit a criminal act. No-one forced them.

When we arbitrarily create age laws, no matter how well intentioned, there is absolutely ZERO chance that they will be followed completely. Everyone knows this yet some people act that those who don't comply should be jailed or punished, regardless of the situation, JUST BECAUSE IT'S A LAW. That is a mistake I hope nobody ever makes because laws can be, HAVE BEEN, completely ridiculous. I just read online that until 1998 oral sex between married couples was illegal in Georgia and punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment.

We have to keep after laws that don't work and not just shut our eyes and put our fingers in our ears and punish, punish, punish. That kind of thinking is dangerous.