Statutory Rape

[Robinsegg]

Bellman,
I will advocate investigation of anything that looks like molestation or sexual exploitation of minor children. I'm not saying they have to be charged, arrested or brought to trial, but it definitely needs investigation. Will you agree with that concept?

Rachel

 

[Vylo]

I would only question the age, that and any case where the minor is within 2 years of age of the adult/person about the age of consent

 

[ebia]

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.

Now I haven't said that. Here, for example, the law takes into account the difference in age.

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.

We do just that in many countries - for example not allowing people to own guns and (potentially) putting people in jail if they break that law.

In the case we are talking about sexual abuse of children has been extra-ordinarly common, is increadibly damaging (I don't think many people realise how damaging if they don't know someone really well who has suffered from it) and the law has been effective in helping to combat that.

No-one is going to jail to protect people - people are going to jail for choosing to continue to break a law that society has decided is a restriction of freedom worth making.

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.

You are mistaking someone who chooses to break a law and is convicted of it with someone wrongly convicted. A lot of our laws are preventative - restrictions on freedoms with the purpose of addressing potential worse situtions, and people are routinely punished for breaking the law when no harm would ever come from the specific incident (owning a gun, speeding, or a million and one other things).

 

[TheBellman]

Bellman,
I will advocate investigation of anything that looks like molestation or sexual exploitation of minor children. I'm not saying they have to be charged, arrested or brought to trial, but it definitely needs investigation. Will you agree with that concept?

That depends on your definition of 'minor', 'children', 'sexual exploitation' and what to you 'looks like' the above.

You may say I'm asking what 'is' means, but all of the above terms I have heard used to mean very different things, and without knowing what you mean by each, I can't answer.

 

[TheBellman]

In the case we are talking about sexual abuse of children has been extra-ordinarly common, is increadibly damaging (I don't think many people realise how damaging if they don't know someone really well who has suffered from it) and the law has been effective in helping to combat that.

Yes, it's certainly very common - I don't think anyone has any real idea of how common. And it certainly, at least in some cases, very very damaging.

No-one is going to jail to protect people - people are going to jail for choosing to continue to break a law that society has decided is a restriction of freedom worth making.

People are going to jail for acting in a normal healthy manner which breaks a law that a small section of society has decided upon.

You are mistaking someone who chooses to break a law and is convicted of it with someone wrongly convicted.

No, I'm not. I'm well aware of the difference. I'm also well aware of the similarities.

 

[ebia]

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.

And I'm not suggesting that for a moment. I'm all for doing away with the law if the balance is wrong, or making it better if possible (for instance taking into account the age difference of the people.

But if you are suggesting removing it alltogether you need to either demonstrate:

• that large numbers of people are unfairly suffering because of it and that number could not be reduced or eliminated by improving the laws.
• that the law is ineffective in its purpose
• that you can achieve its purpose in some other workable way

 

[ebia]

Yes, it's certainly very common - I don't think anyone has any real idea of how common. And it certainly, at least in some cases, very very damaging.

So we are at least agreed that it's very important to do what we can to address it?

People are going to jail for acting in a normal healthy manner which breaks a law that a small section of society has decided upon.

Yep. Happens all the time. Our laws are full of such restrictions of freedom. It's important that we minimise such, but to think we can do without them at all is unrealistic. No-one has to break this particular law, it can be (and is in some countries) adjusted to take account of the most obvious cases - where the two people are close in age. So, unless you can demonstrate one of my three points above I will continue to maintain that on balance the law needs to be maintained (with modification where appropriate). [Editted to add:] also bearing in mind that the age of consent in many places including the two I've lived in is 16 - the higher the age of consent the more problematic the law becomes.

 

[TheBellman]

So we are at least agreed that it's very important to do what we can to address it?

Of course.

Yep. Happens all the time. Our laws are full of such restrictions of freedom. It's important that we minimise such, but to think we can do without them at all is unrealistic. No-one has to break this particular law, it can be (and is in some countries) adjusted to take account of the most obvious cases - where the two people are close in age. So, unless you can demonstrate one of my three points above I will continue to maintain that on balance the law needs to be maintained (with modification where appropriate). [Editted to add:] also bearing in mind that the age of consent in many places including the two I've lived in is 16 - the higher the age of consent the more problematic the law becomes.

 

[flicka]

And I'm not suggesting that for a moment. I'm all for doing away with the law if the balance is wrong, or making it better if possible (for instance taking into account the age difference of the people.

But if you are suggesting removing it alltogether you need to either demonstrate:
that large numbers of people are unfairly suffering because of it and that number could not be reduced or eliminated by improving the laws.
that the law is ineffective in its purpose
that you can achieve its purpose in some other workable way

Not removing it completely, no. I'm suggesting that the "gray" area, which today is teenage sex, should be dealt with on a case to case basis and not on laws that set age limits that impose specific punishments....like this: http://www.wilsonappeal.com/index.php It's the story of a 17 year old boy serving 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old girl at a New Year Eve party. Athough they were both minors the age of consent for girls in that state is currently 16. She didn't press charges, he was only charged when the incident came to light during a separate investigation that didn't pan out. Even the jurist didn't agree with the sentence....but the law is the law.

 

[ebia]

Clearly that needs reforming. No argument from me there, as I've implied before.

 

[Robinsegg]

That depends on your definition of 'minor', 'children', 'sexual exploitation' and what to you 'looks like' the above.

You may say I'm asking what 'is' means, but all of the above terms I have heard used to mean very different things, and without knowing what you mean by each, I can't answer.

Well, I'd say a minor child is someone who is legally unable to make healthcare decisions for him/herself. In this country, it's anyone under 18.
Sexual exploitation is either: the forcing (by physical or psychological means) of someone unwilling into sexual contact
or
the manipulation of a minor child by an adult into what would otherwise be an unwilling sexual contact (as in a person more than 5 years the child's senior telling the child he/she will be more liked if he/she had had sex, etc.)
Looks like means anything smacking of such abuses should be investigated, though probably no official action needs take place unless confirmed.

Rachel

 

[united4Peace]

Not removing it completely, no. I'm suggesting that the "gray" area, which today is teenage sex, should be dealt with on a case to case basis and not on laws that set age limits that impose specific punishments....like this: http://www.wilsonappeal.com/index.php It's the story of a 17 year old boy serving 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old girl at a New Year Eve party. Athough they were both minors the age of consent for girls in that state is currently 16. She didn't press charges, he was only charged when the incident came to light during a separate investigation that didn't pan out. Even the jurist didn't agree with the sentence....but the law is the law.

Wow...so he's a sex offender now and really he isnt!!
Poor kid...sad

Im so glad I live where I live...being 7 yrs difference with my husband...started dating him at 17.
Living down there he could easily have a record as I was underage...

 

[Robinsegg]

Wow...so he's a sex offender now and really he isnt!!
Poor kid...sad

Im so glad I live where I live...being 7 yrs difference with my husband...started dating him at 17.
Living down there he could easily have a record as I was underage...

That being the case only if the two of you refused to think about it and decide to wait until you were 18. Surely not that difficult when the purpose is important enough?

Rachel

 

[united4Peace]

Well, I'd say a minor child is someone who is legally unable to make healthcare decisions for him/herself. In this country, it's anyone under 18.
Sexual exploitation is either: the forcing (by physical or psychological means) of someone unwilling into sexual contact
or
the manipulation of a minor child by an adult into what would otherwise be an unwilling sexual contact (as in a person more than 5 years the child's senior telling the child he/she will be more liked if he/she had had sex, etc.)
Looks like means anything smacking of such abuses should be investigated, though probably no official action needs take place unless confirmed.

Rachel

What do you mean by more than 5 years the person's senior?
I know many including me that have been with someone more than 5 yrs apart and did it willingly...was not coerced.
I know couples that are 12 yrs apart that met when the female was 16.
My husband's niece is 7 yrs younger than her husband, started dating just before she turned 15.

At 14 I was going to the doctors by myself, at 16 I was filling any of my own meds, including BirthControl Pills...which my mother knew about but only because I chose to tell her.

 

[united4Peace]

That being the case only if the two of you refused to think about it and decide to wait until you were 18. Surely not that difficult when the purpose is important enough?

Rachel

I had just turned 17, had waited for quite a few months, and I chose to have sex...
It's different here thank Goodness...

I dont regret it either with him as we're still together

That just made me feel really really old

 

[Robinsegg]

What do you mean by more than 5 years the person's senior?
I know many including me that have been with someone more than 5 yrs apart and did it willingly...was not coerced.
I know couples that are 12 yrs apart that met when the female was 16.
My husband's niece is 7 yrs younger than her husband, started dating just before she turned 15.

At 14 I was going to the doctors by myself, at 16 I was filling any of my own meds, including BirthControl Pills...which my mother knew about but only because I chose to tell her.

Listen, I don't have a problem with age gaps in relationships. My hubby is 10.5 years older than me. I don't have an issue with your choices. . . But I do think that if authorities looked into the situation (not bringing charges against your then bf, but looked into it and made inquiry), there would have been no harm done, yes?
In the US, children are not allowed to make their own medical decisions until they are either 18 or legally emancipated. Thus, it is seemly to have parents allowed to make inquiry, even official inquiry to protect their children if something doesn't "smell right"?

Rachel

 

[united4Peace]

Listen, I don't have a problem with age gaps in relationships. My hubby is 10.5 years older than me. I don't have an issue with your choices. . . But I do think that if authorities looked into the situation (not bringing charges against your then bf, but looked into it and made inquiry), there would have been no harm done, yes?
In the US, children are not allowed to make their own medical decisions until they are either 18 or legally emancipated. Thus, it is seemly to have parents allowed to make inquiry, even official inquiry to protect their children if something doesn't "smell right"?

Rachel

Ha...no there would have been no Charges...
I was in School, he was in College and working...we were both living at home...
I was on assistance (until I turned 18), I remember going in to see the welfare worker and she started asking me questions about my bf (now husband).
Is he working? and so forth.
Wanted me to marry him so they didnt have to pay me!!
I was and told them so...
I said...Listen we are dating..Im not ready to get married...Im playing the field and that is that...as soon as school is out Ill have a job.
As soon as school was out I had 2 jobs ..both full time...
a year after that I ended up moving in with my bf...I went to College and worked and he worked...a couple years after that we ended up getting married...LOL.
However at 17 I wasn't about to marry him...LOL...I was still flirting with other guys

 

[flicka]

Just because someone is under 18 doesn't give the parents authority over their sex life. LAWS LIKE THAT WILL NEVER WORK! And don't think that an investigation into someones sex life, even if no charges are brought up, won't harm anyone. If I were to call the cops on you and say you were abusing your kids and they decided to investigate you I guarantee you would see the harm, even if nothing comes of it. Sexually active teens shouldn't be punished because someone else doesn't like the idea of them having sex. And people are not going to wait until they are 18 to have sex just so the laws can work. It needs to be done case by case, and only when there is legitimate reason to believe someone has been harmed. Not just because teenagers are stupid...they would all be in jail for that.

 

[Robinsegg]

Sexually active teens shouldn't be punished because someone else doesn't like the idea of them having sex. And people are not going to wait until they are 18 to have sex just so the laws can work. It needs to be done case by case, and only when there is legitimate reason to believe someone has been harmed. Not just because teenagers are stupid...they would all be in jail for that.

I agree that it needs to be done case by case, with the investigators having broad lattitude in whether to recommend charges or not.

However, what I'm reading (which may not be what you're saying) is that these teens are mature enough to decide to have sex, but not mature enough to decide if it's worth the possible legal ramifications to have sex. That just doesn't work. They're either mature enough to think things through and make decisions or they're not.

Rachel

 

[flicka]

However, what I'm reading (which may not be what you're saying) is that these teens are mature enough to decide to have sex, but not mature enough to decide if it's worth the possible legal ramifications to have sex. That just doesn't work. They're either mature enough to think things through and make decisions or they're not.

I understand what you mean. But I don't expect most teenagers to think they will be tossed in jail for having sex, and they shouldn't! Laws that don't reflect society will never get respect, even from mature adults. Unfortunately there will always be the unlucky few who end up paying a price, even if it flies in the face of reason.
I just want laws that work, not laws can potentially ruin someones life for no valid reason.