Statutory Rape

[Robinsegg]

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.

Okay, but what if a 30yo is having sex with a 15yo? Doesn't that need to be looked into? I'm all for saying "no more age diff. for teens than x # yrs." or something to that effect. The question becomes "who is being exploited either by force or manipulation and who is cognizant enough to make this choice willfully?"

I'm not really talking about teens having sex with other teens (unless they're 19 & 14), but about post-college people having sex with minor teens. I still say that if the law is known, the law should be a topic of discussion while deciding if sex is appropriate for them.

Rachel

 

[Mling]

Given how our legal system works, this is something of an impossible problem. I'm not sure we have any way of really handling this well. I do agree that arbitrary age limits do not always serve the best interest of the people involved.

It get's even more confusing when you factor mental retardation into the question. During my Criminal Justice minor and internship, I went to a group therapy for MR sexual offenders. Several of the men there had commited statutory rape--but I would guess that they were around the same emotional and psychological age as their "victims" if not younger.
There was also a case in that district several years ago where a young teen who looked much older than her real age deliberately went to bars and seduced men, kept a record of everybody she had slept with and then turned it over to the police. At least 30 guys were convicted of statutory rape--a felony which they will carry with them the rest of their lives--because a girl thought it would be fun to trick them. The judge was furious, but his hands were tied. Not knowing the age of your partner is not a defense.

A lot of states have somewhat nuanced laws that take into account both the age of the "victim" and the age of the "rapist." (So, sleeping with a 16 year old would not be illegal for a 19 year old, but would be for a 30 year old.)

It's a rough situation. On the one hand a lot of teens are very eager to grow up, to a degree that makes them very vulnerable--sleeping with somebody much older then them would feel "cool" and it would be very easy for somebody to take advantage of that.

On the other hand, some teenagers are extremely mature for their age, and well equiped to handle an adult relationship. A few years ago I went to a "youth group" sort of club for high school and college aged kids/young adults, and was fairly attracted to one girl there. She was generally kind, outspoken, elequent, well-read, confident and, as I discovered upon introductions, 14 years old (my shoe suddenly became very interesting at that point.)

I think our system could benefit from a bit more discretion. What it comes down to, though, is that discretion is time-consuming and expensive. It would take a while to determine if a relationship is healthy and our social service departments and courts just don't have the time.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'll look at it like this. I attend a away from home school for minors. Chances are, since both genders attend this school, someones (being it takes two) will have sex. Well, recently, two someones were caught. One was either 16/17, one was 18, so not only was it against school rules, but parents of the 16/17 could have charged the 18 with rape. I agree that kicking them out of the school is the shcools right (they not only broke this rule, but a few others in their method of accessing the ability to have sex). But I also believe that the parents of the 16/17 were right in not charging. Basically, it is a school impossible for you to get into unless your on average advanced for your age. This and the fact the parents allowed (and thus thought her mature enough to handle it) their kid to go the a place where they are only supervised half the time by adults I believe takes away their right to say that their kid did not understand what she was doing. I think the parents think so to, for last I heard, no such charge was being brought up.

 

[TheBellman]

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.

Okay, your original question was asking me if I would agree to "investigation of anything that looks like molestation or sexual exploitation of minor children". I asked you to define a few terms before I'd agree, and you've done so with:

- minor child - someone who is legally unable to make healthcare decisions for him/herself. (In [the USA], it's anyone under 18) (although that's the case in only parts of the USA - in others the age varies).
- sexual exploitation - 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 - anything smacking of such abuses should be investigated, though probably no official action needs take place unless confirmed.

Thanks for giving your definitions, and in light of them I would not agree with your statement, for the following reasons:
- I think the idea that nobody under 18 is ACTUALLY (as opposed to legally) uanble to make healthcare desicions for themself is ridiculous. I have known 15 year olds who I would say were actually able to do so, and 25 year olds who weren't.
- your definiton of sexual exploitation is far too broad. Psychological 'forcing' of people into various activities is part of life; it happens all the time. Whether it is moral or not is another question, but the idea that it (per se) should be made illegal I find absurd and unworkable. From your definition, an 18 year old telling his 17 year old g/f that if she really loved him he'd have sex with her would be sexual exploitation. I cannot agree.

 

[Forest]

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.

The law in this area, in my State needs work...your points by number...

1. The law is easy to enforce...sex crimes seem to have a certain stigma that other crimes don't, therefore the burden of proof before a jury is lower in a practical world.

2. Most prosecutors are eager to "save the world" from "sex offenders" and get a picture in the paper for doing so.

3. A line has to be drawn somewhgere doesn't it?

4. Why should being in love be an excuse for breaking the law?

5. I agree.

6. In my State the age of consent is 18, but if someone is 16 or 17, then it would be an excuse if the suspect did not know they were underage...ie. fake id.

 

[Steezie]

2. Most prosecutors are eager to "save the world" from "sex offenders" and get a picture in the paper for doing so.

No prosecutor wants to be remembered as the one who jails lovebirds. Not good publicity to put the starcrossed lovers behind bars.

3. A line has to be drawn somewhgere doesn't it?

Yes it does, but it obviously doesnt work where it is

4. Why should being in love be an excuse for breaking the law?

In the case of a just law, it shouldnt.

6. In my State the age of consent is 18, but if someone is 16 or 17, then it would be an excuse if the suspect did not know they were underage...ie. fake id.

Courts often dont care if the accused was fooled or not. The logic is that if they let one person get off on saying "I didnt know" then EVERYBODDY is going to say "I didnt know"

 

[Mling]

The state statutes I have read specify very clearly that not knowing the age of the "victim" is not an affirmative defensive. And yes, I do go around reading state statutes. Idaho has particularly interesting laws.