Law & Ethics: Adult-Minor Sex

In this thread, the question came up of what a straight man would do if he suddenly discovered, to his surprise, the person performing fellatio on him was another man. Another question came up where it was asked what if the man discovered the person fellating him was a six-year old girl.

One response from a self-proclaimed “open pedophile” is as follows:

Explaining further:

This poster proposed the following:

Some issues I see are as follows:

  1. Whether the response to the hypo given would be considered rape in some jurisdictions, and at what point;

  2. Whether the response given is ethical with consideration given to the ethics underlying the concept of sexual consent as applied to “minors” in our culture;

  3. Whether the proposed legal scheme is potentially unconstitutional insofar as it essentially empowers the state to license private sexual activity between consenting adults; and

  4. Anything else?

Nothing to say about law or ethics but-

ATTENTION SDMB:

Cesario is an open and admitted pedophile.

We all know this now.

In any discussion of sexuality that has hypotheticals involving children, Cesario is going to respond from his position.

Bringing threads to a screeching halt while everyone goes :eek: isn’t helpful.

To my knowledge he hasn’t had sex with a minor or actively pursued it. If he has please provide a cite.

I think most of us are capable of being objective.

The response to the hypothetical is absolutely statutory rape, if the man doesn’t stop her immediately upon figuring out what’s going on. Legally, the crime is the act; he has a defense while he is asleep/unconscious, but that disappears when he wakes up and realizes his situation.

Speculation about whether there would be incremental psychological harm to the girl is a matter for a psychologist and irrelevant to the man in this situation. In any event, I would venture to guess that the notion that there is no added harm from being raped a second time after one has already been raped once does not comport with most everyone’s moral intuition.

The long series of test questions is basically a recapitulation of the same reasoning that goes on behind the setting of a statutory age of consent. It amounts to a determination by the legislature that the vast majority of children below that age would be incapable of passing that test, because their emotional maturity literally has not developed yet. The test envisions a world where some unique children are opted out of that generalized judgment, but the use of an age of consent reflects a societal judgment that those children would be so rare and the harm to children from a false positive would be so devastating that it’s not worth attempting that test.

Moreover, this testing regime is unlikely to address pedophilia in a significant way. The typical pedophile isn’t looking for an emotionally mature child capable of making adult judgments. If they wanted that, they’d be in relationships with adults. The innocence and powerlessness of the victim is a huge part of the disordered attraction.

Finally, if only for p.r. reasons, I suggest rewording any references to a “grandfather clause.”

I can take a mild stab at this one. Generally, in order to be criminally responsible (“culpable”) for an offense, there must be both “actus reus” (criminal act) and “mens rea” (criminal mind) elements. The actus reus part in the above situation, while his eyes are closed or he’s sleeping or whatever, doesn’t seem to be satisfied, since the hypothetical guy hasn’t performed any conscious acts to bring the situation about.

The mens rea is the “culpable mental state” of the defendant. That is, the accused must have desired to bring about the conduct or result, whether it be intentionally (it was the conscious desire of the accused that the result occur), knowingly (the accused was aware that his conduct would produce the result), recklessly (the accused was aware of a substantial likelihood that his conduct would produce the result), or with criminal negligence (the accused disregarded the chance that his conduct could produce the result). Without the accused having the requisite culpable mental state, you could not convict him of a crime, and if he’s sleeping or otherwise unaware of what’s going on, you’d have a hard time proving that he knew that his actions were criminal.

The next step, then, is what do you do with the guy who wakes up, realizes it’s a minor, and does nothing to either stop or encourage the situation. In general, for persons who don’t have any relationship to one another (such as a parent/child, husband/wife, or teacher/student relationship), there is no obligation to act, and a failure to act does not impose criminal responsibility. For example, if you’re walking by the beach, and you see some random person drowning, there is no legal obligation for you to help him, even if you could do so easily and with no risk to your own safety. It may be morally reprehensible, but again, there is no legal obligation, and your actions did not contribute in any way to making the situation what it was.

So, applying that reasoning to the question at hand: the sexual assault statutes I have seen require that the defendant must “intentionally or knowingly cause the penetration of…” or words along those lines. And to be honest, I can’t think of a way to argue that our person’s failure to act actually “caused the penetration” or “caused the mouth to contact the sexual organ” or what have you. And I can’t think of a legal obligation that compels the person to put a stop to things.

Anyway, thinking about this is starting to make my stomach do flip-flops, so that’s as far as I’m going.

That makes for a nice try at a legal defense, but I have a hard time believing any judge, jury or prosecutor would buy it. I don’t think that passively accepting a blow job from a child can truly be called “inaction.”

What difference does that make? Pedophilia is defined by the attraction, not by actions. Furthermore, Cesario used the words “I’m an open pedophile” himself in the other thread.

I asked the rape question because my understanding is that statutory rape is a strict liability offense in many states and no mens rea is required. However, IIRC, being unconscious makes the event INVOLUNTARY, which is different than actus reus. So, I would think that as long as the person is awake, then it’s statutory rape.

The difference is that we do not condemn people for things that are not their fault. He may be condemned for acting on his feelings, but not for the feelings themselves.

Please, we have to feel sorry for pedophiles now? No thanks. I’ll stick with condemnation. That guy’s posts in the other thread make my skin crawl.

Yeah, I was going to put something in along the lines of “But the slightest twitch would probably hang you as an overt act to achieve a criminal aim, and good luck with that,” but edited it out at some point.

On the ethics issue, I can only assume there are studies showing there is a substantial risk of harm to minors when they engage in sex acts, particularly with adults. I don’t know the nature of that risk or harm.

So, the argument goes that once the sex act begins, as initiated by the minor without the knowledge or consent of the adult, and perhaps continues for some minutes, any harm or risk of harm to either party has already been completed, and no further harm or risk of harm will be had to either party by continuing the sex act once the adult acquires knowledge that he is receiving fellatio from a minor initiated without the adult’s knowledge or consent. The acquisition of knowledge of the situation by the adult is irrelevant. Therefore, go ahead and finish, but be sure to talk to the child afterward about obtaining permission first in the future.

At the very least, I would think that teaching a child a lesson that to engage in sex with others without prior mutual consent is wrong. By continuing and completing the sex act upon acquisition of knowledge by the recipient, the recipient is ratifying the child’s act and undermining the lesson. A lesson like that should be paramount and unequivocal. Therefore, I think there ought to be a duty to stop the act immediately upon discovery of the facts.

That test has FAR too many subjective criteria to be credible. In addition to being pretty much flat out unimplementable. I empathize with the idea behind the test, I’ve long said maturity is not a function of mere age and it’s just as unfair to withhold the vote from someone with the obvious maturity and understanding to make an informed decision as it is to victimize a person whose mental development was stunted but whose physical body grew to over the arbitrary limit. IOW it’s unfair that we treat Dakota Fanning as a child, but it’s also not fair to pitch adjustable rate mortgages to people with delayed mental development. Or if you prefer, it’s unfair to not try the murderer of Karen Ertell as an adult, but to give the vote to people severely mentally incapacitated. So what are the lines, and how do we draw them? The answer isn’t easy, and a subjective test, like the one quoted by the OP, may be the best we can do, but it certainly isn’t good.

I’ve heard that somewhere before.

Enjoy,
Steven

It’s also criminal and disgusting to tell a child that it’s ok even with “permission.” What kind of garbage is that to tell a child?

It’s really not complicated or difficult at all. Is it ok to let a 6 year old suck your dick? Yes or no.

You’re actually comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? How enlightened.

I’ll take that bet, Dio.

Pedophiliacs: Should we feel sympathy for them?

…continuing…

Another problem with continuing the act is that, upon discovery of the facts, all Cesario knows is that he suddenly discovered the person on the end of his dong happens to be a kid. He doesn’t know anything else, yet, to justify continuing the act, he is willing to assume that (1) all harm or risk of harm has been fully accomplished by the time he acquires knowledge of the facts; and (2) there is no benefit or potential benefit to stopping immediately.

Given that he has no knowledge of who that child is or how that child came to be there in the first place, I think those are some mighty big assumptions. I think the prudent thing to do, especially in the case of a child, is to err on the side of caution, assume the worst, and take all steps to eliminate, avoid, or mitigate any potential harm by stopping immediately and investigating.

In other threads, Cesario has indicated almost precisely the opposite of what you’ve said here–that is, that he’s a pedophile due to his sexual attraction to younger pre-pubescent bodies, and that he’s convinced that some/many children could pass his proposed test.

I’m not sure that trying to address what a “typical pedophile” wants without cites in a Great Debate is going to be any more helpful than the vilification going on upthread.

Waah, the poor pedophiles.

I am at work and do not have time to consder every possible ramification of the various posts in this thread.

I am going to close it temporarily until I can consult with other staff members.

I may well re-open it with some rules in place, so give me a chance to look it over.

[ /Moderating ]