No.
“Awesome.”
Brown (the alleged victim) is 43.
Statutory Rape is not exclusively concerned with age.
jezus f-ing christ man! Put a spoiler on that or something! :mad: I nearly vomitted.
Although it is still illegal for members of the Armed Forces under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, although I can’t find a definition of Sodomy in the UCMJ other than “Unnatural Acts of Copulation with same sex, opposite sex, or animals”
(Trees, however, are still A-OK)
What ** Telemark ** said. If the victim is unable to give a legally valid consent, that’s statutory rape, regardless of age.
So, then Brown is not 43?:dubious:
I mean that even if Brown if 43, he might nevertheless be considered as unable to give a legally valid consent. In which case, it would be a statutory rape.
I’m not sure what is unclear. A regular rape is when the victim didn’t give consent. A statutory rape happens when someone has consensual sex, but a statute deems this sexual intercourse to be nevertheless a rape. For instance because a the victim is under age, hence can’t give a valid consent, according to a statute. But there might be any number of other situations where consensual sex is considered a rape according to a statute, depending on the country, jurisdiction, etc…
In this case, it seems (according to previous posters) that it’s a situation where any sexual intercourse between a jailer and an inmate is considered as a rape, whether or not the inmate gave consent, according to a statute. So, it’s a statutory rape, even if the inmate is 99 yo.
Brown is the female alleged victim, and according to news reports is indeed 43. For some reason, my fact as to her age seems to be taken by two posters now as an argument that her age means it can’t be statutaory rape. I said nothing of the sort. I said "Brown (the alleged victim) is 43". I made no legal comment or opinion. Some dudes didn’t read the article, so I wanted to point out the alleged victims age in case anyone was confused on this point.
Now, can you show that her age is not 43? or that she is not the alleged victim? or what? Have you even read the article?
Your age line was put in response to a quote about statutory rape, not about anyone questioning her age. I (and others) naturally thought you were saying it couldn’t be statutory rape because of her age. We were correcting what we thought you were saying.
I didn’t get the impression that anyone was confused about her age.
Many posters are apparently not reading the article. Thus a post saying that in Statutory Rape consent is indeed not a defence would indicate to some that the victim here was underaged, which gives an entirely wrong impression.