I was going to post this in the long and very much Great Debate esq. Pitting of prisonerhere that had turned into an excellent and inteligent discussion on rape and it’s meaning. But decided that it was too much of a potential hyjack so posted it here instead.
If a 28 year old has sex with a 17 year old, and the 17 year old agrees, as far as they are able, to have sex, is this rape?
Here in California it would be rape, yet back in UK it would not be rape, just normal sexual activity amongst adults, unlless they were both male in which case it would be rape. This is due to the differing rules about age of concent in the two countries. But how can something as terrible as rape be so nebulous? Or is the Californian (or UK gay) statutory rape somehow a lesser form of rape due to the closeness of the victim’s age to the age of concent?
Yes. The term “Statutory rape” not only makes that crime seem too severe, but lessens the word “rape” by the association with the factually consentual intercourse between a 17- and 22- year old.
Now, while there certainly is a point at which I don’t think it should be legal to have sex with a minor (somewhere between 12 and 15,) I don’t think it should be called statutory rape. It’s sort of like if someone asked you to put them in a coma with illegal drugs, and you did even though you don’t have a doctor’s license, they recover after a couple weeks, and you are charged with “statutory murder.” No one likes murderers do they? :rolleyes:
Rape is basically a crime of violence. If some criminal drugs or batters their victim, that’s rape.
Now society considers that children need to be protected until they are able to make an adult decision to have sex (with all the consequences as well as the enjoyment). The age may vary, but the principle holds.
People in positions of trust (teachers etc.) are particularly required not to abuse that trust. ‘Grooming’ children is wrong.
Having said all that, the key phrase above concerns agreeing ‘as far as they are able’.
Obviously, for example, if the 17 year old was a mentally handicapped female, this would be a crime.
Threats of violence qualify as well. Drugging someone isn’t violent. Basically I think you’re right, but the issue is consent, not violence.
I’d say no. The age of consent varies from state to state in America, so you don’t even need to look at another country to see the inequities here. Apparently it’s 18 in California.
If you’re curious, this is a pretty popular GD topic.
No, absolutely not. If there’s consent, then it’s not rape, whether or not the law acknowledges the younger participant’s consent. Calling it “statutory rape” merely serves to demonize the people involved by comparing their consensual sex act to a violent crime.
Well if a seventeen year old is old enough to give consent then the law should not punish someone for having sex with her. Apparently the law in some areas feel that seventeen year olds CANNOT properly give consent, thus qualifies as rape. There is no ambiguity in calling it “rape”- consent is still the issue in statuatory rape, just like a drugged up aquaintance date rape.
I agree that 18 is too high though. My legal jurisdiction agrees with me.
FWIW, many jurisdictions have amended the laws (or are doing so) so that the relevant articles of the Penal Code make reference to a felony titled Sexual Battery (that’s what Kobe Bryan was accused of), with degrees within it.
It’s often the press and the public who perpetuate referring to “sex with a person under the age of consent” as “statutory rape” – which in any case was inexact, as the old Penal Codes simply defined “rape” to include the relevant situation: “statutory” was a modifier lawyers used to refer to how this was the variant where consent is void because of what it says in the statute, not because of the facts.
But unless we’re in a courtroom, defining consent based on local laws makes no sense. A seventeen year old who was willing to have sex and said so has not been “raped” under a common sense definition of the term, no matter what the law says.
Well, in my beautiful idealistic world (you should visit) local laws reflect local sensibilities- which is what we do judge rape by. If the local laws have changed to remove the word rape, then good enough.
Those laws will have to be pretty complicated, then - certainly more subtle than simply drawing a line at an arbitrary age.
Even the most ardent supporter of age-of-consent laws must admit that no age limit is perfect: no matter where you set the age of consent, there will still be some people younger than the limit who really can give informed consent, and/or some older than the limit who really can’t. A consensual sex act with one of the former might result in her being legally “raped” even though there was no factual rape, and the same act with one of the latter would in fact be rape, even though it’d be legal.
But as you and JRDelirious point out, removing the word “rape” from these laws (and ideally, from the public vocabulary relating to sex with minors) would solve the terminology problem.
If the hypothetical 28 year old male took the 17 year old female to PA before having sex, the sex itself would be legal but would the male be guilty of violating the Mann Act? If so, who would have jurisdiction?
I agree that there should be an “age of consent” under which adults must not go for partners. The current legal system equating it with rape and child molesting is abhorrent. So an 18 year old humping a 17 year old is “child rape”. If that is the case, then I’d say a very large percentage of people have been guilty of “child rape”.
A while back the age of consent in Colorado for females was 17 and for males it was 18.
A father caught his daughter of 17 and a young man of 17 “doin’ the deed” and dragged the boy to the law. His daughter was charged because of the weirdness of the ages of consent.
Judge tossed the law out, but it was a fascinating case for a while.
If it is rape, I would have to conclude that rape is not that bad, if at all. Perhaps a couple of hours of community service should suffice for those found guilty of it.
