# New Il. Rape law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2003, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249 "2003-07-31T23:47:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2003, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/221 "2003-08-08T21:19:36Z")
It is the state’s reluctance to be “the universal provider” that necessitates the child support regime. If the state were willing to support all children, nobody would be required to pay child support anyway. It is such a terrible thing, that we no longer believe that it’s perfectly OK to let a child starve to death merely because its parents are too poor to support it. We should go back immediately to the days when the poor had to beg for food for the mouths of their children. That would put an immediate end to this epidemic of illegimitate children. After all, human life is only precious when backed by sufficient property. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2003, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/222 "2003-08-09T04:48:53Z")
**whack-a-mole** , I’ve asked you to clarify the gult that lies between ‘false’ and ‘mistaken.’ You’ve avoided it every time. Why does every discussion about rape invariably devolve into not degreees, but either/or? \*A false accusation is just that…false. If it implies malice in every case to you that is your problem. Certainly there can be cases of false accusations being made by mistake. However, one would assume it is somewhat harder in a rape case for a victim to make mistakes. I’ve seen various number bandied about for this but something like 80-90% of rape victims know their attacker (prior acquaintance). \* \*\* Cite, please?\*\* ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2003, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/223 "2003-08-09T05:05:11Z")
_Originally posted by **Shodan** :_ **Wrong, and I’ll thank you not to try to put words in my mouth.** I’ll apologise for that if you apologise for putting a label on me that isn’t true: \*\*If we both have a bias, why is it only me who cannot “debate the issue fairly”? Although you are correct that I don’t always understand your points. Possibly because of my agenda; possibly because they may not be as clear as you think to someone who does not share your agenda of “radical feminism”. It cuts both ways, as you probably already know.\*\* I am NOT a radical feminist and never claimed to be one. I’m not even a card carrying feminist; although I am female and believe in equality of opportunity regardless of gender. I’m not even a liberal (except socially). If I had to choose a political label for myself it would be moderate (which doesn’t really say much, I know). But is that radical? You, on the other hand, have identified yourself on these boards as a conservative, is that not so? If I am mistaken about that, I will apologise. No one is w/o bias, but I consider my views here to reflect much more balance than yours have. They may not be correct (a matter of opinion), but they don’t come from an extremist agenda. Maybe you haven’t read the whole thread? **As far as I can tell, you are arguing that these kinds of false accusations are not serious.** Again, I suggest you go back and read my posts. This is simply not so. You’ve come to this thread after 3 pages - I had moved past the question of whether or not they are serious (I said they were) and was focusing on the validity of the various numbers and studies. If you consider wanting to know the truth a bias then should I assume you are anti-truth? \*\*You don’t find it alarming that the innocent are being accused? You don’t find it alarming that the credibility of women is being undermined? You don’t find it alarming that women who have been genuinely attacked are being belittled? This is what you call “spin”?\*\* Again, read my posts to answer the first question. I said I did find it alarming. And because I _also_ find it alarming that women are being belittled and having their credibility undermined, I take issue with posts that allude to something like this: **It would seem to me that if irresponsible women can stop using false accusations of rape to get attention for their disorderly conduct complaints, then we can deal with the “real problem” of rape.** What if I said: “It would seem to me that if men would stop raping women there wouldn’t be a problem to begin with”. Would it be technically accurate? Yes. Would it show bias? Also yes. Statements like this, and the one you’ve asserted, don’t show an interest in solving a problem or debating fairly. To me, it smacks of agenda-speak and spin. **Can’t make an omelette without breaking a few ova, right?** That isn’t a cheap shot? If I put words in your mouth, I apologise, but I see spin and I see belittling of women, however subtly you want to word it. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2003, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/224 "2003-08-09T05:59:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*I think you are missing the fact that an “attention seeking” or “needing an alibi” claim of rape _never_ shows up in DNA statistics. If a woman was not raped at all but claims she was for whatever reason _there is no DNA to use for comparison_. The police could have the DNA on file for every man in the country but with no sample to collect from the woman they have nothing to match against. As a result _all_ DNA tests in the FBI stats were done with suspect(s) in mind so they can collect his DNA and see if it matches the evidence collected from the woman/crime scene. \*\* I’m not missing that fact, but it appears to me that _you_ are missing something. You were using the 80/20 breakdown on the DNA negatives - as you have just said yourself - it doesn’t apply in all situations. It (the DNA sample) certainly doesn’t apply to the 80% acquaintance rape scenarios. You have yet to acknowledge this. Again, I am saying that the 25% DNA negative reported by the FBI cannot be used to extrapolate another figure. Further, I have a problem with using _any_ number in the UCR as a constant to calculate a blanket percentage. Do you understand what the UCR is and how it is determined? From the [Philadelphia Inquirer](http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=398): > [@](#): > > **FBI Says It Cannot Monitor Accuracy of Police Statistics** > Responding to questions about reporting problems and lack of review, an FBI spokeswoman said that the agency had never asked any police department to clarify why it might have a high rate of “cleared” rapes without arrests. The FBI repeatedly states that it depends on state agencies to ensure that reporting is accurate. State agencies, which receive data from individual police departments and forward it to the FBI, have said they depend on police departments to report and make sure statistics are accurate. > > The FBI does not undertake comparative studies of reporting in different cities, allowing some police departments to seriously abuse some loopholes in the FBI’s reporting rules. The article cites examples of different reporting criteria in various police jurisdictions. Some numbers clearly don’t make sense: > [@](#): > > In 1999, St. Paul police said they “cleared” 108 percent of the city’s rapes: 200 rapes and 215 clearances. Yet, police arrested only 47 suspects for rape. For the first half of 2000, St. Paul said there were 107 rapes and 107 cleared cases. This is why I don’t accept blind numbers and want to avoid blanket percentages. I can’t stress this enough. I think you are extrapolating and hypothesising w/o consideration for the structural variables. You will not get valid results this way. Again, _it’s not a simple problem_, and blanket percentages tell us nothing with _any_ degree of accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2003, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/225 "2003-08-09T06:44:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by margin \* > **whack-a-mole** , I’ve asked you to clarify the gult that lies between ‘false’ and ‘mistaken.’ You’ve avoided it every time. Why does every discussion about rape invariably devolve into not degreees, but either/or? You have? I missed it and I am unsure what cites you are looking for. If you could be more specific I will try and find what you are looking for. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle:[/i > It (the DNA sample) certainly doesn’t apply to the 80% acquaintance rape scenarios. You have yet to acknowledge this. I haven’t acknowledged it because it is wrong. Why do you assume that the 80% are ALL consent issues? They aren’t. Men women are acquainted with force themselves on their ‘friend’ as well in a violent attack. Your cite from the Philadelphia Enquirer also doesn’t relate to the FBI DNA stats and in no way impeaches them. As weird as the idea of a 108% "cleared"rate is (not even possible so I wonder what they can possibly mean) has zero bearing on the DNA evidence. The DNA stats are simple lab numbers. Once again X numbre of tests come in and X number are false, positive or inconclusive. Simple as that and while you might argue what the numbers mean the numbers themselves are solid. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2003, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/226 "2003-08-09T07:00:53Z")
anna: > [@](#): > > Again, I am saying that the 25% DNA negative reported by the FBI cannot be used to extrapolate another figure. Not exactly true. The 25% rate is not based on police statistics of cleared rapes, which I agree are highly unreliable. It has nothing to do with that. It is based on DNA tests that exonerate the main suspect, or the convicted suspect. We can extrapolate another figure from this: About 25% of primary suspects in cases with _no_ DNA evidence, and in which the defendant claims he never had sex with the victim, are falsely or mistakenly identified. I think this indicates some serious systemic problems, and that there are a lot of innocent people in jail. Though again, this is not relevant to cases in which consent is used as the defense. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2003, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/227 "2003-08-09T07:13:49Z")
whack-a-mole: > [@](#): > > I haven’t acknowledged it because it is wrong. Why do you assume that the 80% are ALL consent issues? They aren’t. Men women are acquainted with force themselves on their ‘friend’ as well in a violent attack. That isn’t the point. The point is that the 25% statistic is unrelated to the 80% statistic. You cannot apply the 25% to the 80% - that simply is not how statistics work. For your purposes you would have to know the percentage of cases based on disputed identity, rather than the percentage of cases in which friends are accused. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2003, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/228 "2003-08-09T07:27:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*I haven’t acknowledged it because it is wrong. Why do you assume that the 80% are ALL consent issues? They aren’t. Men women are acquainted with force themselves on their ‘friend’ as well in a violent attack. > > Your cite from the Philadelphia Enquirer also doesn’t relate to the FBI DNA stats and in no way impeaches them. As weird as the idea of a 108% "cleared"rate is (not even possible so I wonder what they can possibly mean) has zero bearing on the DNA evidence. The DNA stats are simple lab numbers. Once again X numbre of tests come in and X number are false, positive or inconclusive. Simple as that and while you might argue what the numbers mean the numbers themselves are solid. \*\* I’m sorry you’re not getting it. I’m about to give up on explaining it to you. The 80% are not all consent issues - this is correct. But the DNA samples are only representative of _samples received by the FBI_. Beyond that, you know _nothing_ of the _circumstances_ in which they were ordered. Tell you what: Show me a cite that breaks down the DNA samples as to acquaintance rape, stranger rape, etc… If you can’t do that, then you cannot use the 80/20 breakdown - or _any_ breakdown - because you have _no idea_ of the _circumstances_ behind the DNA samples. I hope that’s clear. As for the Philadelphia Enquirer article: it _might_ impeach the DNA samples, because they are results only reports _received_ by the FBI from various sources, sources that have been shown to have serious accuracy and uniformity problems. If the FBI didn’t question the St. Paul 108% clearance rate, what makes you so certain that _any_ results they receive are either accurate or, more to this scenario, _complete_? But really, this is besides the point in your case, because even if the 25% _is_ accurate and complete, it simply cannot be used to extrapolate the numbers you are hypothesising. This might add to the confusion, but let me remind you that DNA _can_ be ordered in cases that _end up_ defended by _consent_. One example I can point to off the top of my head is _Kobe Bryant_. Again, this just further clouds your assumptions about what circumstances are represented in a blanket number of DNA samples. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2003, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/229 "2003-08-09T07:51:21Z")
anna: > [@](#): > > As for the Philadelphia Enquirer article: it might impeach the DNA samples, because they are results only reports received by the FBI from various sources, sources that have been shown to have serious accuracy and uniformity problems. Good point. With the information we have, we cannot be sure that some sources were not selective about which cases they referred to the FBI. They could have referred more cases in which DNA exonerated the suspect. In that case, we really can’t extrapolate anything from the statistics. All we have are the numbers themselves. I doubt there will ever be clear, solid statistics on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/230 "2003-08-09T08:11:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nightime \* > \*\*anna: > > Good point. With the information we have, we cannot be sure that some sources were not selective about which cases they referred to the FBI. They could have referred more cases in which DNA exonerated the suspect. > > In that case, we really can’t extrapolate anything from the statistics. All we have are the numbers themselves. > > I doubt there will ever be clear, solid statistics on this issue. \*\* You know what other numbers bother me? The “unreported rapes” figures. This asserted by both the [FBI and the Department of Justice](http://www.sexcriminals.com/facts/page_1.html) (and of course rape crisis advocates): > [@](#): > > In 1997, there were 305,620 rapes and sexual assaults in the United States. These included 115,120 forcible rapes, 75,150 attempted rapes, and 115,340 sexual assaults. Of these, only an estimated 31.7% were reported to police. Victims ranged in age from 12 to over 65, with the largest concentration being in the 16-24 age group. 68.1% were perpetrated by acquaintances. > Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics > (U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics) > > Rape is the most under-reported crime in the United States. > Uniform Crime Report > (Federal Bureau of Investigations) If I wanted to get cute with the numbers, I could say that since the number of reported rapes is only about 30% of the total, then the false charges - even the highest number asserted of 50% - is only 50% of 30%, which means the highest number of false charges possible is only 15%. And chances are, it’s much lower, since most studies range below that 50%. I wouldn’t argue this seriously, but it just shows how all the numbers being thrown around are misleading. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2003, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/231 "2003-08-09T08:23:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \* > \*\*If I wanted to get cute with the numbers, I could say that since the number of reported rapes is only about 30% of the total, then the false charges - even the highest number asserted of 50% - is only 50% of 30%, which means the highest number of false charges possible is only 15%. \*\* Whoops. Make that _less than 8% of total rapes_. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![I\_Eris\_I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f05b48/32.png) [@I\_Eris\_I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Eris_I)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/232 "2003-08-10T05:08:36Z")
About the child support issue, the fact that the Kansas court said that consent had no bearing on child support is just sickening to me. 1. The victim should never have to pay or care for a child that is the result of rape, whether they are male or female. 2. The rapist should never have custody of the child. Do we at least agree on the above??? The other points that we were debating was what constitutes statutory rape, what happens when the rapist plea bargins, etc. But before we get into that, I want to make sure we all at least agree on the first 2 statements above. I think those are the main issue, and they got lost in the shuffle somewhere… So let’s debate those first. Also, picture the genders reversed. A 12 year old girl, let’s say Sue, is raped by her 16 year old male babysitter, Bob, over a period of several months. She has the baby, and Bob keeps it. But she is ordered to pay Bob, her rapist, child support once she is able. Doesn’t that scenario disturb you? But let’s even say that some third party keeps the child. And the courts order both Sue and Bob to pay child support (could this even happen? I have no clue…) because they are technically the biological parents of the child. Even that is disturbing… ~Eris~ ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2003, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/233 "2003-08-10T09:32:24Z")
**About the child support issue, the fact that the Kansas court said that consent had no bearing on child support is just sickening to me… The other points that we were debating was what constitutes statutory rape, what happens when the rapist plea bargins, etc.** I think an important distinction that needs to be made here is the difference between a criminal case and a civil case. A civil suit is not dependent on a criminal conviction, or even plea bargain outcome. There is also a distinction between what constitutes consent and/or statutory rape in criminal and civil proceedings - when the civil proceedings are **not** determining damages sought by either of two parties as remedy for a criminal offence - but the liability for child support sought by (or on behalf of) a third party (the child born). The first situation would require a separate suit, and has no bearing on the third party’s rights and interests. Note: This is _not_ the mother (alleged rapist) suing her (alleged) victim, it is a suit brought by a separate party. Imagine if you were suing someone for monies owed, and they tried to avoid payment by arguing they had been victimised in the past _by someone else_. Anyway, in this particular case, it was noted that Seyer had _presumably consented_ to the sexual activity, and therefore he could not argue against the child support ruling on that basis (deserving protection from improvidence as a juvenile). > [@](#): > > The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of a minor child born of such activity. > > ‘Consent’ as used in this section, means words or overt actions by a person who is competent to give informed consent indicating a freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact. A person under 15 years of age is incapable of consent as a matter of law. The following persons are presumed incapable of consent but the presumption may be [\*\*1277] rebutted by competent evidence, subject to the provisions of s. 972.11(2):… > > Although the question of whether the intercourse with Colleen was “voluntary,” as the term is usually understood, [\*\*\*12] is not specifically before us, it was brought out in oral argument before this court that the sexual relationship between Shane and his baby sitter, Colleen, started when he was only 12 years old and lasted over a period of several months. At no time did Shane register any complaint to his parents about the sexual liaison with Colleen. **And the courts order both Sue and Bob to pay child support (could this even happen? I have no clue…) because they are technically the biological parents of the child.** Yes. To be clear, in the Seyer case, both parents are held to be liable for support, and the judgement specifically names both parties as jointly responsible for reimbursement to the SRS. **1. The victim should never have to pay or care for a child that is the result of rape, whether they are male or female. 2. The rapist should never have custody of the child. Do we at least agree on the above???** These questions are easier to answer as an emotional response to an unfortunate individual story, but the possible impact of a court ruling requires judges to be more prudent than emotional. FWIW, state laws vary in response to these questions. In Arizona at least, the answer to #1 would be: No, the victim is not liable (in light of the Seyer case, btw). It also notes “There is no known fiscal impact from implementation of this provision, since the circumstances contemplated by the proposed legislation are unlikely to occur with any frequency.” [The provisions](http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/1r/summary/s.1053r.fs.htm): > [@](#): > > 1. Stipulates that the mother or father of a minor child has no legal duty to pay child support if the minor child was conceived in an act of illegal sexual misconduct with a minor or sexual assault perpetrated on the child’s minor parent by the child’s other parent, and the child’s other parent has been found guilty of either charge. > > 2. Extends the exemption to the parents or legal guardian of the minor parent/victim. I still think it’s political (entitlements budget), and based on any given state’s rate of teenage pregnancy. The note above implies the rate of children born to minors is lower than national average in Arizona (but I haven’t checked). Consider the possibilities where this provision could be abused to avoid liability for _voluntary_ sexual activity and stick it on the state. It would provide a considerable financial benefit for filing false charges. All at taxpayer’s expense. I say, better for the state to maintain the provision for parental liability, and then decide whether or not to enforce it, as and if the situation warrants (and I’d still bet Seyer never pays a dime to reimburse the state). It’s not like they’ll deny aid to the child if the judgement isn’t complied with. A civil suit for damages can still be brought by the victim of a crime as a separate case. Question #2 is even more complicated. I pass. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2003, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/234 "2003-08-11T14:03:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by margin \* > In _A Woman Scorned_ I see references to interviews with jurors Thomas J. Stearns, Samuel Celaya, and Haller herself, during which they described their feelings about the Kennedy family, and how they wept at the tragedies of the family. According to Haller, 'the evidence just wasn’t there. The testimony of the three other women had no relevance on the case." I can’t find the exact quotes, which appear in the Schafran book. How does juror Haller describe the evidence as being “not there” before she heard the case? Or is that quote from after the trial? And once again, interviews with jurors who described their feelings about the Kennedys, and “wept at the tragedies,” does NOT CONSTITUTE A DISCUSSION DURING JURY DELIBERATIONS led by juror Haller, does it? Once again, you have failed to provide any evidence for the claim that juror Haller “led discussions of the tragedies of the Kennedy family during deliberations.” > [@](#): > > As well you should, because it ought to be pretty clear that it was used to indicate that in addition to spouting crap about how attractive guys don’t need to rape, Haller went into the jury box determined to acquit the guy. That may be. Certainly, as a prosecutor, I’d be ill-inclined to seat a prospective veniremember that thought good-lloking guys won’t ever rape. But it has nothing to do with the claim I’m asking you to verify, does it? > [@](#): > > We’re having a discussion about what rape shield laws do and don’t accomplish. According to razorsharp, they’re a product of feminist agendas. If the New York Times feels compelled to weigh in on the side of the accused, wouldn’t that appear to indicate that such laws are not too strong, but pitifully inadequate? No. Rape shield laws provide that the victim’s past sexual history, in general, is inadmissible at trial as a matter of law. It’s unclear to me how the New York Times, unless a particular edition thereof was admitted into evidence, has anything to do with rape shield laws. And what does the decision of the Times have to do with the strength of rape shield laws anyway? The moment I think I have figured out what point your’re trying to make, **margin** , I find myself lost again. I would ask you to try, if you can, to focus narrowly But in doing so, you made some specific claims. One of them I question: that a juror led the jury in discussions of the Kennedy family’s tragedies during jury deliberations. I have yet to see any evidence in support of that claim. And – it’s been quite a long time since I asked, and you haven’t been able to provide it. I think it’s safe to say that this claim of yours was arrived at by the cherished process of “making up.” I express no opinion on whether you personally made it up, or merely repeated in good faith someone else’s made-up story. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![thinksnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thinksnow/32/2849_2.png) [@thinksnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thinksnow)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/235 "2003-08-20T19:37:39Z")
Jumping off OP and back in time a bit, just to address a very specific misconception two people have brought up: > [@](#): > > \*\*annaplurabelle \*\* > I was not able to find any records of the SRS subsequently enforcing the ongoing support monies judgement. I’d be willing to bet they didn’t. The reality is, as long as he hasn’t got the money, there’s not much they can do (please note the court absolved his parents from responsibility). The situation could change for a number of reasons (the mother could sue him later on), but AFAIK it is not the policy of welfare depts. to pursue judgements barring extraordinary circumstances, if then (there are cases where wealthy fathers avoid these judgements on record). > [@](#): > > **Lamia** > it seems that, regardless of what the court ruling said, the boy in the case above has never paid child support and the state does not intend to make him do so. Firsly, it should be understood that the laws vary from State to State, _but_, as is the case in Ohio, it matters not one bit whether or not the Office of Child Support (OCS) has made mention of enforcing the ruling for support once that ruling has been passed. Once a Judicial Order for support is created, it is entered into the **SETS** [sup]1[/sup] and from that point it’s automated for the most part. New employment can be determined from the nightly batch of NDNH (National Directory of New Hires), that information is added to the case information for either the AP or CP (Absent or Custodial Parent), and notices of Income Withholding will be sent to both the employer and the parent. Now, in the event of non-payment by the **obligor** [sup]2[/sup], arrearage accrues. This is where it can get very, very ugly. **Default** [sup]3[/sup]. When a case falls into default, under the new rules governing SETS, the obligor will remain in default until all monies owed are repaid. _All_ monies, not just the current charges, but everything including any birthing, lawyer, medical, poundage or other fees that might have accrued over time. “What’s the big deal about default” you ask? A person in default can find themselves in a world of hurt very quickly. One of the biggies is license suspension. Automatic license suspension. Drivers license, commercial drivers license, doctors/medical license, professional engineers certification/license, license to practice law … to name a few eligible ones. Never mind the automatic payroll deduction, you might find yourself answering the door to a couple of Sheriffs Deputies waiting with handcuffs and nice cool cell. So, to bring this back to the case of young Shane, even if he never “is forced to pay any support,” that record is out there and it can have very real, very bad consequences for him. Other than that point, I’ve been find this thread very interesting, the snippets I’ve been able to read over the last two weeks, getting caught up. I do hope y’all don’t mind my resurrecting the thread, but I felt it was a valid point to address. [sub] **NOTES:** 1: The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) is responsible for program development and administrative support for the Child Support Enforcement Program under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. ODJFS developed the automated Support Enforcement Tracking System (SETS) to effectively manage the Child Support Enforcement Program in order to meet the requirements mandated by the Family Support Act of 1988 (and other mandated or revised requirements implemented since 1987). 2: _Obligee:_ Any person, including a state or political subdivision, to whom a duty of support is owed or a person, including a state or political subdivision, that has commenced proceedings for enforcement of actual or alleged duty of support or registration of foreign support order. It is immaterial if the person to whom a duty of support is owed is a recipient of public assistance. _Obligor_ Any person owing a duty of support or against whom proceedings for enforcement of a duty of support or a registration of support orders is commenced. 3: _Default:_ Any case that has fallen behind in the payment schedule equivalent to one month’s support obligation. [/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/236 "2003-08-20T20:38:42Z")
Amazingly, **margin** has yet to produce her cites. I’m shocked. Good post, **thinksnow**! ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/237 "2003-08-20T21:06:13Z")
Of course, you have insane states like California that enforce child support randomly and arbitrarily, allowing some NCPs to get away with paying nothing at all while simultaneously attempting to collect large sums of money from other NCPs who are not actually delinquent. The current regime for child support enforcement is extremely draconian, and arguably ill-advised, in that once that juggernaut begins rolling over a delinquent NCP it is extremely unlikely that s/he will ever become nondelinquent, and it’s not at all clear that this operates to the better benefit of anyone. And there is virtually no provision in the law to accomodate the possibility that the enforcement office might make an error. But that’s a topic for another thread. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/238 "2003-08-20T22:03:36Z")
**"…and it’s not at all clear that this operates to the better benefit of anyone."** Apparently, some people are benefitting. [Cite](http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-19.htm): > [@](#): > > The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement employs 55,000 workers and spends $4 billion a year. > > Congress and the states thought that the Deadbeat Dads could be forced to pay but much more has been spent by the public than has been collected. > > Florida paid private collection companies $4.5 million in 1998. They managed to collect $162,000. > > [More](http://unix1.aismedia.com/pipermail/ancpr-newsletter/2002-February/000063.html): > > Federal law funded child support enforcement programs in every state, and most importantly, rewarded states with “incentive payments” based on a percentage of money collected. > > Child support enforcement has completely failed in the primary goal of forcing poor fathers to reimburse the welfare program. According to the House Committee on Ways and Means 2000 Green Book, in 1998 the federal government spent one dollar collecting every 74 cents of child support in welfare cases. > > Meanwhile, the program is very popular with states, which in the same year earned 340 million from child support enforcement activities. > > No state has been successful in collecting child support from poor fathers, but the federal funds keep rolling in. Ironically, the federal government is now paying millions to state child support enforcement programs primarily to collect non-welfare-related child support awards. In 1998, less than 20% of state collections were for welfare cases. These collections do not reimburse the welfare program, so the federal government and taxpayers lose more and more money every year. > > The original goal of federal child support enforcement, to reimburse the welfare program, has not been achieved by any state. But **thinksnow** , you are correct - I had no idea of the extent of enforcing these judgements nationwide. They certainly seem draconian, on closer look. ---
**Author:** ![thinksnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thinksnow/32/2849_2.png) [@thinksnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thinksnow)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/239 "2003-08-21T00:03:46Z")
Lemme put it this way: I know for a fact that the budget request for the ODJFS:SETS was $18MM this fiscal year (beginning July 1, 2003.) They received monies from the State around about $9MM and that is dwindling. For the last five, IIRC, years, there have been both State and contract employees working to _fix_ the SETS program. These aren’t the county workers out there dealing with the cases and the people, this is just workign on fixing the program. When I came on board last October, there were in excess of 100 consultants on site. As a State of Ohio tax payer, I’m galled at the wasted money on this system alone. And yes, I had heard/read about the “incentive” programs out there, which are even worse! Amazing, really, but surely something for another thread. Just putting in my $0.02. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2003, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249/240 "2003-08-27T14:01:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*Amazingly, **margin** has yet to produce her cites. I’m shocked. And another full week has gone by, with **margin** not posting a cite or making a retraction. Perhaps she felt the issue would simply go away. **margin** , you cannot post unsubstantiated claims in GD and then hide in the sand when called on them. Withdraw your flase claim and apologize. Or produce some evidence that it wasn’t false. Mmmmkay? - Rick [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-il-rape-law/192249.md?page=13)