Statutory rape is not to be confused with actual rape. Statutory rape is a legal fiction. It is considered statutory “rape” for an adult to have sex with a minor, even if the minor consents (he thinking being that the minor is not emotionally and mentally equipped to truly consent to sex.
No, I’m saying that the presumption of the law (that every act of sex between an “adult” and a “minor” is automatically “predatory,” and that the older person is always in the role of “predator”) is faulty. That presumption may hold true in most cases, even the great majority of cases, but certainly not in all. I think the greater the age difference, the more likely the presumption holds. I also think that it is much less likely to hold true when the woman is the older sex partner.
First of all, in at least some states, the phrase “Statuatory rape” is not used. In my State (Michigan), they use the phrase “Criminal Sexual Conduct” and has 4 levels (or degrees). And, in each there are factors, such as if the contact included penetration (of anything with anything) or contact alone, other factors are also listed, and include things like if there were other crimes associated, multiple perpatrators, age of the victim, relationship of the perp to the victim, etc.
Secondly, and more to the point, to make a statement like “statuatory rape is legal fiction” is both frightening and surprising to me. Most folks seem to dislike child molesters. Are you aware that most child molesters ** believe ** the child in question is consenting? I’ll introduce you to the man I met who spent 10 years in prison for having sex with his then 11 year old daughter. He, too, believed it was consensual, even after spending 10 years in prison and having completed several stints at therapy. Or the other guy who raped his boss’s 11 year old daughter but figured it wasn’t that big of a deal, since she wasn’t a virgin (she had been molested by her grandfather earlier).
One of the many reasons we ** have ** age of consent built into rape laws is to prevent exactly the type of rationalization that you stated.
Personally, I believe that age of consent laws need to take into account other factors, such as relative age of the other person, history of emotional illness etc. and, as far as the OP is concerned, of course the woman should have been prosecuted.
Poor choice of words on my part. I was simply trying to explain to Adolph Pewee why actual consent is not an issue in statutory rape cases. The law presumes an absence of consent. (Adolph Pewee seemed confused as to why there would be a rape charge if the boy consented.)
Now frankly, I believe that the presumed absence of consent can be a false presumption in some cases, so to that extent, it can be a legal fiction. (Unless you mean to tell me that you really think a 15-year-old is never capable of consenting to sex.)
Just to further clarify, I have absolutely no interest in sex with minors. Furthermore, sex with pre-pubescent minors is an unqualified abomination. Hope that helps you be less frightened.
All I am saying is that I would like to know more about the case described in the OP before I am prepared to brand this lady a “child molester.” One thing I would like to know is which party initiated the sexual conduct.
It sounds like Michigan is onto something with its list of mitigating factors. If the child is pre-pubescent (as in the cases you describe), this should be an aggravating factor in my view. On the other hand, if the child is post-pubescent, and is the party initiating the conduct, this should perhaps be considered a mitigating factor. The behavior could still be criminalized, but the perpetrator might face a lesser sentence.
I recognize that such a policy would be difficult to implement. It presents a danger in that it would encourage the older person to lie about the consent issue. But I guess that’s what a jury is there for: to sort out the facts from the lies.
Being the parent of a 16 year old male, yes, I understand that a 15 year old can verbalize “IwannaIwanna” and give every other sign that consent is there.
Problems occur, however whenever we try and get a grip (pardon the pun) on the situation. Most seem to agree that little tiny kids might say “yes” but we adults should understand that they can’t possibly know what they’re getting into.
and, while the 15 year old in the OP may have verbalized, and in every way attempted to initiate contact, the adult has the responsibility to say “this person doesn’t know what they’re getting into”
and yes, every single individual person has a potentially different age of “maturity” (which cannot be legislated), but realistically, we seem to need an actual age of consent, barring other considerations (for example, a comatose patient in a nursing home, regardless of age, cannot consent)
Yes, MI has SOME handle on some of it, but one thing they lack is the age differential issue. It is materially different to me if the one is 15 and the other is 17 (although quite frankly, I was ready to ask for prosecution of the 17 year old who was trying to get my 15 year old to go to bed with her), than the 30 year old with the 15 year old (my ex brother in law, for example. <shudder>). both, under our states laws would be required to list themselves as “child molesters” on a public state site. While I wish some consequences for both, I do admit that the 17 year old with designs on my son, should NOT be considered as a child molester.
I guess where it comes down to is where ** do ** you want to draw the line? no arbitrary system will allow for all potential variables. But, again, in the OP, a 20 year old has no business dating a 15 year old. that particular 5 year stretch is a big one (as opposed to my SO who is 7 years older than I - if we’d met back when I was 15, my dad wouldda had a fit)
I understood that, for juveniles, the acceptable age difference was 4 to 5 years.
Technically, due to the letter of the law, the woman in the OP should be prosecuted. I do question the reason for the marriage more than the potential penalty for statutory rape because the 13 year old is more than likely not mature enough to understand the full concept – which means that once he does, a divorce might happen.
However, in this case, the letter of the law has no mandatory sentencing, so the judge will have a great amount of alternatives to choose from besides prison.
I’m not sure with I agree with him being held responsible for a baby he helped produce under those circumstances either because while he might have forgotten to use protection, the woman should not have. It takes two in order to make a baby, but there are circumstances where, in my opinion, when the male should not be held responsible.
Can we say, on the one hand, that the boy was too young to consent to sex, but then on the other hand hold him financially responsible for the result? On what basis?
The age of consent is 17 in Texas. There is a 2-year clause that only allows sex to be consensual if both participants are 17 or younger, i.e. a 17 year-old and a 15 year-old, or 14 and 16 and so on. An 18 year-old cannot legally have sex with a 16 year-old in Texas.
As for the OP, we would not be having this discussion if a 20 year-old man had sex with a 13 year-old girl. Most people would assume that the man was a child molesting monster who somehow tricked the totally innocent girl into having sex.
In the story on the 20-year-old woman having sex with a 13-year-old, there was a mention of a 17-year-old boy arrested at his school for engaging in sex with a 14-year-old girl.
To update this story, the 14-year-old girl has now been charged with the crime of fornication.
This creates an interesting paradox: On the one hand, we say that the girl is too young to make responsible decisions about sex, and therefore the boy is guilty of statutory rape regardless of whether she consented.
On the other hand, the Prosecutor will have to argue that the girl is responsible for decisions about sexual intercourse in order to make the charge of fornication stick.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoke- *
**wring wrote:
yes…while I agree that the act was morally reprehensible…I still have no idea what “statuatory” rape is. Guess not being used to the legal system in the US could have something to do about it. I’m starting to think that the law in the 21st century is too influenced by the mighty $$$$$$$$$ anyway~!
The law is no longer in place to protect peoples basic rights to freedom and a healthy happy life. Everyone has their place in society…simply because people want to ALL be equal doesn’t mean it’s meant to work like that! Think of it as an adaptation to the normal “food chain”, but in society instead.
I don’t know about the rest of the states or wherever, but here in MD the PARENTS have to press charges, if they don’t then no one else can. at least for anyone 14-17. now maybe 13 is different I don’t know for sure. I personally think it’s pretty bad that some 20 year old had sex with a 13 year old. how come they wouldn’t do that with me even when I was 20?