Keep in mind that the justice system isn’t perfect… your “rapist” may not be one after all. Or maybe he’s a statutory “rapist” and the prosecutor decided to play up the fact that the “victim” wasn’t legally able to give consent.
Just like I’d be damn sure before I gave someone the death penalty, I’d be damn sure before I deny a father the right to participate in the most important part of his child’s life.
Now, what exactly are we talking about? Would rapists automatically be prohibited from interacting with the children, or would they be prohibited by default, but able to get a hearing and argue for visitation? I’d agree to the latter.
What if the mother agrees to let him see the child (most likely in cases of statutory “rape”, no doubt)… or are we assuming the mother is opposed?
Because, as a society, we say that below a certain age a person is not mature enough to understand the consequencies of actions and decisions they may take as regards sex.
Now it is suggested that they be allowed to make decisions on visitation rights to, presumably, a person who was deemed in law to understand the consequencies of their actions including the illegality of such acts.
The statutory rape is one thing but not taking protection to me shows how much concern and love the offender truly has, IMHO basically just a selfish bastard.
I can see that there is a spectrum of sexual offences and that statutory rape might be considered by some to be at the lower end of them but I would be very chary of allowing visiting /parental rights to such an offender.
Coercion takes many forms besides force, persistance is one, closeness of family as in incest where emotional blackmail is used is another.
We are looking at someone that has had sex with child and then debating the finer points of it.
It’s not that simple. Depending on the state, “statutory rape” may be an 18-year-old having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. Or even two 17-year-olds having sex with each other. If their birthdays are close together, what is legal this week might be illegal next week, then legal again the week after that.
A 50-year-old man having sex with a 12-year-old girl certainly has some problems. But to deny a teenage father visitation simply because he is older than the mother by a matter of months or days is heartless.
As for not taking protection… no birth control is 100% effective.
In the a UK our age of sexual consent for heteros is 16 which is too young really to be a mother, and yes some od make a good job of it.
I was under the impression that in some states of the US it has been somewhat lower but then I could be well wrong.
At any rate the law is not absolute for all cases but we have had prosecutions here over sexual relationships where the girl was 15 and the boy was 19.
4 years in age across a couple isn’t all that unusual it is the youth and expoliotation that is.
If we are talking about 2 fifteen year olds or something nearish to that, any counsel would probably succesfully present a case based on both participants being of an age where they are not held to be fully legally responsible.
In the case of under age sex and statutory rape the ones who should have the say are the parents, being as they are, the legal guardians.
A child conceived as the result of a violent rape is not brought into this world the same as a child conceived as the result of two people expressing their love for each other.
A man who rapes a woman is interested only in self indulgence and complete degradation of the woman. The man by his acts has demonstrated he has no regard for the woman and as an extension of this disregard for the woman, no regard for a child if one is conceived. The man should have no absolutley rights to the child, but, the man should be held responsible for the child. The rapist should be required to contribute financial aid to the mother of the child until the child reaches an age of 21.
A child brought into this world as the result of two people expressing their love for each other and then later to fall out of love should have the advantage of visitations by either parent. The parent without major custody should contribute financial aid to the child until the child is age 21.
Rape is a terrible crime against another person. There should be no separations between statuatory rape or violent rape, rape is rape.
Well, if both participants are 15, then you’re not talking about statutory rape. Statutory rape is an adult having sexual relations with a person who is not of an age to give meaningful consent. (The actual definition varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.)
If the rape is a forcible one, or clearly non-consenual, then I think the mother should be allowed to establish parternity if she chooses, with an eye towards demanding the rapist provide support, but the rapist should have no rights whatsoever to the child. The rapist has proven himself to be an anti-social predator by virtual of having committed the rape, and he should therefore have no rights to any child resulting from it. (He should have responsibilities, if the woman chooses to impose them, but I somehow doubt many women would demand or accept support from their rapist. Most want nothing whatsoever to do with him ever again.)
Even if we’re talking statutory rape, and the parties really did both consent but one is underage, I would stick to the legal presumption that the underage person did not meaningfully consent and the adult therefore has no rights to the child. I would, however, make that a rebuttable presumption – meaning, if the adult can prove that the underage person really did consent and, despite being underage, was truly capable of consenting, then that adult should be able to seek parental rights – with the payment of support, of course. But first the adult should have to overcome the presumption that the sexual relations were not consensual due to the age of his or her partner. If he or she cannot do that – no deal.
And here I am thinking about a fifteen or sixteen year old, not about an eleven or twelve year old. The younger the child, the harder it would be to show meaningful consent. For example, Mary Kay Latourneau, a thirty-something school teacher, slept with her twelve-year-old student and had two children by him. I don’t care what she might argue; there’s no way a twelve-year-old could meaningfully consent (IMO). But, for what it’s worth, I don’t think she objected to the termination of her parental rights, and she does not have any rights to either child, who are being raised by the student’s parents.
Are you going to tell me that a 19 year old who forcibly rapes a woman deserves the same ("…no separations…") punishment as a 19 year old who consensually sleeps with a 15 year old (especially if the 15 year old lies about her age)???
I am aware that justice systems are never perfect and that the US version could use a facelift. I can’t imagine any situation where I would favor unappealable decisions. I would favor that the rights argument were pursued by the state rather than as a custody battle. This would put the burden of proof on the prosecution and remove any burden of cost from the victim.
To expand on casdave’s slight oversimplification concerning statutory rape, I would like to point out that it is so named because it is considered rape by the law not by the people. Our legal system has the unfortunate liability of allowing lawyers to decide who gets to sit on a jury. In theory juries represent the beliefs of the community. They are intended as a safty mechanism because the law might be too arbitrary. When the competing lawyers are allowed to dismiss jurors because they doubt that the juror’s beliefs favor their case, this negates the very intention of having the jury represent the community in the first place.
( A small hijack but it came to mind as I was posting. )
I was ducking oldscratch’s sticky hypotheticals but since you brought up statutory rape I will attempt to tackle it. I think we should be understanding up to a point. That point is puberty. I deem anything done to a child younger than that strictly rape. If the child is older then there is room for doubt and thus mechanisms are needed to ensure that the circumstances are examined. Visitation rights and visitation are not the same thing. If the mother wished to bring her child to visit then she could do so whether or not the father had any rights pertaining to the child. ( Assuming that the prisoner is allowed visitors. )
casdave:
Is the age of consent in the UK different for homos than for heteros?
The 19 year old is classified as an “adult” and is responsible for their actions. The same 19 year old can always claim the 15 year old lied about their age. The matter still boils down to a person acting to obtain self gratitude at the expense of another. If the 19 year old and the 15 year old desire to consumate their relationship then they should wed or obstain.
I agree with you, Archer, that they should wed or abstain. However, I don’t think that the “rapist” in this case and a forcible, violent rapist can be equated.
I’m not sure if the ages of consent are now differant for straights and homosexuals because there is a whole batch of European equal rights legislation that is in the process of being enacted but…
Yes under UK law there is a differance. For straights and lesbians it is 16 and for homosexual males it is 18.
Part of the oddity is that when the law was passed originally the Victorians did not believe there was any need to legislate against women as they ‘didn’t do that sort of thing’.Actually they made the age of consent 21 and subsquent legislation brought it down to 16 for all except gay men.It was only recently that it came down to 18 for gay men and even then the government did not dare bring it in line with the whole law as they feared a backlash from the ‘moral’ right , such as it is.
This is particularly odd in a country as liberal as ours and most Brits do not understand it.
It was voted down by our House of Lords(actually they threatened to delay it so much that it would then cause a stack-up other proposed legislation).This is where a bunch of inherited titled nobility can, not exactly veto law, but disrupt things hugely . There are several bishops who sit in there.
The irony is that by their odd behaviour the Lords have proved what an anachronism they are. Finally someone in the real government has the guts to get rid of this undemocratic institution and replace it with something else.
Slight hijack: The Deboers adoption of Baby Jessica was never finalized. They were never her adoptive parents. The biological father, Craig Schmidt, contested the adoption just three weeks after the birth. That’s one of the main reasons the child was returned to her biological parents. As messy as that whole case was, it would have been even worse if the adoption had been finalized. **
[/QUOTE]
Craig Schmidt came forward and claimed to be the father.
The man the mother named on the birth certificate had
already terminated his parental rights. Apparently
she didn’t even know who the father was. Then it was
“Oh, I am so sorry.”
The worst court battles are created when mothers
lie about paterity on birth certificates.
Re - gay consent in UK.
Up until the 1950’s male homosexuality was illegal, then introduced at age 21 and only a couple of years ago brought down to 18. Male group sex between consenting adults is still illegal.
None of this applies to gay females.
