The Roy Moore situation had me curious, so I looked up the age of consent laws in all 50 states.
In 31 states, it’s 16.
In 8 states, it’s 17.
In 11 states, it’s 18.
Yet the federal age of consent is only 12. Why so low?
And when would sex with an underage person be a federal charge? Cases where an underage kid is transported across state lines and has sex with an adult?
I admit I find the idea that a 12-year-old can give consent nauseating. I’m trying to figure out the rationale behind this. Is it simply outdated? Are there so few cases where the age of consent is relevant on the federal level that it’s ignored?
Huh? There’s a French movie that I saw decades ago on Canadian TV - Baiser Rouge - and the key part of the movie is (I don’t think I’m spoiling it for anyone) that after the 15-year-old takes up with an older photographer, her father calls the cops. 15 is under-age. After she goes apeshit on daddy, he relents - only to find that a complaint of sex with an under-age girl is the only criminal complaint in French law that cannot be withdrawn by the complainant. Final scene, the guy has joined the Foreign Legion to escape jail time and is being shipped out to fight in a French colony called Vietnam.
According to the linked article, in two separate cases, men have been cleared of all charges involving sex with 11 year old girls. The sex was judged consensual.
It still allows a 12-year-old to give legal consent provided the other person is under 16. I understand the idea is to avoid punishing a partner who’s within four years of the age of the younger person, but 12 still seems awfully young for the age of consent. Some states have so-called Romeo and Juliet laws that protect those who have sex with partners only a few years younger, but the age of consent is still 16-18, dependent on the state.
I’m not sure how many 14-year-olds can and have crossed state lines with the intent to have sex with a 12-year-old, but it’s hard to believe it would be a common occurrence.
Beats me. Totally speculative answers are that 12 (point something) is the average age of first period for girls, and that it’s a common age to switch to a junior high/high school from an elementary school (and then be hanging out with older kids that might be sexually active - them being the 12-year-olds peers). 13 would also make some sense, since it’s switch from child to teenager (that’s sort of dependent on culture, too, of course).
So, would the Federal law apply at all in any state with an age of consent that is higher? Almost renders the argument a moot point, aside from shock value.
My guess as to why there is one at all, is that if you are a US Citizen with a passport, and you read the fine print, you have to abide by Federal law. So, say you go to a country where certain things can happen, and you have sex with someone less than 12, you have broken Federal law. By making the Federal requirement so “low” it avoids the states entirely and possibly allows for consensual sex with a 12 year old in other countries where it’s socially acceptable.
Under English common law 12 was the minimum marriage for girls, 14 was the minimum age for boys. Common law inherited those ages from the canon law of the Catholic Church*, which in turn inherited it from Ancient Roman law.
Both sexes could be “betrothed” as young as age 7.
IIRC the USA has a sex tourism law (same as Canada) where travelling abroad for the purpose of sex with someone under 18 - anywhere in the world - is a criminal offence. US law doesn’t apply overseas unless it explicitly says so in the law. The feds can’t nail you for smoking pot in Amsterdam but they certainly can if you have sex with someone underage.
Yes, but that’s because they were charged with rape, in which lack of consent is an element. To secure a rape conviction, you do have to prove lack of consent. This is true regardless of the age of the victim. In a charge of rape, the victim’s age is irrelevant.
There’s a separate offence of having sex with someone under 15 where lack of consent is not an element; presumably if the defendants had been charged with that offence they would have been convicted.
Why were they not charged with that offence? I’m guessing, but I suspect it carries a lower sentence than the rape charge, and in the circumstances of victims as young as 11 they prosecution decided to go for the charge with the higher sentence, with an (evidently misplaced) confidence that they would be able to prove lack of consent.
Federal laws apply when someone crosses state lines, as this guy discovered when he transported a 15-year-old girl across state lines to have sex with her.
In Washington state, the full age of consent (you can consent to sex with a person of any age) is 16.
Below that age, there is a tiered system for the sex (or molestation - i.e. no penetration) to be a crime:
If the victim is 14-15, the perpetrator must be more than 48 months older.
If the victim is 12-13, the perpetrator must be more than 36 months older.
If the victim is under 12, the perpetrator must be more than 24 months older.
I have an app on my phone to make it quick to calculate the number of months difference when I receive a case like this to investigate.
Obviously, it is still a crime if there is any force used, coercion, use of a position of authority, etc.
I never really trust wiki so I checked the law cited. My French needed assistance from an online translator but the information appears correct for current law.
Federal law also applies to acts committed on federal property regardless of what state that federal property is in.
ETA: as for age of consent the age will be the same as the state in which the federal property is if it’s not specifically covered in a federal statute but it will be enforced under federal jurisdiction.
Why not 12? That is what is often called the absolute age of consent. The age at which it is not possible to give consent. For instance in New Jersey if you asked me what the age of consent is I would say 16. There are some asterisks. It’s 12 with Romeo and Juliet exceptions. It’s 18 if there is a person of authority involved. If it wasn’t like that you could have a 13 year old arrested for sexual activity with a 12 year old. Is that ok?
I still don’t understand… Federal law does NOT apply overseas, except in specific laws that apply to specific acts as stated in the law.
(IANAL) As I understand it, for example, attacks on US citizens anywhere in the world, the US claims jurisdiction to punish the perpetrators. Also the USA like many first world countries nowadays has a sex tourism law - going abroad to have sex with someone under 18 is a specific criminal offense. (It use to be “for the purpose of”, but I recall some article that said that the requirement to prove intent had been removed.)
