I think we are talking about different issues. I’m speaking about offenses that happen in the United States that would normally be handled locally but are instead handled by federal authorities because it happened on federal property.
You are correct that mostly there is no jurisdiction overseas except for the examples you give and maybe a couple others. Mostly American civilians will fall under local laws. Military personnel will be prosecuted in accordance with the status of forces agreement that the US has with that country. It may be different from country to country.
Think about it this way. There are basically three possible scenarios. First, there’s two people who are obviously adults and most reasonable people would shrug and say “none of my business.” Let’s call that a green light. Second, there’s the creepy cases like a teenage girl dating a man old enough to be her grandfather, where most people would say “Gee, I don’t know, that’s pretty messed up right there.” We’ll call that a yellow light. Third, there’s the cases where 99% of us agree without hesitation that it’s just flat-out wrong, like a full grown adult dating a child who hasn’t even started puberty yet. That’s a red light. “Age of consent” doesn’t mean the boundary between green and yellow. It’s the boundary between yellow and red.
There’s a huge difference between “You should be ashamed of yourself” and “We have no choice except to put you in prison”.
So what is the law if two seven year olds “play doctor” and one of them inserts a body part into the other one? Because unless there was force or coercion involved, I don’t think that should be a crime. Certainly it shouldn’t be rape.
In England there are two ages of consent, the age at which someone can lawfully give their consent and the age at which someone is deemed capable of giving consent. The first is 16 and the second is 13. So for example if someone is accused of raping a 14 year-old the prosecution would have to prove there was no consent (though even with consent they would still be guilty of sexual activity with a minor), but if someone was accused of raping a 12 year-old there is no need to prove consent as a 12 year-old cannot consent (though the circumstances could drastically affect the sentence received).
Around here it would in no way be handled in the courts, even the juvenile court. If one of the children is hyper-sexualized at a young age it may indicate other issues and maybe abuse. Otherwise if it comes to our attention officially it would be sent on the child protection for possible counseling if needed.
In Canada, children under the age of 12 (I think) cannot be charged with a crime - any crime. This is a source of frustration to some law enforcement agencies and social agencies, because some 12yo’s are mature enough to understand what they can get away with - even to the point of car theft. If they have severe mental problems, they could be institutionalized. Anyone under 18, unless the case is raised to adult court, does not get more than a 3 years sentence. I am always amazed to read about some states where, for example, 10-year-olds are charged with crimes as if they are adult enough to understand the gravity of their actions.
Two curious children are no cause for alarm, I would think. I would go on to say a child who acts in a predatory or sadistic manner has probably either got severe mental problems, or has been “learning” from adults, or both. IANAPsychologist, but it seems to me that predatory and pedophilic sexual urges manifest at or after puberty, not before.
(I have the theory that this accounts for the rash of accusations we saw in the 80’s about satanic rituals. Adults interrogate children and ask them if they have seen or experienced horrible things by adults. Before puberty, children have no idea about sexual urges unless taught - so children pick up on the cues that the adult interrogators want to know about “terrible things” done to children, and not knowing about sexual urges or activities, the only terrible things they can make up to satisfy the adults are torture, murder, and cannibalism of children in the dark…)
The thing that bugs me the most about age of consent laws is that once the person reaches it (and they’re still not yet legal adults) is that they become free-for-alls for adults of any age. Meaning someone who’s “legal” at 14 in a territory that recognizes 14 year olds as being capable of consenting to sex can be sexually exploited by a middle aged perv and there’s nothing anyone can do about it from a legal standpoint.
I thought the point of age of consent laws was to protect minors from exploitation. IMO, teenagers shouldn’t be having sex with anyone outside their age group.
Having sex with a 15-year-old might be rape, or it might be statutory rape. It depends on what she says. OTOH, if she’s 12, it’s rape, period. Even if she says she consented, it’s still plain old rape, I’m pretty sure. I’m relying on a conversation a while ago with a cousin who works as a prosecutor, and I have not specifically emailed him about this, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he said. If you have sex with a 15-year-old, you are going to be charged with something, but what depends on what she says. With a 12-year-old, it doesn’t matter what she (or he) says.
In some states, reasonable belief (like meeting someone in a bar) that a person is over the age of consent is a defense to statutory rape, but in some states, it isn’t. I don’t know if, in the states where it is, if it’s some kind of defense to raping a 12-year-old-- if you can claim to have a reasonable belief that you were committing “only” statutory rape, and convince the DA of that, if you will be charged with that instead.
Canada changed its age of consent from 14 to 16 about 10 years ago because of this attitude. The point is - after puberty, kids are going to have sex. The first accuser in the Roy Moore case, for example, went to his apartment knowing full well what the game plan was… she just chickened out. (Which is her right.) OTOH, Mike Tyson was convicted of rape of an 18-year-old in his hotel room.
In both cases and many , the girls knew what they were doing. They perhaps did not understand that some men at a certain point may not take no for an answer. The question then is - where do you want to draw the line? IIRC more than half the states have an age of consent of 16.
Sooner or later, kids have to grow up and do things for themselves. At 16 they can drive. At 18 in the civilized world, they can drink, despite helicopter influence to change that to 19 or 21 in some places. At 18 they can sign contracts. At 18 they can join the army and get shot, buy firearms, etc. etc. As Canadians argue over what the rules will be about legalized marijuana next year, some very clever people suggested that the age for smoking pot should be 25. (So logical, since people under 25 - and under 18 - don’t smoke pot.)
At a certain point in growing up, people get to make their own decisions. The proper way to teach is to not shelter them from the reality of the world, to understand that some people may lie and cheat and may not be their friend, no matter how it appears. (OTOH, some 25-year-olds still don’t figure that out).
What is important is to instill the lesson that they have the right to say “stop”, and when they say “Stop” if the other person does not, it is a crime.
IIRC in Canada, for example, there is no defense to underage sex. IANAL but I believe that "sexual assault’, ie. using force against the other person to have sex, or not having consent, is a separate charge from sex with a minor below the age of consent. If both age and force are provable, I assume the person can be charged with both.
(Sexual assault is the common charge in many states too, now. It removes the argument over whether penetration was involved)
It is still illegal to herd pigs down Yonge Street, the main thoroughfare in Toronto. It just does not happen. The same with laws about 10-yo marrying. Presumably it is a right extremely rarely exercised. The real question is how many really get married very young, and why?
The article suggests 200,000 minors were married in the last 15 years. Likely most of those are in the 16 to 17 year age group, and is still significantly outnumbered by those having a baby (or an abortion). The laws themselves are a hold-over from the days when women (especially younger women) typically could not support themselves and had restricted legal rights on their own, so had to be supported by a male. After all, the puritanical lawmakers of the time probably thought a young woman on her own might resort to prostitution which would destroy the moral fibre of the community.
Then of course, in today’s moral times, what difference does it make? If a 14-year-old wants to move in with her boyfriend, and the age of consent allows it, marriage is irrelevant. Her parents eventually aren’t going to stop her. The real problem is with parents who effectively “sell off” their daughters for whatever motivation - perversion, money, or religious fervour.* That *should be illegal.
Who do you mean by “you?” Most of those who have sex with 12, 13, 14 year olds are other 12, 13, 14 year olds. For an adult what you say is pretty much correct but the laws in each state vary greatly.
The thing to understand about the rule of law, especially in the United States, but elsewhere as well, is that it could be said to be “evolutionary,” or even “organic” in nature.
That is, when new laws need to be passed, or are wanted, there is rarely any serious effort to go through all existing laws, to coordinate them all with each other. Nor has there been many efforts made to comprehensively go through ALL laws affecting an area, and coordinate them with the overall philosophy or goals of the people governed by them. And new laws are passed in reaction to whatever gets enough people riled up, that they elect politicians to address whatever the worry is.
The result, is that you will find lots of laws that “make no sense to you” in just the way that you feel with this one,just as people often find laws that functionally contradict one another, depending on the exact circumstances.
A fourteen-year-old girl’s parents aren’t going to stop her from moving in with her boyfriend?? While I know there are a few parents dumb enough and negligent enough to allow this, I wouldn’t make it a blanket statement. Moreover, no STATE has a minimum age of consent below 16; whether her parents gave the OK or not, if he’s more than four years older in any state (and even if he’s the same age in some states), her boyfriend can be charged with statutory rape.