And it occurs to me that since statutory rape crimes are ‘strict liability’ (i.e. the older person’s knowledge/lack thereof does not affect the criminal charge), how can you hold a man responsible for doing 14-17 y.o girls who look, act and dress like 18-19 y.o. s
These laws were written at a time when girls didn’t pretend to be older women, so perhaps its time for a change. Yes, it is difficult to prove that a guy ‘knew’ she was 17 not 18, but really…but if its ok for companies to sell thongs to 12 y.o., how’s a dude to know if he is commiting a crime??
Maybe if underage girls didn’t WANT to have sex (with grown men no less)…
Maybe if underage girls didn’t lie to celebrities (or others) in order to later use the crime to get what they want…
Maybe if the guy actually thought with his brain instead of his dick…
Maybe if the guy actually cared enough about the girl to know her for more than a day…
consentual statutory rape would not be an issue.
I never thought I’d pine for the days of Puritanism, but oh how I do. Times like these I just want to move to Mayberry, bury my head in the sand, and live happily ever after in the land of blissful ignorance.
Even if he thought he was having sex with 18 year olds, why in the hell is a man his age having sex with 18 year olds? I’m SUCH a prude.
I don’t have a cite for this at the moment, but I seem to recall that some states historically had some exceptions to the statutory minimum.
HOWEVER, most people can tell the difference between 14 years old and 18 years old. Why would a guy that age want to have sex with a girl that young? The thought repulses me.
I might have a little bit of sympathy if the girl in question was 17 and 6 months and the fellow in question was 19, but this case is just wrong.
Also the tape was made at some time between 1997 and whenever the newspaper obtained it. She was born in 1984. She may have been as young as 13 years old.
Most State laws have a “Two Year Difference” clause on Statutory Rape. That is, regardless of how young the participants may be, the older partner must be more than two years older than the younger before it becomes a crime.
It appears that R. Kelly exceeds this by a great deal. I really don’t see the need for more lax laws in this area. Usually one can tell if there’s a large age difference between them and a prospective sex partner.
What’s wrong with haveing a pretty good idea about how old someone is before having sex with them?
Posted by shrew:“Maybe if the guy actually cared enough about the girl to know her for more than a day…” Good point!
Because he is an adult! She is a minor and not responsible enough to give consent. The fact that she is trying to act older than she is shows that she doesn’t understand the adult world where everyone knows you want to look younger.
He knew what he was doing, if the case stands up. That is probably why it was taped, so he could relive his conquest. He deserves what he gets, if he is found quilty. Right now, he is only accused.
Is statutory rape strict liability? At the very least, wouldn’t that vary by state?
I seem to recall that one reason Rob Lowe wasn’t prosecuted for the sex tape in Georgia was because he met the 16 year old girl in a bar, where he’d have a reasonable expectation she was of age.
Not strictly in relation to the R Kelly thing (of which I don’t know the details), sentiments like this seem to suggest that adults are being subjected to moral judgement in situations like this. Perhaps “I thought she was 18” is a weak defence, but to counter it with “You shouldn’t be shagging teens anyway” doesn’t seem to be in the spirit of justice.
This isn’t the first time R. Kelly has done something like this. This is the third time someone has brought charges against him. He settled two other sex with a minor cases out of court.
In this case, the girl was only 14… the man was 33.
This is also the same man who knowingly married Aaliyah when she was only 15 and he was 26. They falsified her ID so they could be issued a marriage license. It’s not that he didn’t know the girls were underage… he just doesn’t care.
In my opinion the guy’s a pig and I personally am hoping he goes to jail.
Abe, I think strict liability only applies under the Model Penal Code if the victim is 14 or under. So if R. Kelly reasonably believed that she was 18, it is a defense. Course, he has to prove it was reasonable.
Sua
SuaSponte, does strict liablity apply to child pornography as well, or are we talking about statutory rape? After all, he was indicted for child porn, not statutory rape.
I’m not really sure how I feel about it. I thought she was 17 and it was a one-time thing. In that case, I’d be inclined to say that he probably thought she was old enough, and I wouldn’t consider it “child pornography.” However, some of the posts referencing that he’s done it before, and that she may have only been 13 or 14 when the incident occured, have caused me to rethink.
At any rate, just have to say that this
cracks me up. When, exactly, in history, did women begin acting older than they are?
:rolleyes:
Yeah, I suppose it’s convenient to ignore anything that might undermine the validity of your rather ahistorical, whitewashed view of a golden age of sexual propriety. Like justice.
"if its ok for companies to sell thongs to 12 y.o., how’s a dude to know if he is commiting a crime?? "
Thongs don’t cause pregnancy. However, my opinion of age of consent laws is they try to protect
people from having children when they are too young, which causes the state, e.g. tax payers, to have to pay for
raising the kids…
First, In New York (my state), Penal Code 130.20 - Rape in the third degree, makes statutory rape a strict liability crime. See People v. Dozier, 424 NYS2d 1010 (1st Dept 1980). Also, in New York, consent by the minor is not a defense. People v. Grauer 42 NYS 721 (1896). Also of interest, the NY Court stated that the reason for the law is a public policy interest in keeping young girls from geting pregnant. I am unaware of the rules in the 49 other states, but with all due respect to my buddy Sua – No. [insert Family Feud buzzer sound here].
Second, I am not trying to discuss R Kelly’s specific situation. I was thinking more along the lines of your average inebriated 18-22 y.o who hooks up with your average inebriated 17 y.o in hot pants that tells him (or her – lets be fair) that she is 19, and may even have a fake ID to prove it. She comes home late, Mom & Dad are not happy, and Boom little johnny gets busted for a sex crime. I am not here to defend perverts looking for little girls, or R Kelly for that matter (there are other crimes on the books for them). I’m talking about possible changes to the written law to correspond with to social changes.
That being said, discussions about R Kelly specifically are not really what I had in mind. His acts just got me thinking that if Brittany Spears can get parents to buy their 16-17 y.os halter tops and short-shorts, how can society hold young ‘fishermen’ responsible for taking the bait? It borders on entrapment (minus the acts by a government authority), and is similar to making it a larceny to pick up a wallet that is sitting on the sidewalk.
In Illinois, where R. Kelly is charged, it is NOT a defense to Criminal Sexual Assault charges that the defendant had a reasonable belief regarding the age of the victim, but it IS a defense to Criminal Sexual Abuse. The differences between those two charges involves the age difference between the ages of the defendant and the victim, as well as the extent of the sexual actions (i/e whether there was penetration.)
However, R. Kelly isn’t charged (yet?) for sexually abusing the girl victim, he is charged for the videotape, which is child pornography. The relevant part of that statute reads:
So it could be a defense that R. Kelly didn’t know (and shouldn’t have known) that the victim was under 18. But let’s not kid ourselves here. R. Kelly is a scumbag who gets his jollys raping young girls. He just happens to pick victims who he can impress or intimidate into “consenting”, and buy-off from reporting.
Not so Legal:
Abe I am glad you posted again in this thread. Based on your OP, I was all set to rip you up one side and down the other for intimating that somehow the victim in the R.Kelly case deserved to be abused because she appeared to be older. I am still upset at your underlying assumptions, i/e that if a person under the age of consent looks older, well, then it shouldn’t be illegal. And saying that your hypothetical 17 year old girl “entrapped” the poor, drunk a******* is incredibly offensive. These views you are expressing are typical “blame the victim” crap you see in a lot of these types of cases, and they disgust me to no end. That being said, in your example, if the girl is between 13 and 17, and the boy was less than 5 years older than her, it would be criminal sexual abuse, and the boy would have the defense that he reasonably believed she was over 17.
