Man picks up woman in bar. Has one night stand. Girl turns out to be underaged. I have a problem with this, but not a huge problem. He can reasonably expect the girl to be 21 in most bars in the US. Although I personally never really went in for casual sex, I don’t have problems with other adults who engage in it. If she looked like an adult and acted like an adult, it sure is icky when (if) he finds out she’s 15, but I’m having a hard time getting too worked up about it.
Man meets girl, starts relationship. Relationship being defined as something other than casual sex. Now I have a big problem with the sex, since he should know how old she is (I don’t think its too hard to figure out if she can’t get into rated R movies) and caring about her should put a kabosh on any sexual contact.
I was sixteen when I started dating a guy in his twenties. I thought for the longest time we were “just friends” 'cause that’s how he treated me right up until I turned 18.
I have less of a problem with casual sex - yes it can change your life, even kill you, but so can lots of other dumb things we do when we are teenagers. I have a bigger problem with teenagers dating people much older (even a little older) because it’s so hard to find yourself when you are that age - and what you should be doing is molding yourself into a person (surrounded by people also turning themselves into adults). I’ve seen more young women (and yes, mostly young women) screwed up by having relationships with older men than just having sex with older men.
(The videotape thing puts this in a whole different realm, though).
I already said that I thought age consent laws were more helpful than harmful, but that they should be lowered to age 16. People do physically mature must faster than ever before, and if you think the teens you know are not mentally mature enough, perhaps you should ask yourself why. Could it be that your hysterical overprotection of teenagers, combined with a media that is geared towards teenagers being sexy, is confusing and sending mixed messages to teens? Maybe if society was less hysterical and gave more responsibility to teens, and treated them less like stupid sexy kids, you would be more satisfied with their maturity levels?
In that case, why stop at 16? There are 18, 21, and 30 year olds who can’t protect themselves from rapists.
That’s an unfortunate and confusing definition that not many people share. “Rape” has one definition in my mind: sex acts against the will of one or more participants. And that will is there whether or not they’ve reached some arbitrary age, our laws just choose to ignore it before then.
I simply cannot believe that most (or even many) minors are unable to tell the difference between “yes, I like that” and “no, please stop”. In fact, my experience has shown that teenagers are very unlikely to put up with things they don’t like.
Assuming there are teenagers without the ability to give consent, it should be possible to tell on an individual basis. “But it’ll clog up our courts!” say the critics. Well, tough. Justice takes resources, and I’m willing to spend a little more on the courts if it means keeping innocent people out of jail.
If you were accused of a crime, would you like to be denied a fair trial simply because it’s cheaper and quicker to ignore the facts?
I got to think this is one of the grayest of the gray areas.
For instance, if I react strictly from my own feelings and prejudices, an “older” man “seducing” a teen-ager is committing an unsavory act, if not a prosecutable act.
On the other hand, a 16 year old boy who has sex with a 22 year old woman just plain got lucky.
I can perfectly understand how one might think this attitude irrational.
Hysterical? It’s not as if I’m staging StraightEdge parties in my home. I don’t picket the local health department with signs that say, “Keep your condoms off my kids.” I don’t tell teens that abstinence is the “only true way” to prevent birth control (though it is). I don’t even advise the kids that waiting is in their best interest. When asked, I give them the “Every person has to decide when is best for him/her” speech. What I think in theory (what I present here) and what I practice in daily life with teens aren’t necessarily the same thing. I think in the abstract, but I live in the reality.
And if you think I’m hysterical, you should meet the conservatives around here. I’m actually a leftwing hippie nutjob compared to them.
Maybe if media weren’t geared toward teenagers’ sexuality, my expectations wouldn’t seem so hysterical.
Of course not. I’m not suggesting anyone should be denied a trial. But am I willing to deny a 19 year-old boy the right to have “consensual” sex with a 13 year-old? You betcha.
Of course, Qadgop, allow me to rephrase. If the boy truly is innocent, and the prosecuting attorney therefore fails to make a case against him, and the boy is acquitted of all charges, then he has nothing to worry about.
The question is not whether they like it, but whether they are capable of making a rational, informed decision about what they are doing. Plenty of minors would like to spend the day experimenting with the contents of mom and dad’s liquor cabinet instead of going to school; that doesn’t mean they should be encouraged to do it, or that it should even be made legal.
A very dear friend of mine lost her virginity at a young age to a man who was more than twice her age. He knew perfectly well how old she was, because he was a supervisor at an after-school activity program she attended. She agreed to have sex with him was because he was the first person who ever treated her like a “grown-up” and she wanted to please him and prove that she really was a grown-up. She was twelve. Twelve. She was not in any way unconsenting, but this is as clear a case of statuatory rape as one could hope to find. The law unfortunately did not protect my friend, but there is no argument you or anyone else could make that would convince me that there should not be laws to protect her and other children.
The fact is, some individuals under the arbitrary age are able to give informed consent. Statutory rape laws ignore that fact. Imagine if we ignored important facts in all trials, in the interest of saving money and “protecting” alleged victims…
Prosecuting Attorney: “Your Honor, I intend to show that the defendant broke into my client’s house and escaped on foot with a $500 television set.”
Defense Attorney: “That’s ludicrous. My client lost both legs in a car accident and could not possibly run down the street carrying a television. I’d like to call a medical expert to testify to that.”
Judge: “That won’t be necessary. Since we’re pressed for time, I’ll just assume that the defendant is physically capable, like most men his age. Will the prosecution please continue?”
Exactly the same kind of willful ignorance that’s written into statutory rape laws.
If she wasn’t unconsenting, how can you justify calling it rape?
I’m sorry about your friend, but we all make mistakes. If I sign a 12-month lease on an apartment, then change my mind in six months, I have to stick around until the lease is up, then think a little harder next time I’m about to sign a lease.
If I have sex with someone because I’m drunk or lonely, then regret it later–I’m assuming your friend regretted having sex with him, otherwise why bring it up?–I don’t expect the law to “protect” me. Dealing with my mistakes is my responsibility, not the state’s.
Statutory rape is NOT strict liabilty. It just doesn’t have a mens rea requirement for the age element of the crime. It still requires some intent level as to the sexual act (i.e. the four Model Penal Code intent levels: knowingly, purposefully, negligently, or recklessly.) Past decisions have seemed to reinforce the idea of “guilty mind.” It is presumed that sexual liasons outside marriage are “bad enough” so to speak, so the person committing them has acted with a sufficiently “guilty mind” for criminal culpability to be imposed.
Since it’s pretty difficult to commit sexual activity accidentally without being somehow negligent, the mens rea for the sex act is commonly assumed to be present, but it still has to be demonstrated. So it isn’t a strict liability crime. Strict liability in criminal law is reserved for activity in which the public has an overriding interest (common example is the labelling of pharmecuticals) such that the person in position to prevent a dangerous outcome is placed at a higher standard than that of simple negligence. (One is not negligent, and therefore not criminally culpable, if one took all reasonable precautions to prevent a hazardous outcome…strict liability provides an incentive to take extra measures, even though the cost would outweigh the benefits.) Strict liability crimes are punished by fines, since our court system believes that jail time would be a disproportionate punishment to a person held strictly liable.
In general, a mens rea requirement would be imposed on each material element of a criminal statute. These decisions seem to take the view that the age itself is not a material element, it’s the sexual activity that is the element.
Modern courts might tend to be this harsh only in cases where the “victim” (that there’s a victim in any form of consensual sex might be debated) is of such a young age that the state’s interest in protecting that person overrides the needs of justice to require intent as to the element of the crime regarding age.
Alot of people unfamiliar with the law assume that courts always follow a set of rules drawn from precedent. Quite the opposite, judges prefer to use their own discretion to balance competing interests and construct the precedents in a way such that they support the desired conclusion. Absent a specific statutory clause about mistaken age or a direct mandate from the state’s highest court of appeals, the court will probably balance the interests at stake. If the girl is 13, the court will hold the offender culpable in the interest of protecting girls of such tender years. If she’s 16, the court might consider the totality of circumstances.
Because she was a child and a child cannot consent. She wasn’t even a teenager. She was a little girl, 12 years old. It was rape in the same way that having sex with a drunk woman is rape. It was rape in the same way that having sex with a mentally challenged or ill woman is rape. She doesn’t have the capability to form the requisite intent necessary to consent to anything.
And if you’re a twelve year old child you can’t sign a lease. Why? Because, among other things, you aren’t old enough to know what all of the ramifications and consequences of signing lease might be. This isn’t an adult, with a full compliment of experience, education and rational capabilities with remorse after making a stupid choice. There is a huge difference.
Dealing with your mistakes is your responsibility because you are an adult. No one who is charged with protecting you. However, parents and society are charged with protecting children, and that is often accomplished with the aid of laws which protect them from adults who would seek to take advantage of their naivete and lack of experience. If you’d like to remove all such protections, and let whomever wants to prey upon children do so, fine, but then i hope that you’re prepared to accept the consequences of the broken, devastated young people who will start popping up in obscene numbers thereafter.
The reason why the concept of statuatory rape exists is because there is a difference between consent and informed consent. I can justify calling it statuatory rape – please note the full term – because she was a child incapable of giving informed consent.
**
This might perhaps be of some relevance if twelve year olds could sign leases. They can’t. They are not allowed to and should not be allowed to. They’re just children.
**
Protecting children from people who would harm or exploit them is the responsibility of the state. Since this is not the Pit I will restrain myself from detailing exactly what I think of people like you who would leave helpless children to the wolves, but suffice it to say it is very colorful and very unpleasant.
And do you really want to use the same rationale that people like R. Kelly use in his defense? “Aw come on, Judge, she may only be thirteen, but she knew what she wanted.” :rolleyes:
I would hardly call your opinion a fact that would change the legal system as we know it.
Besides, we protect teenagers from all sorts of things. We don’t allow fourteen year olds to drive, buy tobacco, buy alcohol, work, or fight in the armed forces. We protect them from those things). Why shouldn’t we protect them from sexual predators preying on their innocence and naivete?
wring…i have nothing to back that up…that definition is the one i was told by a psychiatrist at my school during a date rape prevention seminar…your probably right…
and shrew…your right, i can see your side as well. but as you said, i think that point of view comes as a result of your “Judeo-Christian bias”…i am atheist, and i see no spiritual problem with it…this is just my idea, but i can see yours
Oh? Do you know her personally, or are you just generalizing based on her age?
Everything I’ve said in this thread has revolved around minors who give consent, and whose consent is ignored by the state. “Preying upon children” suggests that the sex was nonconsensual, or that force or fraud was involved. If these “children” have been “preyed upon”, why don’t they say so?
When I was 17 I had a younger girlfriend, and although our physical relationship was legal in this state, it may not have been legal in neighboring states. Neither of us were harmed, physically or emotionally, and we wouldn’t have been harmed if we had been in California instead of Washington.
I assume that since you knew her personally, you’re speaking of her capability to give informed consent as an individual, not simply as a person younger than an arbitrary age. Correct?
In that case, why bother with a needlessly restrictive age limit if you can determine, on an individual basis, who is capable of giving informed consent and who is incapable?
I’m all for protecting children from predators. I just don’t see how banning legitimate, consensual relationships is a necessary part of that.
Try telling the guy featured in last week’s Inlander that he’s a “wolf”, then try telling his wife that her marriage is a fraud because she’s too young or naive to know what she wants. How long will they have to stick together to prove to you that minors are capable of making decisions?
Are you joking? How about providing a cite for “all teenagers in California under 18 are mentally incapable of giving informed consent”, “all teenagers in Washington under 16 are mentally incapable of giving informed consent, unless they are giving such consent to someone less than 48 months older”, etc, which is the opposite of my claim?
Since minors are able to marry in many areas, and getting married requires consent, it follows that some minors are able to give such consent.
I don’t know the girl in the R. Kelly case, so I can’t say for sure whether or not she did know what she wanted. But I know 13, 15, and 17 year old girls who I would certainly trust to know what they want. I would never assume that a teenager is incapable of making decisions about sex simply based on her age.
So yes, that’s basically what I’m saying. I believe there are minors who know exactly what they want, and I am almost religiously opposed to prosecuting any crime when there are no real victims.
Indeed… and I don’t think you’ll be surprised to hear that I’m opposed to those restrictions as well.
Again, protecting children from predators is fine, as long as it doesn’t make criminals out of innocent people.
There are any number of laws we could pass that would mostly catch ‘bad guys’, at the expense of also catching a lot of ‘good guys’ (Driving a car that doesn’t belong to you? Auto theft! Carrying a gun and over $100 cash? Armed robbery!). But it seems those odds are acceptable when it’s “for the children.” :rolleyes:
Let’s take your logic further - Are there any 10 year olds who are capable of giving consent? 8 year olds? … Certainly there are some who think that they are. Are they just because they believe it? Is there no victim?
Of course nothing really happens on the 18th birthday other than an arbitrary date passing. Of course, some 16 year olds are more mature than some 21 year olds, and some 14 year olds are mature intelligent people. But, society has to make an arbitrary decision. How old is old enough to be considered age of consent, and how young is young enough to be defined as below the age of consent. Who deserves the protection of the law? And once that decision is made, then an adult having sex with a child under that age is breaking the law, is having sex with a person unable to give consent, by definition.
We all accept that there is a difference between a 45 yo having sex with a 12 yo, and a 22 yo having sex with an “experienced” 16 yo … without all accepting that either is morally acceptable or that either is “right” or all accepting that the latter should be legal either … One hopes that a court takes that into account at the point of sentencing.
You know, I’m all in favor of protecting kids from sexual predators. The fact remains, however, that statutory rape laws turn some very good folks I know (and knew when I was younger) into felons.
I know that my brother wasn’t victimized by my friend who was six years his senior; I know that my first girlfriend was less traumatized by her relationship with a college student than she was by her relationship with me (or, for that matter, than I was by her relationship with a college student).
Should I be willing to see the college student go to prison, or to see my friend go to prison, because their incarceration makes it easier to incarcerate real sexual predators?
I’m just not willing to accept that.
There was a case in North Carolina about ten years ago, in which a man was acquitted of raping a woman by the jury. The judge, however, thought he was guilty. And during the trial, testimony came out that the woman had performed oral sex on the man.
Oral sex is a felony in North Carolina. The judge sent the man to prison.
Obviously, not everyone who commits oral sex is a sexual predator. However, it’s good to have the laws against oral sex on the books, because it makes it much easier to catch actual sexual predators.
daniel, I could be wrong, but I think most of us would agree that oral sex should no longer be a felony in any state. It is still a felony in Georgia, by the way. Sexual contact with a child under the age of fifteen should still be, in my opinion.
mr2001 and I obviously disagree about the ability of a 14-year old to give consent. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter how mature a 14-year old is, he/she is unable to give consent simply because he/she is still a child. Maybe 15 seems like an arbitrary number to some, but it’s no more arbitrary than 18, 16, or 42. It gives us a number that is reasonable in the eyes of the law to look at children as “young adults” who can make their own decisions. If a child truly is mature at 14, as maybe two of my students are, then they realize the rationale for the law, and they understand the need for it.
I don’t believe I will ever be converted to the belief that 14- year olds should be allowed to be preyed upon by men (or women) wishing to have sex with them. In my Judeo-Christian little world, anyone who wishes to have sex with a 14-year old should be locked up. Period.
I spend all day with teenagers. I’ve dedicated my career to their education. I go to their ball games, banquets, proms, etc. Their protection, education, and welfare are what I live for. I have several who are more mature than others, but none of them are mature enough for the responsibility of sex. The two that I mentioned may be wiser than the others, but they are still very much children in a million other ways. Many of them, no doubt, are already having sex, but it doesn’t make them responsible enough for it.
I want to know what world you live in, mr2001, in which you know 14-year olds who are mature enough for sex. I teach them everyday, and I haven’t met one YET who fits that description.
