If you fail to see the differences between the two situations you describe and the fourteen year old boy with the twelve year old girlfriend I doubt you ever will.
It probably is due to my age and the time and place where I lived when I was fourteen. As I said, I had my own car and driver’s license when I was fourteen; I also had a job and earned my own money; I bought and rebuilt my own car before putting it on the road. Also, in that time and place, twelve year old girls were “off limits”; if I had even attempted to date a twelve year old girl, her father would have thrown me out of his house and my own father would have reacted negatively, to say the least. Twelve year old girls were, back then, children; kids who were just beginning to experiment with makeup, as I said before.
Fourteen year old boys with automobiles were considered to be moving into young adulthood and we were not supposed to be interested in dating children. Just remember, I turned fourteen in the year 1954 while living in a small town in Texas. Things are, I suppose, much different now.
Since I seem to be the only one who finds it horrifying that a fourteen year old boy would be involved with a twelve year old girl, I will bow to the times but I can tell you for sure that if I had ever had a daughter, she would most definitely NOT have been dating a fourteen year old boy.
First, most states now have “Romeo and Juliette” exceptions built in. In California, I believe it is only statutory rape if the one party is under 13 or the age difference is greater than 2 years.
Second, in regard to the “rape shield” issue, the laws on rape shield are about protecting rape victims in general. In a statutory case, they should not prevent the victim from speaking up on behalf of the accused if the victim does not feel a crime was committed. Just as battered wives should be able to be called by the defense in a domestic abuse case if prosecuted without their consent.
Also, on the both the statutory rape and rule of law in general, it would be great if we were able to fairly and justly judge each individual and event on its own merits. Unfortunately, that is rarely possible or fair. We do not have superhuman, standardized judges who would all make the same decision in each case. Until we develop a Judgbot 2000, we need to use the rule of law to make sure we all have the same protections under the law.
I think we can all agree that two year old children are not capable of giving informed consent and mentally sound forty year old adults are. And I think we can also all agree that sometimes a 17 year old is more mature than a 20 year old, but that is not normally the case. So for any activity we want to restrict by level of maturity (driving, voting, owning a gun, or giving sexual consent) we would need either a fair way to determine when each individual is actually at the appropriate level, standardized and impartial, or we need to set a single age point that best approximates the level of maturity required.
The “R&J” laws are why I use my own case–my ex was three years older than I, and over eighteen when we married. If we lived in Oregon, and if we were in the same circumstances we were back then he could be prosecuted as a felon in spite of our entirely consensual relationship. Additionally, I was much the more sexually experienced person in the relationship–he was a bit clueless and diffident. I would’ve been PISSED if some crusading DA had decided to “make an example” of my “child molester” fiance!
I really think the whole situation could be avoided if teenagers over puberty were able to go to a required counselling session(s) to establish that the kid is knowledgeable re birth control, STI’s and suchlike, that there’s no coercion involved, then register their status as sexually responsible adults with the state. Pay a fee, get a fuck license and from then on out they’re treated as adults in any matter that involves their own sex lives–no tagbacks, one way trip to grownupland. If, after a few years it becomes titanically obvious that extremely few teenagers remain unlicensed after their sixteenth birthday (or whatever) we’d have an excellent factual basis on which to revise the statutory rape laws. If we don’t get that consensus we just allow the licensure process to continue indefinitely until it no longer serves a useful purpose.
Seriously, girls already have this, unfortunately it’s called “teenage pregnancy” and all too many girls end up using it, voluntarily or no. Only problem is that it introduces a heavy duty variable into an equation that really doesn’t need to be quite so fraught!
While that sounds good in theory, there are quite a few issues that would need to be addressed. Would this also mean they are financially independent? Do parents get any say in the outcome? Who makes the rules? What standards do they need to meet? Who pays for all this? At what age can you do this? 16, 14, 13, 12, 11,…? How long after a precocious 10 year old passes the tests until the whole thing is disbanded?
As for your specific case, that was the type of situation that I think jury nullification would be appropriate if you got a crusading DA. There should be nothing from preventing you and your parents from testifying as to the nature of the relationship.
And let us not forget elections of Judges. (If your state subscribes to this policy).
Ultimately it come down to the question, does society want predictable results that are sometimes perceived to be unfair or results that are perceived to be fair but highly unpredictable?
And the hijack, should jury’s be instructed about jury nulification?
First off, physical sexual maturity, determined by an MD and certified as such would be a prerequisite (in my perfect world scenario, mind you.) Kid would have to be checked out, all plumbing in operational mode and a birth control method chosen, also HPV vaccinations are required. The kid isn’t financially independent and is still under obligation to mind family rules–which might include remaining virginal, who knows. This is not an arrangement to benefit parents, it’s an arrangement whereby an aware teen can gain control over a facet of their life (that they already DO have control over) and keep themselves from becoming felons or creating felons because they want to have sex.
So, just like many other activities kids might wish to engage in with varying degrees of parental agreement or involvement, it’s going to come down to individual kids and families as to how they handle their own circumstances. Some kids get a brand new car on their sixteenth birthday, some kids have parents who’re vehemently opposed to their kids driving and won’t sign consent forms for Driver’s Ed. Some kids get jobs out of necessity and are pushed into it by their parents, some parents refuse to allow their kids to work. Parents might hate the electric guitar their kid is determined to learn to play and refuse to buy equipment for them. Kid wants to be a boxer, parents are pacifists–there’s no end to the similar situations families face every day. A sufficiently determined kid can find a way to do for themselves something they really want to do even if their parents are opposed, which is as it should be. Kids have to get experience making up their minds who they are and what they want to do with their lives but what we need to focus on is a way to encourage good choices, minimize bad results and help protect them from real damage–and becoming a registered sex offender is real damage.
Who pays for it? Medical exam is paid for the same way any other medical procedure is paid for. License fees to cover counselling, with scheduled classes available through high schools and junior colleges on a fee basis that fulfill some of the counselling requirements. I could think of a whole bunch of funding methods to keep costs down–Planned Parenthood would likely jump at getting funding to implement a program of this nature.
We’re grossly neglecting the subject of sexual health in this country–my perception is that the religious right has unilaterally imposed their moral vision onto what ought to be a purely medical/social/educational issue. Kids have genitals, they use them, and we can best help them by educating them and assisting in keeping them safe as they learn to negotiate this new terrain. Mindlessly fetishistic protectionism and criminal prosecution is hardly the best way to handle the issue of underage people and their sexuality.
Don’t get me wrong, I have always been in favor of this in theory, and not just for sexual activity either. I don’t think that at the moment a person turns 18 or 21 they magically transform into a different being. We as a society place value on making those we deem too young to make certain choices dependent on others. It would be prohibitively complex try a case by case determination and whatever criteria you select someone will disagree or find a case that it doesn’t work for. For example, your test would discriminate against certain types of female athletes such as gymnast and ballerinas whose training can delay full sexual maturity beyond 18 in some cases. And there people who never fully mature sexual due to hormonal issues, or in the extreme cases, mature way to early. If, as you say, the medical test is paid for normally, then either the parents have to pay for it or the testee does. That would basically make it so only teenagers with money get to become legal without parents consent.
Bottom line is that no system is going to perfect. Until we develop a technology that approaches magic and a machine can scan a person and pinpoint their exact level of maturity we are probably going to be stuck with age of consent laws. If it makes you feel any better many states don’t just put everyone on the sex offender list. You have to meet certain criteria that usually leave out 19 year old with a 16 year old girlfriend.