Age of Consent and Statutory Rape

[Uncayimmy]

Yeah, I actually had to laugh at UY's comment there. That's right, age of consent laws are all about men trying to treat their daughters as property!

You can laugh all you want or you can instead do a little research on the history of age of consent laws. As I stated quite clearly, I was talking about the origins of the laws.

Except that every modern or near modern campaign I've ever heard of in every country, from the U.S. to Yemen, in which age of consent was or is being fought to be raised, was lead by women.

Yes, I'm sure you're quite aware of all the various leaders of age of consent laws all around the world just like you weren't aware that that some women use body glitter as sexual component.

Though I'm sure its quite a nice historical narrative to imagine that pretty young girls throughout history have yearned to be able sleep with middle aged, balding, pot bellied dudes with back hair, only to be thwarted by dastardly fathers and authority figures seeking to control their sexuality.

I presume you fly Southwest?

 

[bookitty]

Bookitty, I heard a great quote about this issue some time ago:

When young teenage girls start fighting for the right to have sex with adult aged men with anywhere near the frequency that adult aged men fight for their right to have sex with young teenage girls, then maybe I'll reconsider my position.


Which, though I previously said myself doesn't work on an individual basis, because kids can think they are ready when they aren't.


But speaking in general terms, I can't think of a single solitary time I've seen the impassioned, well articulated, mature argument from a teen girl arguing why they should be able to have sex with middle aged dudes. It's ALWAYS the other way around. That right there should tell you something. And teen girls fight for LOTS of things. For or against abortion. Against drunk driving. In favor of pot legalization. In favor of lowering the drinking age. For a political candidate. For more nutritional school lunches. I was a particularly politically minded young teen, and in my extracurriculars, I met so many other politically and socially aware teens fighting for so many issues and personal rights. And read about so many more.

Yet this was never, ever one of them.

Exactly.

It's up there with the misapplication of biological imperative. How men have evolved to be attracted to 13-year-old and therefore it is all well and good.

 

[Mark6]

Just to make it clear, I do not actually agree with UncaYimmi's position. In my previous post I tried to clarify what I think was gross misinterpretation
of that position, but I still find it unworkable.

And unnecessary:

Or, of course, they could treat it like they do in rape shield laws. There's not necessarily any need to demonstrate sexual experience to determine maturity to consent, so it wouldn't be a big loss to either side. So, if a minor is an "A" student, has taken sex ed classes, discussed sex with his or her parents, used protection, was in a long-term relationship and waited before having sex, that's pretty good evidence that the person is mature enough to consent.

So, if the parents are all pissed off that their 15 year old white daughter had sex with an 18 year old black guy, they can't use the courts for revenge.

Such situations are taken care of with "Romeo and Juliet" laws. They do not exist everywhere, but are a lot easier to implement than case-by-case examination UncaYimmi proposes.

 

[bookitty]

Just to make it clear, I do not actually agree with UncaYimmi's position. In my previous post I tried to clarify what I think was gross misinterpretation
of that position, but I still find it unworkable.

And unnecessary:

Such situations are taken care of with "Romeo and Juliet" laws. They do not exist everywhere, but are a lot easier to implement than case-by-case examination UncaYimmi proposes.

I am in favor of "Romeo and Juliet" laws. It's nearly impossible to find one-size-fits-all regulation for teen sex but restricting it to same-age exploration does decrease the risk of exploitation.

If they were in place, the primary reason for a case-by-case examination would be to defend an adult against charges of an inappropriate sexual relationship with a teen. Once again, we come back to the benefit for the teen. It is not worth putting 13-year-olds in the position to lie, be coached, cross-examined or investigated in order to facilitate a sexual relationship with an adult. Better to have Romeo and Juliet laws in place and raise the age of consent.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You seem to miss the point...

You seem to be changing your point since this is your first use of the word distress.

The act of determining capability of consent may in itself cause distress.

Being sent to prison and having to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life because you were a senior in high school with a January birthday and she was a sophomore with an October birthday who went to a motel on prom night is also a bit stressful.

Do you really think that some naive 13 year old who falsely thinks an adult is the "love of her life" will fare very well if the prosecuting attorney starts delving into personal details about her life?

I'm more concerned with justice. If she can voluntarily spread her knees, get pregnant, and get an abortion on her own, she can spend an hour on the witness stand to prevent an innocent man from going to jail.

Heck, I'm an adult, and I don't think I'd want all my personal details revealed in court.

Oh, cut the drama. We don't need a bunch of personal details to determine maturity. When she's interviewed for a job or a college, they can determine if she's mature or not. The only additional information we need to know is whether she has a basic understanding of sex, which was most likely taught to her when she was much younger.

Man, I hate debating people who form their arguments around their emotions.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Well this is all just not even true. The first ever age of consent law was 1275 in England, and in that instant it was 12, and it was only a misdemeanor, and only applied to a non-married maiden.

How cute! For the first time ever in your life you researched age of consent laws. You found something that seemed to confirm your preconceived notions. Too bad you didn't think it through.

I wrote, "age of consent laws originated in part to keep daughters from being devalued before marriage." As a rebuttal you tell me that first age of consent laws only applied to unmarried girls. Do you really need to connect the dots for you? Society was more than happy to marry off young girls, but they were not willing to allow them to have sex. Why do you think that was?

I suggest you read the excerpt from this book where they explain that two ways of setting rape cases out of court (the preferred method) was to pay money to offset the money lost in her dowry or to marry her. In societies where wealth was exchanged upon marriage, non-virgins were considered damaged goods.

I'm not making this stuff up, and it's not the first time I've ever discussed this. Sure, the laws have been altered for various reasons over the years, but that doesn't change their origin. It's not, like LossLeader claimed, the laws were formed because of our biological and psychological research showed it to be damaging.

 

[bookitty]

Y


I'm more concerned with justice. If she can voluntarily spread her knees, get pregnant, and get an abortion on her own, she can spend an hour on the witness stand to prevent an innocent man from going to jail.

So, would you insist that a teen go through a similar trial of competence before being charged with a lesser crime, like shoplifting? As it stands now, only a very serious crime will make a teen eligible to be tried as an adult. You would have them witness as an adult when there is the possibility that they have been harmed or exploited.

 

[mike81]

I don't think there is any perfect answer here. I think we do need to set some age of consent. The problem I have with the way the laws are is that sometimes people get prosecuted unfairly.

I know someone who was about to be 21 years old and lives in a state where the age of consent is 16. He met a girl who claimed to be 17 almost 18. They started going out and having sex. A few months into it he found out she was younger than she claimed. She physically looked at least as old as she claimed. Well, he eventually gets arrested for statutory rape. She admitted to lying, but even if the "victim" misrepresents their age, the accused is still guilty.

He ended up getting a few years probation and was a registered sex offender. Luckily he was charged as a first offender. As a first offender, he was able finish his probation, get removed from the registry, and is not a convicted felon. The charge was expunged from his record.

Did he do something dumb? Yes, but doing something dumb when you are young does not mean you should be punished like that. 21 is still young no matter what the law says about being an adult at 18. He had to go to therapy with old guys who molested little girls and take polygraphs (junk science) every few months. Tell me that makes any sense.

I also heard a story a couple of years ago where a teenage guy was charged with statutory rape for being with a girl who was a little younger than him. They went to the same high school and even went to the prom together. They dated for a while.

One day her mother got mad for some reason and thought the police would just give him a scare. Well, they did more than that. He was placed on probation and placed on the sex offender registry. This happened many years ago and at the time of the story, he was still on the registry. The guy eventually married the so called victim and had children, but he was still required to be a registered sex offender. He could not do things like to his children to the park.

Things like that make no sense to me. There has to be a better way of doing it.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

like you weren't aware that that some women use body glitter as sexual component.

Uh, I never said some women don't use glitter as a sexual component. That's not true.

You said it is the ONLY reason women would use glitter. Your example was that women using glitter shows they are trying to be sexual, because why else would they use it?

Being sent to prison and having to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life because you were a senior in high school with a January birthday and she was a sophomore with an October birthday who went to a motel on prom night is also a bit stressful.

Romeo & Juliet laws exist for this, and I doubt you'll find anyone here disagreeing that they shouldn't exist for such a purpose.

I'm more concerned with justice. If she can voluntarily spread her knees, get pregnant, and get an abortion on her own, she can spend an hour on the witness stand to prevent an innocent man from going to jail.

Oh, cut the drama. [/QUOTE]

Uh, drama? You're the one trying to paint a man as a poor, defenseless VICTIM just because he slept with a 13 year old? If he knows it is against the law to sleep with a 13 year old. He couldn't wait a few years, or sleep with, you know, the millions of legally aged women.

This is a ridiculously easy law to avoid breaking. You're not going to find me feeling one drop of sympathy for someone for not being able to avoid doing so.

And if he broke statutory rape laws, he is by default not innocent.

The only additional information we need to know is whether she has a basic understanding of sex, which was most likely taught to her when she was much younger.

Are you serious? A basic understanding of sex is all that is needed to say whether or not someone can give consent? I had this understanding when I was 6. By the time I was 9, AIDS was so much in the news that I was well aware of STDs and how they were spread, and I certainly knew waht pregnancy was. I wasn't mentally prepared to have sex when I was 13, nevermind 9.

You yourself even said this was probably taught to her "when she was much younger."

So then you don't actually think it should be a case by case basis, because you're going to be hard pressed to find a kid above the age of 10 in America that doesn't have a basic understanding of sex.

And even if a kid didn't have a basic understanding at the time they began the relationship with the adult, the kid would probably have such an understanding (through the relationship) by the time it came to trial. If nothing else, the perpetrator could easily coach the child for the witness stand.


And as loss leader and I have tried to explain, the power difference between an adult and a child simply cannot be understated. An adult has every advantage over a child in trying to pressure them into sex. "Knowing what sex is" isn't enough. Knowing basically what sex is does not magically give you the ability to navigate through adult relationships. It doesn't make you any less intimidated by an adult propositioning you for sex. It doesn't make you have better impulse control, or make your more capable of weighing long term decisions. It doesn't make you more knowledgable about when you are being taken advantage of by an adult manipulating them.


Knowing what sex is is a really just terrible way to decide someone is ready for sex. Lots of boys are really, really into war movies, books, etc when they are young, and of course we have plenty of media sources which tell us all about war. I'd say an average 13 year old boy has a very good concept of what war is and what it entails.

That doesn't mean we need to be sending 7th graders to Iraq. Because *thinking* you know exactly what something entails and that you're mature enough for it does not make it true.

And by the way, UY, I find it utterly callous the way you describe:

I'm more concerned with justice. If she can voluntarily spread her knees, get pregnant, and get an abortion on her own, she can spend an hour on the witness stand to prevent an innocent man from going to jail.

The fact that you would portray as "innocent" a fully grown man who impregnates a 13 year old girl, a girl who, due to her age, is at greater risk for death in childbirth and for complications both for her and the baby throughout her pregnancy, and who is at far far FAR greater risk of raising a child who becomes a criminal, high school drop out, and is at far far far greater risk for herself being a high school drop out and to be impoverished for life....says all anyone needs to know about your views towards men and women.

Oh, she voluntarily spread her legs. That's all that matters. Doesn't matter how little life exprience she has, or that some dude tells her HE'LL take care of her and be her daddy now, only to knock her up and leave her (and by the way, the same study that showed that girls are at far greater risk for pregnancy with older men ALSO showed that these men are less likely to stick around and help her with the baby than boys of comparable age who impregnate a girl). Doesn't matter if she has no real grasp of what it's like to be a teenage mother, or get herpes. Doesn't matter that she can't appreciate the long term consequences of her actions. Nope, she had that one video in health class in 6th grade, so have fun fellas! Its open season on whatever abused and desperate tween you can find! Manipulate them, knock em up, ruin their lives, and UY will say YOU'RE the victim!

It's not, like LossLeader claimed, the laws were formed because of our biological and psychological research showed it to be damaging.

It is with modern age of consent laws, which arose independently from the old laws you reference. Modern consent laws were established for the protection of children, and should be viewed according to THEIR origin. In fact, with the study I posted earlier, one of the reasons the study was done was for lawmakers to reevaluate age of consent laws. I think its pretty clear LL was talking about the origin of MODERN consent laws.

 

[Uncayimmy]

So, would you insist that a teen go through a similar trial of competence before being charged with a lesser crime, like shoplifting?
As it stands now, only a very serious crime will make a teen eligible to be tried as an adult. You would have them witness as an adult when there is the possibility that they have been harmed or exploited.

You are using language/terminology that indicates to me that you know virtually nothing about how minors are tried as adults. You are also incorrect about what makes them eligible to be tried as an adult. You are also missing the fact that in a statutory rape trial, a victim will most likely be taking the stand anyway.

In other words, your post is an emotional outburst not worthy of an academic response.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Uh, I never said some women don't use glitter as a sexual component. That's not true.

I never said you did. You claimed you had never heard of that until recently. I'm calling into question the veracity of that statement.

You said it is the ONLY reason women would use glitter.

Provide evidence or retract your repeated lie. I already quoted myself.

Better still, just put me back on your ignore list.

Romeo & Juliet laws exist for this, and I doubt you'll find anyone here disagreeing that they shouldn't exist for such a purpose.

Please don't speak for the group. Others have expressed opinions and reasoning that, should they be followed to their logical conclusion, would mean rejecting R&J laws. BTW, these laws are limited in scope and not universal.

Uh, drama? You're the one trying to paint a man as a poor, defenseless VICTIM just because he slept with a 13 year old? If he knows it is against the law to sleep with a 13 year old. He couldn't wait a few years, or sleep with, you know, the millions of legally aged women.

Actually,

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

if the laws are changed as I describe, he would not necessarily be committing a crime. There's gotta be a name for the logical fallacy you just committed. Affirming the consequent? Who cares?

This is a ridiculously easy law to avoid breaking. You're not going to find me feeling one drop of sympathy for someone for not being able to avoid doing so.

I really don't care about your sympathy. I'm talking about what is fair and reasonable, not what makes you happy. But thank you for revealing just how emotional your arguments are.

Back on your ignore list I hope I go.

 

[Loss Leader]

You are using language/terminology that indicates to me that you know virtually nothing about how minors are tried as adults. You are also incorrect about what makes them eligible to be tried as an adult. You are also missing the fact that in a statutory rape trial, a victim will most likely be taking the stand anyway.

In other words, your post is an emotional outburst not worthy of an academic response.

As a lawyer familiar with all of these things, it is obvious to me that you know nothing whatsoever about criminal law, trial techniques, proofs, or the specific proofs required for statutory rape. In other words, your post appears to have been generated for no reason other than to create disagreement and is not worthy of any response.

 

[gumboot]

How cute! For the first time ever in your life you researched age of consent laws. You found something that seemed to confirm your preconceived notions. Too bad you didn't think it through.

I wrote, "age of consent laws originated in part to keep daughters from being devalued before marriage." As a rebuttal you tell me that first age of consent laws only applied to unmarried girls. Do you really need to connect the dots for you? Society was more than happy to marry off young girls, but they were not willing to allow them to have sex. Why do you think that was?

I suggest you read the excerpt from this book where they explain that two ways of setting rape cases out of court (the preferred method) was to pay money to offset the money lost in her dowry or to marry her. In societies where wealth was exchanged upon marriage, non-virgins were considered damaged goods.

I'm not making this stuff up, and it's not the first time I've ever discussed this. Sure, the laws have been altered for various reasons over the years, but that doesn't change their origin. It's not, like LossLeader claimed, the laws were formed because of our biological and psychological research showed it to be damaging.

I think you missed my point.

Firstly, the comment about the 1275 law was in response to:

"juries in England in the 13th century did not like enforcing such an arbitrary law and would address it on a case by case basis"

Which is categorically false as for 75% of the 13th century no law whatsoever existed in relation to age of consent, and even when it did (after the introduction of Westminster Statute I) it was a minor side-mention in a law about rape and considered merely a misdemeanor. Juries in 13th Century England didn't have to worry about issues of ages of consent because such notions just simply didn't exist.

When married you could have sex. When not married you couldn't. That was the end of it.


In any event, the thrust of your argument appears to be that current age of consent laws have their origins in property control of daughters, and that as such they're out of wack with modern society and should be lowered.

In truth the precise opposite is true.

Not only did age of consent law not even commonly exist during the time you cited (consent laws didn't really start emerging until the late 18th Century), but current age of consent laws are modern changes, instigated mostly by women wanting to get away from the old laws in which (when they existed at all) ages of consent were very, very, very low.

In other words, those old out-of-date laws have already been adjusted by modern society in a way that better reflects society and what it wants.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I always wondered how you could trust a 16 year old with 3000 pounds of life and death machine on the public streets, but not trust her with her own vagina

License is required to drive, but not to have sex or kids. However, 16 is the age of consent in many states because often the male is 1-3 years older. This has the unintended consequences of a much older male being with that 16 year old. To most people, there's a cap on an age range for any given person, but people under the age of 18 are considered minors and have been for quite a long time in this country. A guy attracted to a younger girl, or vice versa, is not necessarily a sick depraved individual, but just to be safe why not wait? Any crusade to get this law changed will likely result in some outrage.

 

[mike81]

Something I want to add. Where I live the age of consent is 16. So, it is ok for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl, but if a 20 year old guy sleeps with a 15 year old girl it is a crime. That makes sense how?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

But thank you for revealing just how emotional your arguments are.

Yes, you're right. That's why I'm the only one on this entire thread who actually threw up studies and statistics on this subject. Because my arguments are based on emotion.

Also, you express sympathy for men who break such laws, but me NOT expressing sympathy is what is emotional? I'm pretty sure being sympathetic is a stronger emotion than lack of sympathy.

Actually, sweetheart, if the laws are changed as I describe, he would not necessarily be committing a crime.

You mean your laws which would legalize pedophilia, considering your ONLY measure of maturity for consent is "basic knowledge of what sex is" which applies to most children in America?

And if I'm the one who is so emotional, then why is it you're reduced to using the term "sweetheart" as a perjorative to mock me as a woman?


Here is what LL typed:

The point of statutory rape laws is that the "consent" given by a minor is presumed to be insufficient to be actual, legal consent.

LL stated that these are the point of statuory rape laws. They were clearly speaking in the present tense and are talking about the reason modern laws are currently in place. Then you started going on about consent laws from centuries ago that were set up in completely different contexts for completely different purposes and are pretty much completely unrelated to the statutory rape laws in place today which LL was talking about.

LL said that the point of statutory rape laws is, not was. Present tense.

LL is right, your posts appear to have been generated for no reason other than to create disagreement.

 

[Loss Leader]

I know someone who was about to be 21 years old and lives in a state where the age of consent is 16. He met a girl who claimed to be 17 almost 18. They started going out and having sex. A few months into it he found out she was younger than she claimed. She physically looked at least as old as she claimed. Well, he eventually gets arrested for statutory rape. She admitted to lying, but even if the "victim" misrepresents their age, the accused is still guilty.

Well, here's the thing about children: they have really bad judgment. So, you'd expect them to do something stupid like like about their age. Even though it endagers them AND the person they're lying to, they'll do it anyway.

We expect children to exercise bad judgment. That's why we put all of the burden on adults to make certain that they are not breaking the law.

In any case, your friend entered into a sexual relationship with a very young girl. That hurt her in ways that psychologists are just beginning to unravel. It appears that young girls who have sex with men 3 or more years older then themselves will engage in more risky sexual behavior with more partners throughout their lives. They are more likely to catch STDs, including HIV. They're more likely to smoke. He hurt a little girl. I feel no sympathy towards him.

He had to go to therapy with old guys who molested little girls and take polygraphs (junk science) every few months. Tell me that makes any sense.

I would never agrue that our penal system is appropriately rehabilitating anyone. It needs a lot of work.

I also heard a story a couple of years ago where a teenage guy was charged with statutory rape for being with a girl who was a little younger than him. They went to the same high school and even went to the prom together. They dated for a while. One day her mother got mad for some reason and thought the police would just give him a scare. Well, they did more than that. He was placed on probation and placed on the sex offender registry. This happened many years ago and at the time of the story, he was still on the registry. The guy eventually married the so called victim and had children, but he was still required to be a registered sex offender. He could not do things like to his children to the park.

Different states handle the particulars in other ways. In my state, if the younger person is at least 15 and the difference in age is less than 4 years, it is not rape. Other criminal charges, such as contributing to the delinquency of a minor, may be possible.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A few quick points:

1. It does not inescapably follow from the fact that politically active young women are not currently campaigning for X that X is a bad idea.

2. It does not inescapably follow that if women campaigned for something in the past it is genuinely a good idea for women now - women were a major driving force in the passage of alcohol prohibition in the USA and that was a massively dumb idea.

3. It is simply asinine to argue that a law criminalising X is just if it is easy not to do X. That's a thoroughly flawed standard. By that logic we could lock people in prison for years and put them on a special registry if they went out in public with one glove on. After all, how hard is it to wear two gloves or none? (How hard is it not to smoke marijuana? How hard is it not to possess a cartoon image of Bart Simpson engaging in a sex act?).

4. The only rational reason for criminalising sex with young people would be if we had hard evidence that sex with young people somehow causes significant harm in some way, after you have controlled for every confounding factor. That's it. Every other argument is fallacious in one way or another, and most of them are appeals to emotion or local cultural taboos in one form or another.

5. We do have such evidence - as I recall there is a statistically significant link between sexual activity under the age of fifteen or sixteen and poor life outcomes such as mental illness, poverty and suicide, even after every seemingly relevant factor such as family background, education and so on is controlled for.

I know of no evidence-based theory for why this is, just a lot of armchair-psychological noodling based on regurgitated cultural values and folklore, but since it seems to be a brute fact about the world we should not wait on an explanation before we take preventative action.

6. That means that the sole interesting question is finding the least worst way of discouraging under-fifteens or under-sixteens from having sex. Criminal punishment for over-eighteens who knowingly have sex with them is one possible method, but it doesn't address the problem of under-eighteens having sex with them and it might or might not be the best all-around option. I don't have a pat answer. I suspect that Germany might be the place to look for answers, since based on what's been posted here they have been pursuing harm mitigation strategies other than criminalisation with some success.

7. It does not necessarily follow that someone who argues that X should not be a criminal offence thinks that X is a good thing which should be encouraged. I don't think anyone should smoke, underage or otherwise, but I'm not in favour of making it a criminal offence. If someone thinks that Germany has the right idea about handling the risks of early sexual activity that doesn't necessarily mean they think that thirteen year olds should be sexually active, just that they are not sure that criminal charges are the least worst way of handling the issue.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In any case, your friend entered into a sexual relationship with a very young girl. That hurt her in ways that psychologists are just beginning to unravel. It appears that young girls who have sex with men 3 or more years older then themselves will engage in more risky sexual behavior with more partners throughout their lives. They are more likely to catch STDs, including HIV. They're more likely to smoke. He hurt a little girl. I feel no sympathy towards him.

You might want to review this post for errors in reasoning concerning correlation versus causation.

 

[mike81]

We expect children to exercise bad judgment. That's why we put all of the burden on adults to make certain that they are not breaking the law.

Yes, but when you are young you are not always going to ask a female for proof of her age. Really what 21 year old guy ask a girl who looks and claims to be old enough for id or birth certificate? I'd say very few. Yes, what he did was dumb, but being a dumb 21 year old does not mean you should be labeled a child molester. Though he got lucky and has been able to put it behind him.