Age of Consent and Statutory Rape

[bookitty]

While i have confessed to having a rape fetish in another thread it's actually in the receptive role of being raped by other men, so i don't really think it counts. I just like to read about morbid, rotten and weird things that have happened around the world and what's more rotten than rape? I mean i could create a thread about this crazy dendrophile who murdered and raped people but i didn't feel like it.

Anyway, this thread gave me something to think about (and managed to distract me from more important things). Still, i feel that the only defensible age of consent is between 13-15 years old. And this isn't because of entirely selfish reasons (teenagers become sexually attractive to me probably when they are around in their late 14's and early 15's, the majority of those younger than that still look like little children to me) but because i feel that these ages are a good compromise between individual sexual freedom and both the risk of harm to the minor and society as a whole. Perhaps 14 is a better compromise or maybe 15 is. I really don't know.

Society cannot be perfect and it cannot please everyone in it but if we can demonstrably reduce the amount of suffering in society by either increasing or decreasing the age of consent then i cannot see any reasonable reason why we shouldn't.

Now i must try to get at least some sleep and i will try finish reading this thread tomorrow.

I respect the fact that you are willing to speak about your attraction to younger teens. For the record, I don't think there is anything wrong with the attraction itself, you haven't got much say in that. I am concerned with the actions that may follow. Then again I am viewing this from a completely different angle.

If you have a relationship with a 15 year old, do you feel that it is beneficial to the teen? Outside of sexual experience, what would be the advantage? Do you feel that you are objectifying them because of their rather specific attraction?

There is no way to make questions like those sound unbiased or non-judgmental. I assure you they are not and I apologize in advance if they were insulting. I'm more interested in the answers and trying to understand.

 

[Uncayimmy]

1. Pregnancy is more dangerous and results in higher complication and death rates for children and mothers when the mother is a young teen, compared to the dangers for older teens and above.

Yes, that is true. It's never been in contention. People can look at the same facts and draw different conclusions. Just because I disagree with your conclusions doesn't mean I am disputing your facts. You'll know when I dispute your facts.

Since teens have always had sex since the dawn of time, the proper course of action is to avoid pregnancy. Unconditionally criminalizing sex is not going to improve the situation.

2. One of the single biggest factors which affects both a woman's life and her child's life is the age at which she has children. This is still true when controlling for other social factors, like poverty. Teenage mothers are more likely to drop out of high school and be impoverished, and their children are at an incredibly higher risk of being high school drop outs and criminals.

Again, the ills of teenage motherhood are not in dispute. Never have been. Again, unconditionally criminalizing a natural act is not going to improve the situation. All three states with the lowest age of consent (Colorado, Indiana and Iowa) have teen pregnancy rates below the national average. Iowa is ranked #41, and their age of consent is 14/16. Source.

You're presenting a problem and presuming a solution. Do you have some statistical evidence showing that age of consent laws improve the situation?

3. Young women who have sex with adult men use condoms LESS OFTEN then when they have sex with kids their age. Typically because uneducated girls are more likely to have sex with older men. One would HOPE that the men themselves, beign adults, would take the responsibility themselves to use protection, but statistics show that is not the case. Men who have sex with teens use protection at a far lesser rate than men who have sex with women their own age. And girls who have sex with adult men use protection less than girls who have sex with boys their age. They get STDs and become pregnant at a vastly higher rate when they have sex with older men than with boys their own age.

I must have missed the citation for this one.

But let me guess, you'll pull another straw man argument about how this is all based on some "Puritan view of sex." Please. Even the most sexually liberal countries in the world - the Netherlands, Scandanavia, Germany, who are (and rightly so) praised world wide at the effectiveness of their sexual education programs, have as the central part of that education the goal of preventing younger teens from having sex.

First, discouraging sex can be done without criminalizing it. Some would argue that criminalizing it increases the appeal. Regardless, it doesn't change my position regarding evaluating people as individuals just like we do in juvenile and family court.

FYI, Germany's age of consent is 14/16, which is lower than most of the USA. Denmark and Sweden have lower ages of consent than most of the states in the USA. Norway and the Netherlands are at 16, like most of the USA. Funny thing how people can't agree on an age.

None of the above negates my position that we can and should examine cases individually. I have no problems with the state making the argument that a minor having unprotected sex is demonstrating a lack of maturity and therefore unable to consent. It's not a big burden to ask such a question since the court needs to establish that the couple had sex before they can issue a conviction.

Why are you even on a skeptics blog, UY? It's obvious you don't care a single thing about using studies and data to forumlate an opinion. You're just here to fight.

Is this a skeptic's blog? It looks like a discussion forum to me.

 

[Loss Leader]

None of the above negates my position that we can and should examine cases individually. I have no problems with the state making the argument that a minor having unprotected sex is demonstrating a lack of maturity and therefore unable to consent. It's not a big burden to ask such a question since the court needs to establish that the couple had sex before they can issue a conviction.

What percentage of children under the age of 16 do you expect would be found to be capable of consenting to sex?

I think in order to evaluate your plan, we at least need to have some idea of what the benefit might be. How many people a year would be saved from statutory rape convictions by evidence that their underage partner was mature enough to give informed consent?

Tell me the total benefit so that we have some way of comparing it to the total cost.

 

[Uncayimmy]

What percentage of children under the age of 16 do you expect would be found to be capable of consenting to sex?

More than zero.

I think in order to evaluate your plan, we at least need to have some idea of what the benefit might be. How many people a year would be saved from statutory rape convictions by evidence that their underage partner was mature enough to give informed consent?

More than zero.

Tell me the total benefit so that we have some way of comparing it to the total cost.

What's the total cost? Do you mean dollars? It costs $18,000/year to keep someone in prison. It costs even more if you have to segregate prisoners, which is not uncommon with sex offenders. And then there's mandatory counseling. Just one year of prison can pay for a lot minors seeing a social worker and/or a shrink for a couple of hours followed by a determination hearing.
If you mean cost to the minor, I'm not sure there is any cost. Minors still need to testify to establish that sex occurred. They still need to talk to prosecutors and police. Seems to me that a hearing to examine their sophistication and maturity is not an undue burden. It would also have the positive effect of hammering home the seriousness of the minor's action, which ostensibly is a good thing. You can even shield the minor from the defense and simply have the state perform the hearing.

Furthermore, as people have pointed out, some jurisdictions have Romeo and Juliet laws. No one seems to object to the fact that the courts need to establish with reasonable certainty that, in fact, it's a Romeo and Juliet case. That involves interviews and/or testifying.

So, what "costs" am I supposed to overcome here?

 

[bookitty]

More than zero.


More than zero.


What's the total cost? Do you mean dollars? It costs $18,000/year to keep someone in prison. It costs even more if you have to segregate prisoners, which is not uncommon with sex offenders. And then there's mandatory counseling. Just one year of prison can pay for a lot minors seeing a social worker and/or a shrink for a couple of hours followed by a determination hearing.
If you mean cost to the minor, I'm not sure there is any cost. Minors still need to testify to establish that sex occurred. They still need to talk to prosecutors and police. Seems to me that a hearing to examine their sophistication and maturity is not an undue burden. It would also have the positive effect of hammering home the seriousness of the minor's action, which ostensibly is a good thing. You can even shield the minor from the defense and simply have the state perform the hearing.

Furthermore, as people have pointed out, some jurisdictions have Romeo and Juliet laws. No one seems to object to the fact that the courts need to establish with reasonable certainty that, in fact, it's a Romeo and Juliet case. That involves interviews and/or testifying.
So, what "costs" am I supposed to overcome here?

That particular interview is probably pretty simple. Something along the lines of "How old are you? Done."

How is what you are proposing significantly different than existing statutory rape cases?

 

[Uncayimmy]

That particular interview is probably pretty simple. Something along the lines of "How old are you? Done."

Uh...No. They need to establish the ages of the participants, the nature of the relationship, and how the sex came about (was it consensual).

How is what you are proposing significantly different than existing statutory rape cases?

It's not. Never has been. From the get-go my position has been that you can keep your age consent laws but add the additional test to see if, in fact, the minor was sophisticated and mature enough to consent. Keep the age brackets the same. Keep the presumption that the minor is not capable. Just add the addition of a hearing to determine if the minor was sophisticated and mature enough to consent.

I provided a link for you a few days ago about Kent Factors in juvenile court. What I'm proposing is similar. Family courts have minors testify, and one thing they do is look at the sophistication and maturity of the minor when evaluating their opinion. They recognize that their ability to make decisions about their life (such as which parent to live with) is a continuum.

But for some reason when it comes to sex, the continuum is tossed out the window. It's a bright line in a gray area.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

None of the above negates my position that we can and should examine cases individually. I have no problems with the state making the argument that a minor having unprotected sex is demonstrating a lack of maturity and therefore unable to consent. It's not a big burden to ask such a question since the court needs to establish that the couple had sex before they can issue a conviction.

From earlier in the thread:

Any sophistication and maturity test will naturally revolve around the specifics of the incident. It will be much like the Kent Factors for trying juveniles as adults. It's not difficult to argue that a 13 year old was mature enough to consent with someone close to his or her own age (say 16) but not mature enough to handle the dynamics of a relationship with someone much older. That's what judges do - they make judgments. They do it in family court every day by considering the minor's wishes along with the ability of the minor to understand those wishes.

It's interesting to me that so many people are quick to dismiss this concept instead looking for a way to make it work.

I still don't see how this works from a citizen's point of view.

-Can I have sex with my boyfriend?
-Well, a judge will determine that if you are charged.
-Will I be charged?
-Well, that depends on the judgement of the prosecutors.
-

It is different because when trying someone as an adult or a minor they will be charged with a crime either way.

Anyway, here is the closest measure I could find about such determinations (This is about maturity wrt abortion law, but it depends on "judgement"):

Descriptive information for each of the nine cases were isolated to see if any factor characterized those adolescents judged immature. The most striking finding to result from this inspection was the failure of any indicator to single out these individuals.

...

Perhaps the most surprising finding resulted from a comparison of lawyers' and judges' maturity assessments. While judges found only nine minors immature, the lawyers involved in these hearings considered their client immature in 11 cases. In only one case, however, did both the judge and the lawyer identify the same adolescent as being immature.

Linky.

 

[Uncayimmy]

4. Coerced reproduction, in which the partner attempts to control a woman by getting her pregnant. Teens are more susceptible to this type of abuse because they have less experience with relationships and less access to the medical attention needed to counter it. Teens in relationships with older men are especially vulnerable.

These things undoubtedly occur despite the current laws. Do you have evidence that the laws are acting as a deterrent?

You have pointed out how relationships are complicated and people get themselves in terrible situations. You've pointed out how conflicted a person can be. Have you considered how these laws affect the minors? Let's take our hypothetical 15 year old girl and a 22 year old boyfriend. Romeo and Juliet laws won't help. If she talks to professionals, they will have to report it to the police.

That means this person for whom she has at least some feelings will face criminal prosecution. This is no slap on the wrist. In a state like Georgia, it can be 10 years with no probation and lifetime registration as a sex offender. How likely is she to seek help? If she asks her parents or friends for help, they may also go to the police even if they aren't required by law (not sure exactly if they are).

Now suppose that she knew that she could explain that she's mature and sophisticated enough to consent. Whether she is or not is another matter, but it gives her a way to seek help without the automatic risk of putting her partner in prison.

Age of consent laws are little more than zero tolerance policies, and rarely do those work out very well.

 

[Uncayimmy]

-Can I have sex with my boyfriend?
-Well, a judge will determine that if you are charged.
-Will I be charged?
-Well, that depends on the judgement of the prosecutors.
-

Why are you confused? Do you have the idea that laws are always clear cut? They are not. Not every criminal trial is about whether the person did it. Sometimes it's about whether a crime was committed at all. In other words I am not proposing anything that doesn't already exist in the criminal justice system.

It is different because when trying someone as an adult or a minor they will be charged with a crime either way.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. They may choose not to charge with a crime at all if that serves the best interest of the state and the minor. Here's a link that might help you understand things better. Juvenile court is not a mini-version of criminal court.

Anyway, here is the closest measure I could find about such determinations (This is about maturity wrt abortion law, but it depends on "judgement"):

Do you have any opinions of your own regarding the link? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of it.

 

[bookitty]

These things undoubtedly occur despite the current laws. Do you have evidence that the laws are acting as a deterrent?

You have pointed out how relationships are complicated and people get themselves in terrible situations. You've pointed out how conflicted a person can be. Have you considered how these laws affect the minors? Let's take our hypothetical 15 year old girl and a 22 year old boyfriend. Romeo and Juliet laws won't help. If she talks to professionals, they will have to report it to the police.

That means this person for whom she has at least some feelings will face criminal prosecution. This is no slap on the wrist. In a state like Georgia, it can be 10 years with no probation and lifetime registration as a sex offender. How likely is she to seek help? If she asks her parents or friends for help, they may also go to the police even if they aren't required by law (not sure exactly if they are).

Now suppose that she knew that she could explain that she's mature and sophisticated enough to consent. Whether she is or not is another matter, but it gives her a way to seek help without the automatic risk of putting her partner in prison.

Age of consent laws are little more than zero tolerance policies, and rarely do those work out very well.

You seem to be overlapping two different situations here. A girl who is in a consensual relationship with a 22 year old and a girl who is the victim of coerced reproduction which is a form of abuse. It occurs within abusive relationships. Her situation is the same as girl who is being physically or mentally abused.

The psychological impact of abuse is well known. Victims often have feelings for their attackers and extracting them from the relationship can be difficult. If a 15 year old in that position is seeking help, it is because things have gotten bad enough she is either trying to escape or is trying to seek medical attention. It doesn't matter how mature she is because no one can give consent to be abused.

The fact that young teens can be more easily manipulated into abusive relationships is one of the reasons why we have age of consent laws in the first place.

 

[JJM 777]

What percentage of children under the age of 16 do you expect would be found to be capable of consenting to sex?

100% of 15-agers, 14-agers and maybe even 13-agers.

Considerations about physical maturity / capability do apply, but then "sexuality" can also be understood as a more universal concept than just coitus int.

 

[JJM 777]

young teens can be more easily manipulated into abusive relationships

So we should protect the vulnerable from _abusive relationships_, and them exactly. Not all relationships are abusive, and not all persons under age X are specifically vulnerable, and not all persons over age X are non-vulnerable.

 

[lionking]

So we should protect the vulnerable from _abusive relationships_, and them exactly.

I'm struggling to understand what's wrong with that concept.

 

[bookitty]

So we should protect the vulnerable from _abusive relationships_, and them exactly. Not all relationships are abusive, and not all persons under age X are specifically vulnerable, and not all persons over age X are non-vulnerable.

Yes, that's pretty much what laws are for.

Being young is a state of potential vulnerability. We aren't born knowing how to protect ourselves from manipulation, how to recognize a good/bad relationship, what we want from our relationship with other people, or who we are as sexual beings. We learn over time. Young teenagers haven't had the time to figure these things out.

 

[brodski]

NVM

 

[gumboot]

You have pointed out how relationships are complicated and people get themselves in terrible situations. You've pointed out how conflicted a person can be. Have you considered how these laws affect the minors? Let's take our hypothetical 15 year old girl and a 22 year old boyfriend. Romeo and Juliet laws won't help.

That would depend on the law, would it not?

If she talks to professionals, they will have to report it to the police.

Again, that would depend on the law.

That means this person for whom she has at least some feelings will face criminal prosecution.

Depends on the law.

This is no slap on the wrist.

Depends on the law.

In a state like Georgia, it can be 10 years with no probation and lifetime registration as a sex offender.

Okay. That's one jurisdiction. How many jurisdictions in this world have age of consent laws?

Age of consent laws are little more than zero tolerance policies, and rarely do those work out very well.

You're ignoring the fact that the nature of age of consent laws, they way they're interpreted by judiciaries, and the types of sentence given out for a given case vary enormously.

You can't just pull up an extreme example and use that to dismiss the entire concept of having age of consent laws. That's... well... frankly it's a bit idiotic.

In Canada, for example, the age of consent is 16, but a 12 year old can consent to sex with someone up to 14 years old, and a 15 year old can consent to sex with someone up to 20 years old. In your scenario the guy would be convicted and could face a sentence up to ten years (realistically he'd probably get something more like 5 years and be out in less than 2), and would also be put on a sex registry, but that registry would not be public and he would only be on it for 10 years.

In New Zealand there are no "Romeo and Juliet" type laws at all, and anyone who is over 16 and has sex with someone under sixteen is liable for conviction "sexual connection with a young person" which has a maximum sentence of 10 years. Again, in those circumstances a more likely sentence is 5-7 years and he'd be out in a couple. There is no sex offender registry, public or otherwise, in New Zealand.

I'd be the first to agree with you that certain jurisdictions have implemented age of consent laws in ridiculous, repressive, and ham-fisted ways. But I still think age of consent laws are a good idea.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

While age of consent varies among states and is 16 in most of them, child pornography is a federal law and defines anyone under 18 as "child". Thus it is entirely legal for me to have actual sex with a 17-year old, but I can go to jail for taking a naked picture of her. In fact, she can go to jail for taking a naked picture of herself.

The other hypocrisy is that a positive defense to statutory rape is that the girl said she was of age.

So you have people screeching about how "sick" someone must be for being attracted to someone underage, and the defense is essentially that you can't tell the difference.

Teens can also apply for "emancipation" legally as minors and have the court declare them an adult. We can also try them as adults for crimes if we just decide to - even very young teens.

Hypocrisy everywhere you look with this.

But our nation is filled with predators. The largest class of predators uses the law to tyrannize others.

A predator dehumanizes his victims so they become objects he can abuse without remorse.

We dehumanize both the girl under 18 and the guy over 18 by merely passing a law.

We define the girl as incapable statutarily of making her own decision on sex. It's just a tautology. It is then tautological too that the guy has "abused" the girl.


Now we can imprison her boyfriend without remorse and sentence him to a lifetime of tyranny with the sex registration, the employment losses, the awful social stigma, but worst of all the horrific abuse he is going to get in prison as a "child molester". It's unbelievable what happens to them in prison.

If someone did that to her boyfriend without the law behind them we'd hear what horror it was for the girl to see something so ghastly perpetrated upon her boyfriend and how it would scar her for life and whoever did it should spend the rest of their life in prison.

But with the law behind us we get to dehumanize the girl and now her feelings are invalidated. Not even worthy of concern.

We've dehumanized the guy with the stroke of a pen, so now we can parade him around as a witch and burn him at the stake while wearing a halo with how we are protecting society from witches.

Just look at all of the people in these kinds of threads who pretend to care for the girl when what they are actually doing is treating her as subhuman, expressing not the slightest concern for what the law does to her and her boyfriend.

Predators do not permit themselves to consider the feelings of their victim. The predator always wears a halo. He pretends he cares for the girl while defining her statutorily as incapable of making a decision. Then he terrorizes her and her boyfriend without any care for their lives at all.

It's wonderful to have classes of humans to abuse: Romans having Christians torn apart by animals in the ampitheater. Blacks burned alive in the US for talking back to whites. Communists, homosexuals, Indians, serial killers picking on prostitutes - every one of them throughout history justified by first dehumanizing the victim.

So it is with victimless crimes. Once we have the law behind us we can let our sadistic joy over the torment of others out with no remorse.

 

[Loss Leader]

Uh...No. They need to establish the ages of the participants, the nature of the relationship, and how the sex came about (was it consensual).

Wrong. They don't need to establish "how the sex came about" or whether it was "consensual." That's the point of statutory rape laws. There is no question of consent. The ages of the parties are all that matter. It is presumed that girls under a certain age lack the capacity to consent to sex.

Since the sexual contact has usually been admitted to, there's also usually no reason for the victim to testify. In fact, the concrete nature of the law makes trials on the issue rare. Since the only issue is the age of the parties, trials are generally useless and the vast majority end in plea bargains.

Your system would pretty much force every single defense lawyer to demand a trial, and to call and cross-examine the young victim. So, if you think more than zero people could successfully use the defense, let me postulate that more than zero of the victims will kill themselves rather than testify. After all, that's what Romeo and Juliet did.

So, which has more value - keeping a person who had sex with a child from having a criminal record, or keeping that child alive?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Why are you confused? Do you have the idea that laws are always clear cut? They are not. Not every criminal trial is about whether the person did it. Sometimes it's about whether a crime was committed at all. In other words I am not proposing anything that doesn't already exist in the criminal justice system.

It is confusing because whether I will be committing a crime or not will depend on a judges subjective determination of my maturity after the fact. If I have sex, I don't know whether or not it is a crime. I'm fairly sure that the law is written to prevent these situations.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. They may choose not to charge with a crime at all if that serves the best interest of the state and the minor. Here's a link that might help you understand things better. Juvenile court is not a mini-version of criminal court.

Perhaps I used the wrong word, but choosing not to charge still treats the person as a criminal, and often has other negative repercussions on their life. They committed a crime, the court just doesn't want to make a charge out of it. If they try to claim they didn't, they go to trial. This is different from your proposal.

Do you have any opinions of your own regarding the link? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of it.

That judges determining maturity is like throwing darts at a board? That we can't find objective determinations for who is mature and who is not?

 

[Loss Leader]

The other hypocrisy is that a positive defense to statutory rape is that the girl said she was of age.

That is not an affirmative defense to statutory rape. Belief in the mind of the accused is irrelevant to his or her guilt or innocence. Under certain circumstances, it might be something that could be taken into account at sentencing. However, the punishment for a crime is a completely separate issue from culpability.