Age of Consent and Statutory Rape

[JJM 777]

Being young is a state of potential vulnerability.

So is being on the lower 50% of the IQ scale.
Or being a human at all.
Or being any creature.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

I assure I am not overlapping anything. I am pointing out that if a minor is in such a situation, asking for assistance puts her in the position of effectively putting the adult in prison automatically. There's no chance the adult will be let off. If there's a chance that she can ask for assistance without automatic jail time for the adult, I argue that she's more likely to ask for assistance.

The psychological impact of abuse is well known.

Not in dispute. Never has been. No need to keep repeating it.

I asked you a question. Please answer it.
"These things undoubtedly occur despite the current laws. Do you have evidence that the laws are acting as a deterrent?"

 

[Uncayimmy]

That would depend on the law, would it not?

Again, that would depend on the law.

Depends on the law.

Depends on the law.

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

Not really sure what you're driving at here. I believe that about 95% of countries have age of consent laws. Most states in the USA have mandatory reporting laws by professionals for sex crimes. Pointing out that there are variations by jurisdiction does not address the issue. It's just a way of avoiding discussing the issue at hand.

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.

I'm not ignoring any such thing. I'm not going to get into a debate about literally hundreds of different statutes. Suffice it to say that in a significant number of jurisdictions, violations of these laws are felonies with mandatory sentencing, no eligibility for parole/probation, and a lifetime registration as a sex offender.

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.

Well, I'm done with you at this point because I have not once advocated doing away with age of consent laws. You obviously haven't been keeping up with the thread.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

If a case comes before the police, they still need to know if there was consent even if age of consent laws don't automatically apply. We're discussing this in the context of how the minor victim is treated by police. Questioning still occurs.

Since the sexual contact has usually been admitted to, there's also usually no reason for the victim to testify.

The minor is at the very least talking to police and prosecutors.

Your system would pretty much force every single defense lawyer to demand a trial, and to call and cross-examine the young victim.

Nope. If you had been paying attention, I said that the state can hold these hearings without the defense being involved at all.

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.

<shakes head>

 

[Loss Leader]

If a case comes before the police, they still need to know if there was consent even if age of consent laws don't automatically apply. We're discussing this in the context of how the minor victim is treated by police. Questioning still occurs.

Wrong.

The minor is at the very least talking to police and prosecutors.

Wrong.

Nope. If you had been paying attention, I said that the state can hold these hearings without the defense being involved at all.

And if you'd been paying attention, you'd know that such a hearing would violate the Sixth Amendment. Not only would the accused person's attorney have the right to cross-examine the child, it would probably be malpractice not to. It would probably be malpractice even to recommend a plea bargain with a window to innocence left so wide open.

And I would bet about thirty-five bucks that every lawyer on this board would agree with me. Of course, they won't weigh in. I'm the only one of us who's dumb enough to get involved in this thread.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

Well, that's 100% incorrect. You are very confused. The minor is never charged with a crime for having sex below the age of consent. The adult is tried. An adult having sex with another adult must always consider whether the other person consented. Many rape trials, most notably "date rape" trials depend on a post-hoc determination of consent. Likewise, there are times where physical violence against another person is not a crime (self defense, for example). There are situations where a person cannot be sure if an act will be considered a crime or not.

Therefore, I reject your objection.

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.

Sure, it's different. Never said they were the same. What I have pointed out repeatedly is that in juvenile and family court we recognize the gray areas and take steps to treat each situation on its own merits. That's all I'm suggesting here.

It's amazing to me that so many "skeptics" would prefer that we not evaluate each situation for what it is and instead take a one-size-fits-all approach.

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?

We didn't throw darts at a dartboard to determine the current bright-line ages. Countries and even states disagree on what the age should be. One would hope that when debating where to draw the line that legislators examined maturity and sophistication in general. I am simply suggesting that we apply those same factors at the individual level.

Stated simply, whatever debate occurred for "kids that age" can be applied to "this particular kid."

 

[Uncayimmy]

Wrong.

Wrong.

I hope we're miscommunicating because you're not making any sense.

And if you'd been paying attention, you'd know that such a hearing would violate the Sixth Amendment. Not only would the accused person's attorney have the right to cross-examine the child, it would probably be malpractice not to. It would probably be malpractice even to recommend a plea bargain with a window to innocence left so wide open.

If I had been paying attention? This is the very first mention of Sixth Amendment issues. I'm not really interested in going down the constitutional road. There's certainly room for debate, but it is by no means automatic. All amendments are interpreted by judgments weighing various factors including compelling state interest.

Essentially you are arguing that it is 100% constitutional to presume via legislation that a minor was unable to given consent but unconstitutional for the state to make that determination on a case by case basis based on the facts of that case. While the courts may ultimately agree, it's not a slam dunk either way just as the rape shield laws were not a slam dunk.

Buy, hey, if you want to debate this where the defense is allowed to examine the alleged victim, that's fine. As I stated before, we could adopt laws similar to rape shield laws to protect the victim. Clearly those are constitutional, yes?

And I would bet about thirty-five bucks that every lawyer on this board would agree with me. Of course, they won't weigh in. I'm the only one of us who's dumb enough to get involved in this thread.

Okay.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

Well, you are wrong to make such an absolute statement. According to my research 17 states have enacted legislation to allow mistake of age as a defense. In other states/countries, it is still a strict liability crime, and many people object to it on that basis. I certainly do.

And then there is People vs. Hernandez.

http://www.garretwilson.com/education/institutions/usf/law/criminal/cases.html
People v. Hernandez, 61 Cal. 2d 529 (1964)
Defendant accused of statutory rape believed his companion of several months to be over 18, when in fact she was 17 years and nine months old. Is a reasonable mistake of age a defense for statutory rape? Held Yes; His lack of intent is a defense.

Were you implying in a prior post that you were a lawyer?

 

[varwoche]

The fact that the medical literature stands in (virtual) unanimity against the ideas expressed in the OP, and the way that this meta reality is brushed off in this thread and others like it, is a reminder to me that:

Debates that center on psychological harm, which indeed is a fuzzy concept, instantly become sandboxes for appeals to self authority, idiocy posing as free thought, and other forms of transparent pseudo skepticism.

 

[bookitty]

I assure I am not overlapping anything. I am pointing out that if a minor is in such a situation, asking for assistance puts her in the position of effectively putting the adult in prison automatically. There's no chance the adult will be let off. If there's a chance that she can ask for assistance without automatic jail time for the adult, I argue that she's more likely to ask for assistance.


Not in dispute. Never has been. No need to keep repeating it.

I asked you a question. Please answer it.
"These things undoubtedly occur despite the current laws. Do you have evidence that the laws are acting as a deterrent?"

She is in the same position as an adult who is being abused, getting help means repercussions for the abuser regardless of her age. The abuse itself is illegal.

You are arguing that an abused 15 year-old girl would be more likely to seek help if she can be the one to defend both her actions and that of the abuser. Even if that were the case, it places far too much on the 15 year-old. She would have to argue that she was competent to choose the relationship in which she was abused.

 

[Uncayimmy]

She is in the same position as an adult who is being abused, getting help means repercussions for the abuser regardless of her age. The abuse itself is illegal.

No, she's not in the same legal position as an adult. Sorry.

You are arguing that an abused 15 year-old girl would be more likely to seek help if she can be the one to defend both her actions and that of the abuser. Even if that were the case, it places far too much on the 15 year-old. She would have to argue that she was competent to choose the relationship in which she was abused.

The goal is to get her to seek help in the first place. Right now if she seeks help no matter what the circumstances besides the man being an adult, she's virtually guaranteeing severe, life-long repercussions for the adult. Do you deny that this is a disincentive to seek help? She can change her mind later about cooperating.

If she's okay with prosecuting the guy for abuse, then the issue you're describing doesn't matter much. If she just wants to get out of the situation and not wreck this guy's life (he may deserve it, but she, like other abused people, may not want anything bad to happen to him), then she's being forced into a bad position by the state.

It's not like what I'm describing doesn't happen.
http://www.findlegaladvice.org/foru...r-unknown-on-the-birth-certificate-514181.htm

Now, for the third time: I asked you a question. Please answer it.
"These things undoubtedly occur despite the current laws. Do you have evidence that the laws are acting as a deterrent?"

 

[bookitty]

No, she's not in the same legal position as an adult. Sorry.


The goal is to get her to seek help in the first place. Right now if she seeks help no matter what the circumstances besides the man being an adult, she's virtually guaranteeing severe, life-long repercussions for the adult. Do you deny that this is a disincentive to seek help? She can change her mind later about cooperating.

If she's okay with prosecuting the guy for abuse, then the issue you're describing doesn't matter much. If she just wants to get out of the situation and not wreck this guy's life (he may deserve it, but she, like other abused people, may not want anything bad to happen to him), then she's being forced into a bad position by the state.

It's not like what I'm describing doesn't happen.
http://www.findlegaladvice.org/foru...r-unknown-on-the-birth-certificate-514181.htm

Now, for the third time: I asked you a question. Please answer it.
"These things undoubtedly occur despite the current laws. Do you have evidence that the laws are acting as a deterrent?"

And I've got a teapot in space. How exactly would one go about proving that age of consent laws are acting as a deterrent to reporting abuse? How do you prove that any act that was not committed was the result of a specific law?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Well, that's 100% incorrect. You are very confused. The minor is never charged with a crime for having sex below the age of consent. The adult is tried. An adult having sex with another adult must always consider whether the other person consented. Many rape trials, most notably "date rape" trials depend on a post-hoc determination of consent. Likewise, there are times where physical violence against another person is not a crime (self defense, for example). There are situations where a person cannot be sure if an act will be considered a crime or not.

Therefore, I reject your objection.

That's nice, but you didn't address it. My problem is with the criteria. With date rape and self defense, we have objective criteria for whether one is in the right or in the wrong that lay people can understand and use to moderate their behaviour. I know about consent laws and drug use, or when self-defense is permissible and to what extent. I don't know whether Judge Snyder will subjectively determine me to be "mature".

Sure, it's different. Never said they were the same. What I have pointed out repeatedly is that in juvenile and family court we recognize the gray areas and take steps to treat each situation on its own merits. That's all I'm suggesting here.

It's amazing to me that so many "skeptics" would prefer that we not evaluate each situation for what it is and instead take a one-size-fits-all approach.

It's amazing to me that you think we should treat every case of underaged sex as something open to the subjective judgement of a judge.

We didn't throw darts at a dartboard to determine the current bright-line ages. Countries and even states disagree on what the age should be. One would hope that when debating where to draw the line that legislators examined maturity and sophistication in general. I am simply suggesting that we apply those same factors at the individual level.

Stated simply, whatever debate occurred for "kids that age" can be applied to "this particular kid."

Yes, many would agree that the line is arbitrary. But there is a difference between an arbitrary cut off point and arbitrarily deciding whether someone committed a crime after the fact. One brings order to society, one doesn't.

 

[Uncayimmy]

And I've got a teapot in space. How exactly would one go about proving that age of consent laws are acting as a deterrent to reporting abuse? How do you prove that any act that was not committed was the result of a specific law?

I didn't say prove. I said provide evidence. There is a difference. It seems you are saying that you not only wholeheartedly support laws without evidence of their efficacy but are content with not even trying to figure out a way to at least get an idea of it. As for what could be considered evidence:

* Comparing before/after enacting/changing the laws.
* Comparing before/after changing punishments
* Comparing states with differing ages of consent, differing laws or differing punishments.

One thing you could look at would be the percentage of minor mothers listing the father as unknown. If this increases dramatically around the time of the implementation of mandatory reporting laws and/or more severe punishments for adults, one could reasonably make the argument of cause and effect. It's not 100% proof, but when there's correlation along with a reasonable theory of causation absent other reasonable theories of causation, that can be considered evidence.

 

[Uncayimmy]

That's nice, but you didn't address it. My problem is with the criteria. With date rape and self defense, we have objective criteria for whether one is in the right or in the wrong that lay people can understand and use to moderate their behaviour.
I know about consent laws and drug use, or when self-defense is permissible and to what extent. I don't know whether Judge Snyder will subjectively determine me to be "mature".

Sorry, you are incorrect. It's by its very nature subjective. Just because there are criteria to examine doesn't mean the examination is objective. In the case of self-defense, the word "reasonable" is seen. I quote the Texas law for you as but one example:

http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm
Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

Reasonable is not objective.

It's amazing to me that you think we should treat every case of underaged sex as something open to the subjective judgement of a judge.

I'm glad you think I am amazing. Flattered, actually. But I never said any such thing. If the minor denies consent and there's a presumption that the minor cannot consent, it's pretty much a done deal.

Yes, many would agree that the line is arbitrary.

For the umpteenth time, I don't consider it arbitrary. Far from it, and that's the whole point. Please try to listen to what I say. I firmly believe that legislators are doing the due diligence when setting an age. I would hope they consulted with experts in the field (social workers, physicians, psychiatrists, etc.). I would expect them to say, "We want to set an age where (say) 99% of minors are sophisticated and mature enough to consent. We require that factors X, Y, and Z are met."

All I am saying is that if experts can testify to entire age groups, they can testify for individuals. The test would be the same, only in this case instead of applying the test to a faceless group of people they apply the test to an actual person.

I'm amazed that you find that such a difficult approach. Well, not really. Personally I think you are working from "age of consent laws as is are good" and trying to shoot down any changes without actually considering the arguments. That's just how it seems to me.

 

[bookitty]

I didn't say prove. I said provide evidence. There is a difference. It seems you are saying that you not only wholeheartedly support laws without evidence of their efficacy but are content with not even trying to figure out a way to at least get an idea of it. As for what could be considered evidence:

* Comparing before/after enacting/changing the laws.
* Comparing before/after changing punishments
* Comparing states with differing ages of consent, differing laws or differing punishments.

One thing you could look at would be the percentage of minor mothers listing the father as unknown. If this increases dramatically around the time of the implementation of mandatory reporting laws and/or more severe punishments for adults, one could reasonably make the argument of cause and effect. It's not 100% proof, but when there's correlation along with a reasonable theory of causation absent other reasonable theories of causation, that can be considered evidence.

Or I could just say that existing age of consent laws need a Romeo and Juliet exception. Sex between same-age partners should not be illegal. Sex between adults and minors needs more restriction because no one has proved that teens beneath the age of consent benefit from sexual relationships with adults while potential for harm has been proven.

 

[Rufo]

UncaYimmy, if your suggested changes were to be made in the treatment of age of consent cases, wouldn't that increase the probability of people attempting to use their own judgement when deciding to have sex with a minor or not, rather than avoiding it altogether? And if so, is that really an exclusively good thing? After all, it's not unlikely that some of those who wish to have sex with minors have a flawed perception of the maturity of those minors. They may have sex with minors who are not mature enough to give consent, in the belief that their judgement is valid, and that the judicial system will support their decision. In their own eyes, they are not breaking the law, so it does not serve its purpose as a deterrent.

Could this not lead to an increase in statutory rape cases?

 

[Arcade22]

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?

Emotional closeness? What's more beautiful than people that actually like or even love each other having sex? It's not actually the sex I'm after because if it were just about the sex I'd rather just masturbate to porn for the rest of my life. It's actually the feeling of being extremely close to another human being that I'm after. If he too likes me and wants to have sex with me i can't really see anything even remotely objectionable.

He'd gain the same as i: affection and love. Even if it's just being together, cuddling and sleeping together in the same bed without any sex at all that's just fine with me. Sex is just an extension of the affection.

Compare when it's with someone who's bigger or older than myself: then it's about the feeling of him being more assertive and being in control of me. The feeling of surrendering to someone and being controlled is just indescribable.

Do you feel that you are objectifying them because of their rather specific attraction?

I'm sexually attracted to a myriad of men and boys of whole lot different of skin tones and shapes. If you're more than chubby, ridiculously muscular or look like someone who just escaped from Auschwitz then you're not attractive. I can't explain why i like them just like i can't explain my homosexual feelings but it's no obsessive fetish. Hell, i can even be sporadically attracted to women.

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.

I'm no whiny sentimentalist crybaby. Ask away.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Sorry, you are incorrect. It's by its very nature subjective. Just because there are criteria to examine doesn't mean the examination is objective. In the case of self-defense, the word "reasonable" is seen. I quote the Texas law for you as but one example:


Reasonable is not objective.

I quite disagree. Reason is about objectivity:

An individual charged with an offence such as assault may claim to have been acting in self-defence. The question that will have to be answered is whether the amount of force used was, objectively, reasonable in the circumstances as the individual honestly believed them to be.

Linky.

Also, they try to set an objective standard based on an "ordinary, reasonable citizen".

But I think this might be going a bit off from our original discussion of "maturity".

I'm glad you think I am amazing. Flattered, actually. But I never said any such thing. If the minor denies consent and there's a presumption that the minor cannot consent, it's pretty much a done deal.

Okay, so ordinary rape won't be subjected to your test. That is... rather unhelpful.

For the umpteenth time, I don't consider it arbitrary. Far from it, and that's the whole point. Please try to listen to what I say. I firmly believe that legislators are doing the due diligence when setting an age. I would hope they consulted with experts in the field (social workers, physicians, psychiatrists, etc.). I would expect them to say, "We want to set an age where (say) 99% of minors are sophisticated and mature enough to consent. We require that factors X, Y, and Z are met."

All I am saying is that if experts can testify to entire age groups, they can testify for individuals. The test would be the same, only in this case instead of applying the test to a faceless group of people they apply the test to an actual person.

I'm amazed that you find that such a difficult approach. Well, not really. Personally I think you are working from "age of consent laws as is are good" and trying to shoot down any changes without actually considering the arguments. That's just how it seems to me.

And you don't win the million for mind-reading. I am coming at this from a youth perspective, and the biggest problem I had with the laws, and the biggest problem my peers had, was that trying to reach a conclusion on the best action to take based on the law was quite difficult under the current laws. That was my original problem, and under your laws, it would be complete disarray. I prefer rules that set things in order, so that people know when they would or would not be committing a crime.

I guess I'm not a True Skeptic .

 

[bookitty]

Emotional closeness? What's more beautiful than people that actually like or even love each other having sex? It's not actually the sex I'm after because if it were just about the sex I'd rather just masturbate to porn for the rest of my life. It's actually the feeling of being extremely close to another human being that I'm after. If he too likes me and wants to have sex with me i can't really see anything even remotely objectionable.

He'd gain the same as i: affection and love. Even if it's just being together, cuddling and sleeping together in the same bed without any sex at all that's just fine with me. Sex is just an extension of the affection.

Compare when it's with someone who's bigger or older than myself: then it's about the feeling of him being more assertive and being in control of me. The feeling of surrendering to someone and being controlled is just indescribable.



I'm sexually attracted to a myriad of men and boys of whole lot different of skin tones and shapes. If you're more than chubby, ridiculously muscular or look like someone who just escaped from Auschwitz then you're not attractive. I can't explain why i like them just like i can't explain my homosexual feelings but it's no obsessive fetish. Hell, i can even be sporadically attracted to women.



I'm no whiny sentimentalist crybaby. Ask away.

It is very interesting that you flip between the two states of vulnerability. This is counter to the standard view of hebephilia/ephebophilia. From an outside perspective it seems as if you feel that you are giving to the teens what you are getting from older/bigger partners. Especially with the emphasis on affection. This could be fact or bias, I have no way to judge that.

While there have been studies that show teen girls risk more psychological damage from early sexual experiences, I don't know if there have been any studies related to early sexual experience with homosexual boys. If you have any information, let me know. My initial feeling is that group has issues that are different from the older male/younger female relationship but again, I don't have enough information. It could be that the social pressure of associated with teen homosexuality makes them more vulnerable to exploitation, or having a mentor helps them accept this aspect of themselves. It's probably both depending on the teen and the partner.