Age of Consent and Statutory Rape

[Segnosaur]

That's genius. Let's turn every statutory rape case in the country into a trial of the victim. Get her up on the stand and really let the guy's defense attorney go after her...

It's called gathering the facts. If the sex was consensual, the state is presuming that simply because of age or age difference the "victim" was incapable of consenting. Right now it doesn't matter if the "victim" says, "I've been in a relationship with this person for a year. We're in love. I fully understand the ramifications of having sex, and we took the proper precautions after waiting six months. We met when I was a freshman, and he was a senior." The "perp" will be sent to jail and be labeled a sex offender for life.

On the other hand, consider the 13 year old girl who is more naive, and was somehow tricked/coerced into a sexual relationship. It is those individuals that we would want to avoid putting on the stand.

So, it becomes a catch 22... you can't determine if they're the naive girl tricked into sex, or the mature girl who's capable of forming her own opinions without a trial, and without the trial you can't tell whether they're emotionally capable of undergoing the examination of a trial.

 

[SOdhner]

Sigh. I want to be Schrodinger's Cat when I grow up. That way maybe I could contribute to this conversation in a meaningful way, instead of seeing that she has already said everything I thought of and then some in ways that are eloquent and even sourced (as needed).

My one comment to make is that my wife and I have roommates - one is an old family friend, and the other is her thirteen-year-old daughter (almost fourteen). She is absolutely not old enough, at all, nor are any of the friends she has over. I know, it's just another anecdote.

Wherever we draw the line there will be problems. I think that the country should try to be consistent, and I think that there should be some allowances for people who are close in age, but no matter what we do someone will argue with where that line is drawn.

 

[Uncayimmy]

So, let me ask this:

If someone is found to be driving without a license, should it be an affirmative defense if at trial he proves that he's a really safe driver who knows what all the road signs mean?

I don't play analogy games. You can come up with different scenarios that support your opinion, and I can do the same. It's pointless. The issue here is simply whether it is in best interest of everyone involved (the accused, victim, society) to make an automatic presumption that a "victim" cannot possibly consent without actually applying to the individual the same criteria we used in determining a cut-off age.

The point of legal presumptions is that they drastically shorten the decision-making process by providing shortcuts through the facts to the most likely logical conclusion.

LOL. Right. It's such a logical conclusion of consent laws vary so widely. And since when is a "shortcut" towards conviction a good thing?

What percentage of 13 year-old girls are actually mature enough to weigh the risks and benefits of having sex with a 30 year old man?50% ? 15% ? 5% ? 1 in a thousand?

You tell me. Present your data.

How many defense attorneys are you going to let cross-examine 13 year-old girls to find that percentage who are so mature? How many immature 13 year old girls would you like to torture to get at that number?

Torture? Being a little dramatic, aren't you? If the "victim" (you keep assuming female for some reason) says there was consent, a defense attorney with half a brain is going to ask questions to demonstrate that the person is mature and responsible. That's hardly torture. It's not necessary to make the person look promiscuous because the person can be promiscuous and not be mature enough to consent. A prosecuting attorney could use that evidence to demonstrate that the person was immature and irresponsible because that's not how mature people behave.

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.

I'm not sure that this is any different than the victim of any crime.

LOL! It's completely different because we're trying to determine if a crime actually took place. Rape is defined as non-consensual sex (roughly). Both parties can stipulate that sex occurred, so the act is not in question. What's in question is consent. In adult rape trials, that's what the court has to look at. In trials with minors, they take that "shortcut" you seem to love so much without actually looking at the facts.

It is the state who prosecutes the criminal. Sometimes, they never speak to the victim at all. In fact, if I remember correctly, there's never been a single case of murder where the prosecutors ever contacted the victim.

<shakes head>

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

So, let me ask this:

If someone is found to be driving without a license, should it be an affirmative defense if at trial he proves that he's a really safe driver who knows what all the road signs mean?

If someone is charged with murdering and eating another human being, should it be an affirmative defense that the victim answered an ad asking for a volunteer to be murdered and eaten and that the victim signed a document indicating his consent?

If someone is found to be operating an airplane while high on meth, should it be an affirmative defense that he's a great pilot when he's on meth?

The point of legal presumptions is that they drastically shorten the decision-making process by providing shortcuts through the facts to the most likely logical conclusion. What percentage of 13 year-old girls are actually mature enough to weigh the risks and benefits of having sex with a 30 year old man?50% ? 15% ? 5% ? 1 in a thousand?

How many defense attorneys are you going to let cross-examine 13 year-old girls to find that percentage who are so mature? How many immature 13 year old girls would you like to torture to get at that number?





I'm not sure that this is any different than the victim of any crime. It is the state who prosecutes the criminal. Sometimes, they never speak to the victim at all. In fact, if I remember correctly, there's never been a single case of murder where the prosecutors ever contacted the victim.

While that is certainly important, the more relevent point is still, I think there is no way to make such a test objective. You would only be able to, subjectively, make your best guess as to whether or not a person is ready. There is no objective manner to definitively determine a person's readines for sex. It would all be a matter of whoever is doing the interviewing/investigating subjective opinion, which can be further hindered when the kid being interviewed who ISN'T ready for sex says they are.


I said it before in my first post and I'll say it again:

Just because a girl knows how to imitate a woman, does not mean she is ready to do the things a woman does.

Also, on the matter of subjectivity: To make a point, in a previous thread some time ago, UY said that the reason women use body glitter is to attract men sexually. He stated that it serves no other purpose. I have been using body glitter since I was a little girl. I like body glitter because it is shiny and sparkly and pretty. Prior to that thread, it had never, ever occurred to me that men find body glitter sexy. I never ever thought that glitter has a sexual component, ever.

UY's scenario dosn't work because people's subjective opinions about sexual signals and readiness can be wrong. They are all the time. UY would look at me at 13 and say that the body glitter I'm wearing was a signal I'm looking for sex, when really, it was glitter I shared with 8 year old sister that came with the purchase of her My Little Pony.


So we can't ever really have perfect laws that make sure all kids are protected for only as long as they need to be. It's just not possible. And there's not even a way to judge with any certainty on a case by case basis if an INDIVIDUAL is mature enough for sex.

So it's like Darat says, the laws aren't perfect, can't be perfect, and never will be. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any, and that we shouldn't do the best we can.

 

[Mark6]

That's genius. Let's turn every statutory rape case in the country into a trial of the victim. Get her up on the stand and really let the guy's defense attorney go after her - how many sexual partners she's had, their names and ages, the age she was when she lost her virginity, whether she knows the definition of a Pittsburgh Plate Job, whether she has a favorite position, whether she uses protection, whether she's ever been on the pill, whether she's ever carried a condom to a party, whether she's ever kissed a girl and whether she liked it ...

I see a huge upsurge in the total number of statutory rape cases dropped when the victim kills herself the night before opening arguments. Other than that, it may not have much of an effect.

I think UncaYimmy's point is that older person (do not assume it's a man! Sometimes it's a woman) should not be prosecuted if the minor claims sex was consensual AND is deemed mature enough. In that case, what you just described becomes completely counterproductive -- the minor who feels pressured, let alone "tortured" by defendant's attorney simply has to say "No, the sex was not consensual", and defense lawyer has no leg to stand on.

IOW, "maturity defense" should only be possible if presumed victim cooperates with defendant and denies being a victim.

Whether maturity can be measured objectively is a different question, but LossLeader is distorting UncaYimmy's posts.

 

[Aepervius]

Skeptic Ginger, I am not sure UY is right about body glitter, but I certainly see a *LOT* more body glitter during party and disco visit, than I see in really normal life. actually in normal life even in the evenning in normal bar environment , you see it very rarely.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Skeptic Ginger, I am not sure UY is right about body glitter, but I certainly see a *LOT* more body glitter during party and disco visit, than I see in really normal life. actually in normal life even in the evenning in normal bar environment , you see it very rarely.

I'm not Skeptic Ginger, I'm SC, but hey that's okay.

And I'm not saying UY was some crazy person for making that assumption. I guess I can understand why he made it, though it indicates he doesn't spend a lot of time around teen girls and young women.

But my point is that his assumption was wrong. Because such guesses as to a person's motivation for doing things are only that, GUESSES, and FSM help us all if the way we determine that it's okay to bang 13 year olds is that some person interviews her and *guesses* she's ready.

Especially when the girl herself honestly believes she is ready, and says she was.

Like I said, when I was that age, the kids who DID think they were ready, who did go ahead and have sex the earliest, were, in reality, the LEAST mature and most troubled among us. Which doesn't mean that's the case for all kids who start having sex very young. But it does mean that a kid thinking they are ready for sex, and being sexually active, is not any kind of objective evidence they actually are.

What's more, children who have been raped or molested as children are more likely to engage in sexual relations with older adults. Sexual promiscuity in young teens, particularly with much older partners, is probably more often a symptom of sexual abuse than genuine sexual maturity on the part of the teen.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Just because a girl knows how to imitate a woman, does not mean she is ready to do the things a woman does.

Just because a girl is a certain age in a certain state or country doesn't mean her ability to consent to a natural human activity toggles back and forth as she crosses the border.

Also, on the matter of subjectivity: To make a point, in a previous thread some time ago, UY said that the reason women use body glitter is to attract men sexually. He stated that it serves no other purpose.

Please do not lie. What I wrote was,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6376087#post6376087
And what about what women wear for sports? Why do gymnasts need a bikini wax to wear their uniforms? Why are they constantly tucking their ass cheeks back in? Why are they fully made up and often wear glitter? The men, who perform many of the similar events, don't seem to need to dress that way.

I did not say that there was no other purpose for glitter besides attracting men sexually. The context of the discussion was to show the many ways in which people dress attractively that we don't ordinarily think about.

I have been using body glitter since I was a little girl. I like body glitter because it is shiny and sparkly and pretty. Prior to that thread, it had never, ever occurred to me that men find body glitter sexy. I never ever thought that glitter has a sexual component, ever.

Right. It never even crossed your mind all these years that adorning your body with glitter had a "sexual component" or even that looking "pretty" had a sexual component. I guess you don't shop for your glitter at StripperBoutique.com.

UY's scenario dosn't work because people's subjective opinions about sexual signals and readiness can be wrong. They are all the time. UY would look at me at 13 and say that the body glitter I'm wearing was a signal I'm looking for sex, when really, it was glitter I shared with 8 year old sister that came with the purchase of her My Little Pony.

You totally missed the point. The issue I am discussing is the ability to consent. You are discussing the standard issue in adult rape trials about what constitutes consent. That's an entirely different issue. If there was no consent, it doesn't matter if she was capable or not.

 

[Segnosaur]

That's genius. Let's turn every statutory rape case in the country into a trial of the victim. Get her up on the stand and really let the guy's defense attorney go after her

I think UncaYimmy's point is that older person (do not assume it's a man! Sometimes it's a woman) should not be prosecuted if the minor claims sex was consensual AND is deemed mature enough. In that case, what you just described becomes completely counterproductive -- the minor who feels pressured, let alone "tortured" by defendant's attorney simply has to say "No, the sex was not consensual", and defense lawyer has no leg to stand on.

You're right, it might be counterproductive for the defense attorney to question the girl (or boy) victim too intensely. On the other hand, the prosecutor might find it necessary to do so in order to ensure the victim's statements are honest and not coached by the defense/accused.

IOW, "maturity defense" should only be possible if presumed victim cooperates with defendant and denies being a victim.

But then we're back to the catch-22. If the victim cooperates with the defense, we can't tell if its because she's actually mature, or naive and manipulated in to the situation (and doesn't know what she's getting into.)

 

[Uncayimmy]

Whether maturity can be measured objectively is a different question, but LossLeader is distorting UncaYimmy's posts.

You can't determine it objectively - that's the whole point. The laws apply an objective test to something that is subjective. We have courts to resolve these issues of judgment. It happens all the time.

Interestingly, we don't automatically assume an adult can consent to sex. There are cases where the state will argue that an adult was incapable of consent because of (say) a development disability. Even though the person might have unmistakably consented physically, we will make a judgment about their mental capacity.

I don't see why we can't do the same the other way around.

 

[Uncayimmy]

But then we're back to the catch-22. If the victim cooperates with the defense, we can't tell if its because she's actually mature, or naive and manipulated in to the situation (and doesn't know what she's getting into.)

Just because the "victim" says he or she consented doesn't mean they were capable of consent. That's what needs to be determined. Both sides will debate that point. Right now, we treat the "victim" as a piece of meat.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

The problem is not that some people want to remove age of consent law and diddle young boy or girl (we leave that to catho priest). The problem is that , despite what loss leader says, there is no real scientific evidence to put the age of consent SOMEWHEN at a fix line, and then that line simply vary by culture.

And loss leader, myelinisation or whatnot, sex education has a much much bigger impact on risk behavior than whatever causal effect myelenisation you think has. Germany age of consent 14 : teen preganancy rate 13 ; USA age of consent above 16 teen pregnancy rate : 55. German kid can have sex earlier but have less pregnancy, and I am pretty sure we can agree risky/irresponsible behaviour as your describe and pregnancy can directly be linked as a causal effect. As far as I can tell all european country have a 4 to 5 time lower rate than the US, and have all identical or lower age of consent.

The difference of amount of freedom/power (linked to money) may be an argument, but it is an argument which in our society would then be valid also for people not having money dating people having money. Not sure if anybody really want to go that way.

Ultimately education, and parentage (as well as teaching the kid to be rsponsible and self suffisent EARLY enough instead of handling it like a little kid which can NEVER take a decision until they reach the very late age of 18, and good luck fighting agaisnt hormone ) will be a much more important factor than any arbitrary age set later.


That said, I am more into kinda older women (30-40) with big breast, so I think I'll never understand really why people like young teen.

Yes, but you are rather missing the point of Germany's success!

When Germany sought to lower their teen pregnancy rate, they went about doing so by seeking to increase the age at which teens first start having sex. And it worked! Through public education, the average age of first sexual encounters rose two years, so that now the average age of first sexual encounter in Germany are teens just under 17 (i.e. closer to their 17th birthday than 16th). Of course, education regarding practicing safe sex was also invaluable.

It's not that 13 year olds can be responsible about sex, and Germany proves it. It's that 13 year old Germans typically aren't having sex.

And in a perfect world, you're right. A low age of consent wouldn't matter in America because we wouldn't have so many impoverished, fatherless teens being manipulated into sex by an older adult who serves as a parental figure. A low age of consent wouldn't matter because we had educated our kids well enough, and they were all so loved and taken care of at home, that it was so rare for them to be having sex that young with predatory adults, that having a law to prevent it would seem pointless.

But we aren't Germany. And until we fix the problems of poverty, absentee fathers, education, and neglect that Germans do not face to anywhere near the degree we do, we are left not with GERMAN statistics to deal with, but AMERICAN ones.

And the American ones say that relationships with much older men put young teens at far greater risk for STDs and pregnancy that relationships with her peers. Furthermore, these relationships are far more likely to be manipulative and predatory than relationships with her peers, and are more likely to be an act of desperation stemming from a difficult life.

 

[Loss Leader]

the minor who feels pressured, let alone "tortured" by defendant's attorney simply has to say "No, the sex was not consensual", and defense lawyer has no leg to stand on.

We already have a crime for that. It's called rape.

Statutory rape pretty much assumes the sex was consensual. The point of statutory rape laws is that the "consent" given by a minor is presumed to be insufficient to be actual, legal consent. This is consistent with what we know of biology and psychology. It is consistent with every anecdote related here by people who know 13 year-olds.

As to whether the cross-examination of a child about his or her sexual past is torture, I would advise you read materials meant to prepare defense attorneys to cross-examine rape victims, along with the many brave testimonials that victims themselves have written about their experiences.

 

[bookitty]

How would lowering the age of consent benefit teens? It would not significantly impact their sexual relationships with same-age partners. Teens having sex with teens is usually seen as a social and not legal matter. (Yes, there are some cases in which an over-zealous court went overboard but they aren't the norm.) Lowering the age of consent would primarily protect older people who want to have sex with young teens. There is no benefit to the teen.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

How would lowering the age of consent benefit teens? It would not significantly impact their sexual relationships with same-age partners. Teens having sex with teens is usually seen as a social and not legal matter. (Yes, there are some cases in which an over-zealous court went overboard but they aren't the norm.) Lowering the age of consent would primarily protect older people who want to have sex with young teens. There is no benefit to the teen.

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.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Statutory rape pretty much assumes the sex was consensual.

No, it doesn't. In fact, the laws themselves presume there was no consent because it was impossible for such consent to occur.

The point of statutory rape laws is that the "consent" given by a minor is presumed to be insufficient to be actual, legal consent. This is consistent with what we know of biology and psychology. It is consistent with every anecdote related here by people who know 13 year-olds.

Please cite your evidence bearing in mind that age of consent laws originated in part to keep daughters from being devalued before marriage. Also bear in mind that in many cases boys weren't protected. Also bear in mind that if the couple were married, the sex was allowed. Also bear in mind that some of the later laws were part of an effort to better enforce prostitution laws. Also bear in mind that 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.

Understanding of biology and psychology is relatively recent, and these laws predate the science. As for biology, some of the people you are "protecting" are sexually mature.

I look forward to your evidence of a biological and psychological basis for these laws. Surely you're not just making this stuff up as you go along because you have an emotional reaction to young girls have sex with dirty old men.

As to whether the cross-examination of a child about his or her sexual past is torture, I would advise you read materials meant to prepare defense attorneys to cross-examine rape victims, along with the many brave testimonials that victims themselves have written about their experiences.

As I said, her past sexual history does not need to come into play. But save us all the trouble and link to these materials you presumably have read.

 

[Segnosaur]

But then we're back to the catch-22. If the victim cooperates with the defense, we can't tell if its because she's actually mature, or naive and manipulated in to the situation (and doesn't know what she's getting into.)

Just because the "victim" says he or she consented doesn't mean they were capable of consent. That's what needs to be determined. Both sides will debate that point. Right now, we treat the "victim" as a piece of meat.

You seem to miss the point...

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

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

 

[Almo]

And there's no "Romeo and Juliet" provision, either. I know a guy who at age 18 had consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. He now has to register as a sex offender and can't live near schools, etc for the rest of his life.

 

[gumboot]

Please cite your evidence bearing in mind that age of consent laws originated in part to keep daughters from being devalued before marriage. Also bear in mind that in many cases boys weren't protected. Also bear in mind that if the couple were married, the sex was allowed. Also bear in mind that some of the later laws were part of an effort to better enforce prostitution laws. Also bear in mind that 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.

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. Throughout medieval Europe sex was something that was black-and-white permitted within marriage and not outside marriage. The issue then, was not one of age of consent, but appropriate age of marriage, which was far, far younger than modern age of consent laws.

The accepted age of puberty was typically around 12 to 14, but marriage at the age of 7 was seen as acceptable if both parties consented (the marriage could be annulled if either party wished it up until the point where both reached puberty, or before the marriage was consummated, whichever came first), and many authorities allowed marriages even younger than that. There are records of two and three year olds being married.

As recently as the 17th Century Sir Edward Coke declared:

"the marriage of girls under twelve was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was nine even though her husband be only four years old"

What's really interesting though is that when western countries finally did start introducing age of consent laws, starting at the end of the 18th Century, they were much lower than today - typically 10 to 12 years. In the USA, as recently as the 1880s the typical age of consent was ten or twelve, and in Delaware it was 7!

Indeed, across virtually the entire western world, in the mid 19th Century ages of consent of 10 to 13 were considered perfectly acceptable and normal.

So what changed? Well let's look at the USA?

Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, with ultimate goal to raise the age to eighteen; the campaign was successful: by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen.

The trend, in more recent years, has been to raise the legal age. And that's mostly being driven by women who have traditionally been the victims of low ages of consent.

Fancy that. Maybe young girls down want old dirty men pawing over their half-developed bodies after all.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

The trend, in more recent years, has been to raise the legal age. And that's mostly being driven by women who have traditionally been the victims of low ages of consent.

Fancy that. Maybe young girls down want old dirty men pawing over their half-developed bodies after all.

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!

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.

And whenever I hear people try and argue that it should be lowered, it is almost invariably older men arguing they should be able to sleep with young girls. Sometimes adult women agree with them, but I find this pretty rare. And as I said, you don't see teen girls fighting for the right, now do you?

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.