Age of Consent and Statutory Rape

[Kevin_Lowe]

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?

Now personally I think that the USA's legal system's penchant for arbitrarily trying children "as adults" is deeply irrational, morally offensive and reveals serious problems both with the USA's justice system and it's culture.

However I can't see any possible logical way out of accepting that IF it's a good idea to decide that some child criminals should count as adults and that courts should make case-by-case decisions on the matter THEN it must also be a good idea to treat some sexually active children as adults and that courts should make case-by-case decisions on that matter as well. I don't see how you can have one without the other.

(Don't get me started on the one bizarre case where some US kids sent each other pictures of themselves nude and the state tried to charge them with producing child porn and try them as adults... I'm not sure there's been a better illustration of the fallacy of equivocation in human history).

My solution would be for the USA to stop trying children "as adults", but that's me.

 

[mike81]

(Don't get me started on the one bizarre case where some US kids sent each other pictures of themselves nude and the state tried to charge them with producing child porn and try them as adults... I'm not sure there's been a better illustration of the fallacy of equivocation in human history).

Agreed. It makes no sense to me. Yes, they may be doing something stupid, but that doesn't require that they be arrested on some ridiculous charge.

 

[bookitty]

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.

So a 21 year old guy is too dumb to be responsible for his sexual relationship but an under-aged girl is wise enough to give informed consent?

 

[mike81]

So a 21 year old guy is too dumb to be responsible for his sexual relationship but an under-aged girl is wise enough to give informed consent?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I should not have said he was a dumb 21 year old. I should have just said he did something dumb. My apologies for mis-typing. There is a difference in being dumb and doing something dumb. He did the dumb thing of not asking for proof of her age. Though, I would be willing to bet that most 21 year old guys don't ask for proof either. I could be wrong.

Also, I never said the under-aged girl was wise enough to give informed consent. She lied about her age. If he had known that, he would not have slept with her.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

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.

I agree completely. But these points weren't made to be in and of themselves arguments in favor of statutory rape laws. They were made to side points.

The side points being:

Who benefits from getting rid of such laws? Who is the one who wants them got rid of? Older men, and older men. The question is, if such laws benefit vulnerable teens who actually can be harmed without such protection, why should we get rid of such laws just so some horny old dudes can hit on kids without getting in trouble?

And the second point was just made in reference to UY's claim that LL was incorrect in saying that modern consent laws are (present tense here, people) not based on considerations for the welfare of women, but rather due to oppressive male cultures that just value women as a commodity.

I certainly agree women campaigning for something does not make it right. As you said, prohibition was a woman driven campaign. We were only talking about the historical context.

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.

In general, absolutely I agree. But when the criminal laws do serve to actually protect someone, it makes sense to keep them on the books if they are easy to follow.

So for instance, it would probably be beneficial if all parents were required to have medical degrees. Think how much healthier and safer kids could possibly be! But its extremely hard to get a medical degree. So it would be totally unreasonable to argue that all parents should have to get a medical degree, even if such a law could be proven to be an advantage to children.

But statutory rape laws serve to help decrease sexual exploitation. The only thing people have to do to follow those laws is to not have sex with an underage person. If the law being in place has a marked advantage to decrease sexual exploitation, and it is a very easy law to follow, then why shouldn't we have it in place?

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.

Yes, I agree with this for the most part. Except that, as I said, even though such laws seem to work perfectly fine in Germany, Germany also doesn't have the mitigating social factors that exacerbate the problem in this country, so for the time being, they aren't really applicable. Though maybe one day they will be!

 

[bookitty]

Now personally I think that the USA's legal system's penchant for arbitrarily trying children "as adults" is deeply irrational, morally offensive and reveals serious problems both with the USA's justice system and it's culture.

However I can't see any possible logical way out of accepting that IF it's a good idea to decide that some child criminals should count as adults and that courts should make case-by-case decisions on the matter THEN it must also be a good idea to treat some sexually active children as adults and that courts should make case-by-case decisions on that matter as well. I don't see how you can have one without the other.

(Don't get me started on the one bizarre case where some US kids sent each other pictures of themselves nude and the state tried to charge them with producing child porn and try them as adults... I'm not sure there's been a better illustration of the fallacy of equivocation in human history).

My solution would be for the USA to stop trying children "as adults", but that's me.

Agreed. There are biological and psychological reasons for trying children as children. Trying them as adults seems to be a vindictive response to the idea that someone so young could do something so horrible.

We've gone over the reasons why a case-by-case basis is a very bad idea. Imagine an attorney trying to prove that his adult client was in a relationship with a 13-year-old who should be treated as an adult. In order to sway a jury, they would have to prove that she understood what she was doing and that no harm was committed. In rape trials they use the victim's actions, personality, clothing, and other unrelated incidentals to show that it wasn't rape and that she was not harmed. Statutory rape trials would put the victim through the same thing and the damage would be significant.

Romeo and Juliet laws would also address the issue of teens sending pictures of themselves.

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?).

I agree that simply saying "it is too easy not to do x" is overly simple. But your examples include individual acts that do not impact anyone else. Not only is it very easy to avoid having sex with 13-year olds, but there is no proven benefit to the teen.

 

[gumboot]

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.

It is when the argument is that young women want X.

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.

I think you missed the point. The argument was made that age of consent laws were made as an aspect of oppressing women as property. The point of highlighting the age of consent campaigns of the late 19th and early 20th Century was solely to demonstrate that current age of consent laws are the result of women gaining more protection for themselves.

3. It is simply asinine to argue that a law criminalising X is just if it is easy not to do X.

That was not the argument at all. The argument was that no sympathy should be shown to someone for breaking a law that is easy not to break. Arguments for whether the law itself was just or not were made elsewhere, on other grounds.

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.

This just isn't true. Many acts are prohibited by law which do not cause "significant harm".

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 believe this has all been pointed out.

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 believe someone in this thread has mentioned something about sexual relationships with people a much greater age has far greater negative impact on minors than when they have sexual relationships with people their own age.

I don't know the validity of that claim, but if true it would support focusing on preventing adults having sex with underage persons, rather than preventing underage persons having sex.

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.

This is true.

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.

There's two separate issues on debate here though. One is "should young people be having sex" and the other is "should older people be having sex with young people".

They're two separate issues. Right now, the law does not criminalise young people having sex, at least not in most countries. It criminalises older people have sex with younger people. Indeed, in many places with so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws, there is a specific exception that reflects this.

I tend to agree with that approach; that while young people having sex is something to be discouraged, criminal prosecution is not a sensible solution, rather educating young people as seems to have worked in Germany. However that still leaves the issue of older people having sex with young people. I think that also is something to be discouraged, but in that instance I think criminal prosecution is an appropriate course of action, and I think you'll find that in Germany they agree.

This is common across the board with many age-related activities. It's not, for example, illegal for a person under 18 to buy or consume alcohol in New Zealand. Rather, it is illegal for an adult to sell or provide alcohol to a person under 18.

 

[gumboot]

Also, I never said the under-aged girl was wise enough to give informed consent. She lied about her age. If he had known that, he would not have slept with her.

For what it's worth, in this country if he could show he'd taken reasonable steps to determine her age he would probably been acquitted. The fact that the girl deliberately misled him about her age for the express purpose of getting him to have sex with her would add a lot to his case as well. It would serve to remove the mens rea aspect of his crime.

 

[mike81]

For what it's worth, in this country if he could show he'd taken reasonable steps to determine her age he would probably been acquitted. The fact that the girl deliberately misled him about her age for the express purpose of getting him to have sex with her would add a lot to his case as well. It would serve to remove the mens rea aspect of his crime.

Yes, the fact that she admitted to lying is one of the reasons he got off relatively "easily." The law is the law though and he was still guilty, so he couldn't completely get out of it. He could have went to trial, but choose a pretty good plea deal instead of risking trial. Thanks to his first offender status he should be able to put it behind him for the most part.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is when the argument is that young women want X.

I don't think it even gets that far. What the feminist issues of the day are is not something that's determined by empirical evidence. The feminist groups at the uni where I work are still banging on about women's safety on campus even though the campus is now thoroughly lit, regularly patrolled, covered in security cameras and the last serious incident I am aware of (and I worked briefly for the university's security department) happened twenty years ago. The night has been comprehensively reclaimed.

The issues seen as being of concern are determined partially by evidence but also by all sorts of other cultural factors.

I'm happy to accept that generally if a lot of young feminists are concerned about an issue then it's probably a real and serious one, but I don't accept the proposition that the argument runs the other way and that anything they aren't concerned about therefore cannot be an issue.

I think you missed the point. The argument was made that age of consent laws were made as an aspect of oppressing women as property. The point of highlighting the age of consent campaigns of the late 19th and early 20th Century was solely to demonstrate that current age of consent laws are the result of women gaining more protection for themselves.

So point out the derail and move on.

That was not the argument at all. The argument was that no sympathy should be shown to someone for breaking a law that is easy not to break. Arguments for whether the law itself was just or not were made elsewhere, on other grounds.

That argument too is foolish. People are stupid. I see no reason not to be sympathetic towards people stupid enough to fall afoul of a hypothetical unjust law that most people can avoid falling afoul of.

This just isn't true. Many acts are prohibited by law which do not cause "significant harm".

Actually it's absolutely true. There is no rational basis to prohibit those acts, which is what I said.

I believe this has all been pointed out.

Nope. Nobody pointed out the issues of properly controlling the data, they just posted claims about uncontrolled correlations, and uncontrolled correlations are worthless as any decent skeptic knows.

I believe someone in this thread has mentioned something about sexual relationships with people a much greater age has far greater negative impact on minors than when they have sexual relationships with people their own age.

I don't know the validity of that claim, but if true it would support focusing on preventing adults having sex with underage persons, rather than preventing underage persons having sex.

I spent some time a few years back looking in vain for any properly controlled data whatsoever on that topic. I would be very interested in seeing the source for those claims, and seeing whether or not effects persisted when you control for social status, family background and so on. It might be the case that relationships with older men cause bad outcomes, or it might be the case that the kind of young women open to such relationships in our society are more likely to end up with bad outcomes regardless of the age of their sexual partners.

There's two separate issues on debate here though. One is "should young people be having sex" and the other is "should older people be having sex with young people".

They're two separate issues. Right now, the law does not criminalise young people having sex, at least not in most countries. It criminalises older people have sex with younger people. Indeed, in many places with so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws, there is a specific exception that reflects this.

As I said above, I've never seen any proper evidence that there are indeed two separate issues to talk about. The only properly controlled evidence I've seen says that sexual activity at an early age is bad and said nothing about any effects there might be from the age of the sex partner(s).

There's an evidence-based case for trying to discourage young people from starting their sex lives too soon. I'm not aware of an evidence-based case for caring what the age(s) of their sex partner(s) are, but of course if I see new, good evidence I'll review that position.

This is common across the board with many age-related activities. It's not, for example, illegal for a person under 18 to buy or consume alcohol in New Zealand. Rather, it is illegal for an adult to sell or provide alcohol to a person under 18.

However the net effect is to make sure that children can't get their hands on alcohol without a crime being committed somewhere along the line. It's not as if under-eighteens have a perfect legal right to brew and distil booze amongst themselves as long as they don't get any from an adult or give any to an adult, which is what it would take for the analogy to fit.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I don't think it even gets that far. What the feminist issues of the day are is not something that's determined by empirical evidence. The feminist groups at the uni where I work are still banging on about women's safety on campus even though the campus is now thoroughly lit, regularly patrolled, covered in security cameras and the last serious incident I am aware of (and I worked briefly for the university's security department) happened twenty years ago. The night has been comprehensively reclaimed.

The issues seen as being of concern are determined partially by evidence but also by all sorts of other cultural factors.

I'm happy to accept that generally if a lot of young feminists are concerned about an issue then it's probably a real and serious one, but I don't accept the proposition that the argument runs the other way and that anything they aren't concerned about therefore cannot be an issue.

Again, my point wasn't that young women fighting for something makes a cause good, and not fighting for it makes it not matter.

My point was that there are TWO groups of people affected by consent laws. One is underaged kids, the other is adults. When only one side stands to benefit from the changing of such laws, and that benefit is very minor while the possible ramifications are major, then it should be taken into account who this fight is being fought for.

My point is that it comes to adult male and young female relationships, its not the young girls asking for help changing the laws. Its the overage men. So that makes me think that a law that serves some good isn't worth changing when only one of these two groups of people are actually arguing against it, and 1. the group arguing to change the law already is in a far greater position of power (adults vs minors), and 2. The ones arguing to change the laws are NOT the group of people who are far more likely to deal with the negative consequences (pregnancy, STD infection) of such a relationship.

I spent some time a few years back looking in vain for any properly controlled data whatsoever on that topic. I would be very interested in seeing the source for those claims, and seeing whether or not effects persisted when you control for social status, family background and so on. It might be the case that relationships with older men cause bad outcomes, or it might be the case that the kind of young women open to such relationships in our society are more likely to end up with bad outcomes regardless of the age of their sexual partners.

There's an evidence-based case for trying to discourage young people from starting their sex lives too soon. I'm not aware of an evidence-based case for caring what the age(s) of their sex partner(s) are, but of course if I see new, good evidence I'll review that position.

do you remember the study I posted earlier: 90% of HIV infections in kids under 18 are women, and the vast majority of them were teen girls with older, adult males? And the same can be said for other STDs. Because older men are more likely to have HIV and other STDs from sexual experience than a boy her age is. Couple that with the fact that young girls are less likely to use protection, and that just puts them at a significant risk that is DIRECTLY related to their age discrepancies.



Here's the other thing, I also mostly agree with you. Thee girls DO pick older men because of their background. And some factors that are very common in these girl's backgrounds are:

1. A history of sexual childhood abuse

and

2. Girls coming from bad backgrounds, neglectful, impoverished, abusive, etc. One of the biggest factors is having been abandoned by her own father.


So by looking at the kinds of girls who enter into such relationships, that indicates that such relationships are not healthy ones pursued by maturity and mental clarity. They are relationships pursued by troubled girls. And the fact that teen pregnancy, especially in jr high girls, is SO much higher amongst girls who are with older adult men rather than boys their own age, further shows that again, these aren't the the most mature and responsible girls who are ready for adulthood and are sexually active due to maturity. Now maybe a girl gets into such trouble with a boy her own age or slightly older, but that's not his fault, because he's at the same maturity level. He can't be expected to be any more responsible than she is for doing things she shouldn't, like having sex at age 13. But an adult male darn is an ADULT. That's why he pays taxes, and has a job, and can go fight a war, and vote, and she can't even drive a car yet. There's an inherent power imbalance, and as well all know, with power comes responsibility.

And Kevin, I agree with you that children should not be tried as adults, and I think it is completely hypocritical that a 13 year old can't consent to sex (which I agree with), but could potentially be charged as an adult for a crime. Yet one of the many problems with our judicial system.

And also, I should add that I do not disagree with sentencing of statutory rape being determined on a case by case basis, rather than mandatory minimums. But then again, I'm against mandatory minimums as a general rule for most crimes. But I still agree with an across the board age of consent, rather than determining age of consent on a case by case basis. And I think there are far less consequences to aiming the age too high for some kids and making some kids have to wait a bit for relationships they honestly are ready for, rather than aim to put the bar too low and leave kids more vulnerable to exploitation.

 

[bookitty]

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.

Perhaps you could use your greater understanding of how how minors are tried as adults to inform and enlighten instead of insult? Without this information, your critique is only your opinion, something I have little reason to trust.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Again, my point wasn't that young women fighting for something makes a cause good, and not fighting for it makes it not matter.

My point was that there are TWO groups of people affected by such laws. One is underaged kids, the other is adults. When only one side stands to benefit from the changing of such laws, and that benefit is very minor while the possible ramifications are major, then it should be taken into account who this fight is being fought for.

Seeing as the older partners are the ones likely to do jail time, I can see how it's more of an issue for them.

I'd be interested in seeing what young people under the age of consent actually thought about age of consent laws, although there's a chicken-and-egg problem in that if they aren't rational enough to have sex they aren't rational enough for us to care about their opinion about whether or not they should be allowed to have sex.

In the end though, the question of whether age of consent laws are a good thing or not should depend on the empirical effects of those laws on the young people and their older partners. If it turns out that those laws cause more net social harm then good, cause no harm to young people and some harm to older people, I'd be in favour of modifying them on that basis alone.

My point is that it comes to adult male and young female relationships, its not the young girls asking for help changing the laws. Its the overage men. So that makes me think that a law that serves some good isn't worth changing when the only argument I hear in favor of the side that is not the one likely to suffer ramifications if consent laws did not exist.

Even if that were true that wouldn't change the utilitarian calculations involved. If "middle aged, balding, pot bellied dudes with back hair" want to have consensual sex with younger women then it should be criminal if and only if there's empirical evidence that allowing them to do so causes harm somehow.

What you are doing here is attack the arguer, rather than the argument. Just because middle aged, balding, pot bellied dudes with back hair argue X does not give a rational person grounds for believing -X.

This strikes me as being a bit like the argument that people who fight for marijuana legalisation are just doing so because they want to smoke marijuana, and that this discredits them. So what if they do? Whether or not marijuana should be legal should depend solely on whether it causes more harm to criminalise it than legalise it or vice versa. By the same token we shouldn't care if the people arguing for modifications to the age of consent laws are doing so because they want to have sex with sixteen year olds. So what if they do? We should care if there is evidence that doing so causes harm.

ETA in response to edit:

do you remember the study I posted earlier: 90% of HIV infections in kids under 18 are women, and the vast majority of them were teen girls with older, adult males. And the same can be said for other STDs. Because older men are more likely to have HIV and other STDs from sexual experience. That is a huge disadvantage that is DIRECTLY related to the age of the male.

That's not hugely surprising. HIV spreads by intravenous drug use (not many kids into that stuff as a proportion of the population), unprotected anal sex (same), and from men to women via unprotected vaginal sex, and older people are more likely to be HIV+. However it's a meaningless statistic unless we get more than the mere proportion (90%) of such infections. How many such infections are there? What are the actual odds that any given woman in a spring/autumn relationship will get HIV? Framing the statistic as a proportion and obscuring the hard numbers is rhetorically effective but we should be better skeptics than that.

If it turned out that, say, 1% of women under eighteen who slept with a man over thirty got HIV+ as a result that would be cause for very serious concern. If it's 0.0001% it's not something I see as such a high social priority that we should be addressing it with age of consent laws rather than other HIV harm mitigation methods.

 

[mike81]

I'd be interested in seeing what young people under the age of consent actually thought about age of consent laws, although there's a chicken-and-egg problem in that if they aren't rational enough to have sex they aren't rational enough for us to care about their opinion about whether or not they should be allowed to have sex.

When I was in high school, a some district attorneys came in and talked about the age of consent laws. They basically told us that if we have sex with someone under 16, then we could get arrested. The guys all laughed and said that if we wanted to have sex with a girl who is 15 then we should be able to as longed as the girl wants it. I actually heard at least one girl say that if she (under 16) wanted to have sex she would, because she had nothing to worry about as far as the law goes. She said it would be the guy who gets in trouble, not her.

Yes there was a Romeo & Juliet type law, but it said that if the accused is 3-4 years older than the victim, that it would be a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

 

[Uncayimmy]

We've gone over the reasons why a case-by-case basis is a very bad idea. Imagine an attorney trying to prove that his adult client was in a relationship with a 13-year-old who should be treated as an adult. In order to sway a jury, they would have to prove that she understood what she was doing and that no harm was committed. In rape trials they use the victim's actions, personality, clothing, and other unrelated incidentals to show that it wasn't rape and that she was not harmed. Statutory rape trials would put the victim through the same thing and the damage would be significant.

You are conflating "ability to give consent" with "giving consent." One can examine the former without ever looking at the latter. We really only need to look at the sophistication and maturity of the individual (one of Kent factors in determining whether to try a juvenile as an adult), and we can do that without examining her sex life.

Not only is it very easy to avoid having sex with 13-year olds, but there is no proven benefit to the teen.

Why must there be a proven benefit to the teen? It's interesting to me that so many people are concerned with a young woman's right to control her body after she's pregnant but make an irrevocable presumption that she was not mature enough to make the decision that got her pregnant in the first place.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Perhaps you could use your greater understanding of how how minors are tried as adults to inform and enlighten instead of insult? Without this information, your critique is only your opinion, something I have little reason to trust.

Google Kent Factors.

http://www.kcsarc.org/nServices/Legal Advocacy/JuvenileCourtGlossary.php
The eight guiding factors a court weighs during a decline hearing to determine whether a respondent should be tried as a juvenile or an adult (from the United States Supreme Court case of Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 17 L.Ed.2d 84, 86 S.Ct. 1045 (1966)). These factors include (1) the seriousness of the alleged offense and the need to protect the community; (2) whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner; (3) whether the alleged offense was against persons or against property; (4) the prosecutive merit of the complaint; (5) whether there are adult co-defendants that should be tried with the juvenile in a single proceeding; (6) the sophistication and maturity of the juvenile; (7) the record and previous criminal history of the juvenile; and (8) the prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile by the use of procedures, services and facilities currently available to the Juvenile Court.

If you want to rephrase your question to me in a way that demonstrates a better understanding, I will try to answer. As it stands now I don't understand your question.

 

[mike81]

Not only is it very easy to avoid having sex with 13-year olds, but there is no proven benefit to the teen.

OK, I know this may sound like a bad argument and sound like I'm saying it's ok for much older men to have sex with a 13 year old girl. I'm not saying it is ok though.

However, are you saying there is never any benefit from really good sex? It doesn't tend to make people more happy or anything good? Maybe having sex with an older guy means better sex? More experience, therefore better at it? Maybe that better sex makes her happier? Is this not a benefit?

I know that may sound crazy or like I'm saying it's ok, but I'm not. It's just something that crossed my mind that I'll probably regret typing. I'm sure someone will tear that argument apart.

Also, if the age of consent is 16 and say there's a 25 year old man. How can it not be ok for him to have sex with someone just shy of 16 but just a few months later when she is 16 it is ok? Do you really think she is more prepared than she would have been just a few months before?

 

[Loss Leader]

For what it's worth, in this country if he could show he'd taken reasonable steps to determine her age he would probably been acquitted. The fact that the girl deliberately misled him about her age for the express purpose of getting him to have sex with her would add a lot to his case as well. It would serve to remove the mens rea aspect of his crime.

Well, it wouldn't remove the mens rea. Mens Rea means one wanted to do the act that is criminal, not that one wanted to break the law. If I know you own property, and I willingly enter without your permission, I've committed Tresspass. If someone picks me up and throws me onto your property against my will, I have not, because I lacked the desire to go on your land. If I honestly, after employing an expert surveyer and a team of real estate attorneys, believe that I'm entering my land, I'm still tresspassing. I wanted to go on that land.

What your talking about is mitigating factors related to punishment. What's the point of punishing a guy who actually checked the girl's ID and called the doctor who delivered her? He's not likely to reoffend. Why punish me harshly for going on your land after I worked so hard to (wrongly) determine it was mine? I'm clearly not somebody who needs to be told to stay off other people's lawns.

So, we can argue about what the penalties for statutory rape should be. However, the well-founded belief that a girl was of age will not turn guilt into innocence.


ETA: Obviously, your country is different from mine. However, our concepts of mens rea evolved from the common source of English law. To my knowledge, the western understanding of mens rea has not diverged.

 

[marplots]

...

Also, if the age of consent is 16 and say there's a 25 year old man. How can it not be ok for him to have sex with someone just shy of 16 but just a few months later when she is 16 it is ok? Do you really think she is more prepared than she would have been just a few months before?

"OK" and "legal" have different meanings. Is it OK for me to drive a mile above the speed limit? What about some fraction of a mile above? Sure, probably. Is it legal? No. The laws are made clear, not just to punish you when you drift over some arbitrary line, but to protect you when you do not.

"Officer, I was only doing 44 in a 45 MpH zone!"
"Ah, yes. But the law says that you shouldn't drive very close to the suggested speed limit. I will have to cite you for "being close" which, as far as I can tell (because the law isn't clear) is somewhere between 40 and 50."

Be thankful there is a number. It can keep you from being found guilty. On the other hand, to take advantage of this protection, you should know what the age in your state is.

 

[mike81]

"OK" and "legal" have different meanings. Is it OK for me to drive a mile above the speed limit? What about some fraction of a mile above? Sure, probably. Is it legal? No. The laws are made clear, not just to punish you when you drift over some arbitrary line, but to protect you when you do not.

"Officer, I was only doing 44 in a 45 MpH zone!"
"Ah, yes. But the law says that you shouldn't drive very close to the suggested speed limit. I will have to cite you for "being close" which, as far as I can tell (because the law isn't clear) is somewhere between 40 and 50."

Be thankful there is a number. It can keep you from being found guilty. On the other hand, to take advantage of this protection, you should know what the age in your state is.

Yes, I agree. There needs to be a line drawn. I just think that sometimes there has to be some leeway and common sense. My common sense tells me that there is no difference in a girl who is 15 years 9 months old and a 16 year old. I think why should a guy be punished all because of a few months difference? Then I also say we do need to draw the line somewhere and the law is the law.

Though when that law punishes a young guy, say 19 or 20 years old, for having a girlfriend just shy of being of age, but says it's ok for a 40 year old man to have sex with a girl that just became of age, I say that's crazy and needs to be changed. I say it seems to not make sense when a young guy is punished after he is misled and has sex with someone who looks and claims to be of age. Again, someone tell me how many 20 or 21 year old guys check id?

At the very least the guys in those situations should not be treated just the same as some old man who molest some young child. Those young guys should not be labeled child molesters, rapist, and put on a sex registry.