Age of Consent and Statutory Rape

[Dorian Gray]

No, DG, you're mixing things up. And it's because you've equivocated with the word "own." You'll notice that in order to make your hypothetical work, you had to "rent it to tenants". That means that you don't "own" it in quite the same way you did. You gave away your posessory right to the house. Other people have the right to live there. If you crashed on their couch, they could throw you out. In fact, you'd be tresspassing.

A leasehold interest, which is what your tenants have, is still a type of "ownership." In fact, it's the type of ownership that matters most for robbery: a present possessory interest.

If I, who own and live in my house, invited you to come, break the door down, take my TV and leave, you would be committing no crime whatsoever to do so.

This has application in one real world scenerio that gets repeated every day: police gaining permission from one person to search the living space of another. For two roommates with their own bedrooms, how much of the apartment can the non-suspect permit police to search? What about roommates who share a bedroom but have separate closets? What about the tenant of a house allowing police to search an attic where the landlord has kept some of his things?

It's an interesting area.

I meant 'own' in precisely the same way both times. I own a house I live in. I own a house I rent to tenants. I meant them the same way. YOU are the one equivocating. And in fact, I didn't have to rent it to tenants to make it work. Other people live in my house now, and yet if I give consent to rob it...

 

[quixotecoyote]

Turns out if you own property, you can allow it to be robbed. In fact we don't even call it robbery then. Hey....

Wrong. I own a house. I rent it to tenants. I give you permission to rob it. You go to jail, because my consent does not make robbing the house legal, even though it belongs to me.

Plus, the only way for you to get my money out of my bank with my permission but nothing else is to rob it.

Well the stuff they were being robbed of wasn't your property then, now was it?

Now girls on the other hand, that's sort of community property right? We gotta make sure no one damages our property.

 

[Dorian Gray]

That's not really a good analogy. You might own the house, but "robbing a house" doesn't mean stealing the house itself, but rather, stealing the property of its occupants.

That's not a good argument. Who said "robbing a house" meant stealing the house itself?

 

[Dorian Gray]

Let me float some other ideas:

You can masturbate. You can't masturbate in public.
You can poop, pee and undress. You can't do this in public.
You can smoke. You can't smoke in a restaurant.
You can drive fast. You can't drive fast downtown.
You can ride a roller coaster. You can't ride a roller coaster if you're under 4 feet tall.

All of these happen every day. In each case, things that are perfectly legal to do are limited in some way.

And now a question: Should a 13 year old be allowed to vote?

And now a comment: in Japan, the legal age of consent is 13. Look up Enjo Kosai.

 

[Loss Leader]

I meant 'own' in precisely the same way both times. I own a house I live in. I own a house I rent to tenants. I meant them the same way. YOU are the one equivocating. And in fact, I didn't have to rent it to tenants to make it work. Other people live in my house now, and yet if I give consent to rob it...

What? If you have a present possessory interest in a house, you can give consent for anyone to enter it. If you have a present possessory interest in personal property inside a house, you can give consent to anyone to take that property.

If other people are currently living in your house, whether you have a written agreement or not, they may have a leasehold interest in the house. They may, like a hotel guest, only have a non-exclusive license from you to be in your house.

If I allow some people to stay with me rent free, then tell a friend to jimmy open my back door at 2:00 a.m., come in and take my TV, that is probably not a crime. I can't let him take their stuff and I can't give him permission to enter if I've alienated my possessory interest.

It appears that you are greatly confused by many of the concepts surrounding "ownership." This is not unusual, as it is something of an arcane topic, only well understood by professionals. Still, the things you're saying about burglary (which you keep confusing with robbery) don't make any sense.

 

[Morrigan]

That's not a good argument. Who said "robbing a house" meant stealing the house itself?

Well, nobody sane would say that. But you're the one used the "robbing the house" analogy as if it made any sense.

Loss Leader has it right.

 

[JJM 777]

For goodness sake, society is all about drawing lines. (...) Are you an anarchist?

I am not an anarchist, I could call myself a gradualist. I logically detest the idea that a person one day older than another should have fundamentally greater rights or responsibilities. I would like to see gradual change from 0 to 100, not an overnight change from 0 to 100.

I also detest the idea that adults view adolescents as their property, as if adolescents had essentially lesser human rights than adults, and some self-proclaimed right to decide about their rights. Look at other mammals, adolescency is where indepedent adulthood typically begins with all its rights and responsibilities.

 

[JJM 777]

This

The thinking errors, rationalizations,and self excuses used by sex offenders are all present here

vs.

And now a comment: in Japan, the legal age of consent is 13. Look up Enjo Kosai.

=
So who decides what are "thinking erors, rationalizations, and self excuses"? The Japanese or the Americans? The conservativists or the liberalists? The religious or the atheists? The mainstream population of this very moment or the mainstream population of some other moment in history?

 

[Loss Leader]

I also detest the idea that adults view adolescents as their property, as if adolescents had essentially lesser human rights than adults, and some self-proclaimed right to decide about their rights.

Adolescents don't have lesser human rights than adults. They have, at least in Western countries, the exact same human rights as adults. What they don't have is the capability of asserting those rights because, well, they're 12. Thus, the adults considered most likely to care about the welfare of the adolescents (usually their parents) are entrusted with exercising their children's rights on their behalf. An adult who does a bad job of that may lose that ability and have it assigned to someone who actually wants to do it.

Such substituted judgment is, by no means, "self-proclaimed." It is conferred by the government. That government, after having observed 1.8 million years of hominid history, has determined that the individulas most likely to care about the welfare of children are their parents.

In any case, taking a stand when it comes to the age of consent is an odd place to try to claim that adults are usurping the rights of children to decide who they have sex with. It is just as likely that the adults are correctly choosing to exercise the child's right, on her behalf, not to have sex at all.

The drawing of a line at an individual's birthday may seem arbitrary when one gets down to whether the person was 16 and 364 days or 17 and 2 days. But it should be noted that lines very often appear arbitrary up close. It's a little silly to have the US/Canadian border run straight through the middle of the Derby Line, Vermont library. But the border has to be somewhere. If we moved it a mile, it would cut through some other town's library.

It's a little silly for it to be perfectly legal to drive with a blood alcohol level of 0.049, but to risk six months in jail for a BAC of 0.051. How much alcohol does it take to raise your BAC 0.002%? Is the machine even capable of discerning such a difference? Why not load defendants up in court with the same amount of alcohol and have them play a driving simulator? Let the judge decide whether the person was really impaired or not.

Here's why: It's moronic. It's a waste of time, money and energy. The total number of cases falling on the line are so low that blurring the line costs more than it saves.

The line has to be somewhere.

Look at other mammals, adolescency is where indepedent adulthood typically begins with all its rights and responsibilities.

Exactly what rights and responsibilities do adult cottontail rabbits have? What about adult San Jose Brush Rabbits?

 

[dudalb]

You should visit the three pages that got sent to AAH. There's a textbook worth of abnormal psychology down there.

Hell, you could do a PHD thesis on abnormal psychology based on those pages alone.

 

[DallasDad]

I seem to recall young girls being charged with creation and distribution of child porn by sending "racy" photos of themselves via cell-phone to their boy friends. It's apparently fine for her to strip off and dance for him, as long as it's in person.

 

[bookitty]

I seem to recall young girls being charged with creation and distribution of child porn by sending "racy" photos of themselves via cell-phone to their boy friends. It's apparently fine for her to strip off and dance for him, as long as it's in person.

It depends on the age of the partner. In some states, that age can be problematic.

But yes, laws regarding the details adult activities are bizarre. For example, in Los Angeles, you can not serve drinks in a place with nudity. So there are strip clubs, where the girls are nude but there is no booze, and bikini bars where they strip down to almost everything but alcohol is served. You need to be 21 to work anywhere that booze is served, but you only need to be 18 to dance naked.

Because nightclubs make money off drinks, the bikini bars tend to be a bit more upscale, less scuzzy, have better security and are in safer neighborhoods. Strip clubs are in low-rent areas, don't invest too much in security and a pretty scuzzy. So you've got high-school seniors and first year college girls working in these places that are more dangerous. It's not the best situation but with the existing laws, it's the only way it can work.

 

[JJM 777]

Adolescents don't have lesser human rights than adults. They have, at least in Western countries, the exact same human rights as adults.

No matter what their parents decide, they don´t have the right to:
- vote
- drink alcohol
- have a job
- etc.
- etc.

The line has to be somewhere.

Not if the change is gradual, so there is not "line" at all, there is just gradual smooth change.

 

[Loss Leader]

No matter what their parents decide, they don´t have the right to:
- vote

Because their judgment is impaired by the fact that many of them are still learning to color inside the lines.

- drink alcohol

Wrong, at least in the US. Children may consume alcohol as part of religious observances. In any case, the correct way to think about it is that parents have the right to refuse alcohol on behalf of their children.

- have a job

Don't tell Justin Bieber, a minor with a job. Also, don't tell our babysitter (who cancelled on us so she could go see Justin Bieber).

- etc.
- etc.

Well, these are strong points.

Not if the change is gradual, so there is not "line" at all, there is just gradual smooth change.

So, did you even read what I wrote? I explained how, at the border, all logic appears to break down. I explained that this is true of physical borders as well as legal ones. And I explained that the cost of blurring the line outweighs the benefit to the very few people whose cases land near the line.

But, you seem to have ignored all that.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Does it bother you at all that a 13 year-old is generally biologically incapable of exercising good judgment? The judgment centers of the brain are the very last to undergo myelination. Before that, nerve impulses are substantially slower and less efficient.

The brain is not fully myelinated until late adolescence to young adulthood. The is about the age when, in the US, adults are legally allowed to have sex with each other.

Otherwise, it seems like you're saying that a person with good judgment should be able to have sex with a person who, if they were an adult, would be considered to be seriously brain damaged (see demyelination) because the brain damaged person claims to want to.

How much alcohol does the average adult have to consume before their judgement with regards to whether or not to have sex with someone is impaired and similar to that of a 13-year old?

 

[Loss Leader]

How much alcohol does the average adult have to consume before their judgement with regards to whether or not to have sex with someone is impaired and similar to that of a 13-year old?

I don't know.

However, in almost all jurisdictions, it is a crime to have sex with someone who is too innebriated to positively consent. It isn't enough that the person not say no; if a drunk person doesn't say yes, it may well be rape.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Q: What is the longest sentence in English language?

A: "I do."

It's a life sentence, at that.

EDIT:

Speaking of creepy and coincidences ...

AMC is showing Taxi Driver tonight. Currently on scene is Harvey Keitel dancing with Jodie Foster ... creepy.
Film made in 1976.
Topic wasn't necessarily age of consent, topic included underage prostitution. But given the film's narrative, there is something creepy in making entertainment out of statutory rape. (Well, at least it was only implied during the scene ...)

The foregoing conversation (gee, and how sorry I am to have missed 100 posts of AAH worthy nonsense ...) in this thread somehow seems a fitting prelude to the film.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No matter what their parents decide, they don´t have the right to:
- vote
- drink alcohol
- have a job
- etc.
- etc.


Not if the change is gradual, so there is not "line" at all, there is just gradual smooth change.

Bear in mind that these rules have to be simple enough for the dumbest 1% of society to remember and observe when they are drunk.

While it might be a win for fairness to have a carefully graded scale where people separately acquire the right to sexual activities starting at a kiss and ending with unprotected group sex in a minefield one right at a time over a period of ten years, it would entail significant problems too. Whereas "hands off them until they are age X" is understandable and enforceable.

I used the analogy of speed limits earlier and I think it's worth repeating. Bad drivers in bad cars are no doubt more danger to the public doing 50 in a 60 zone than professional drivers in well-maintained modern sports cars are doing 70 in a 60 zone, but it's more of a pain in the backside than it is worth to have different speed limits for different people.

Age of consent laws are about setting the line down in the least worst place, and fuzzy-but-fair lines in my view are probably going to be worse than less-fair but clearer ones.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Clicking on this thread made me feel like a perv.......

 

[truethat]

Does it bother you at all that a 13 year-old is generally biologically incapable of exercising good judgment? The judgment centers of the brain are the very last to undergo myelination. Before that, nerve impulses are substantially slower and less efficient.

The brain is not fully myelinated until late adolescence to young adulthood. The is about the age when, in the US, adults are legally allowed to have sex with each other.

Otherwise, it seems like you're saying that a person with good judgment should be able to have sex with a person who, if they were an adult, would be considered to be seriously brain damaged (see demyelination) because the brain damaged person claims to want to.

This is very signifcant.

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.

What about aggressive rape as well. Will it not create a problem with determining what "consent" actually means if we don't draw some boundaries that are carved in stone.

I just pointd out that human rights is a concept that loses its moral and philosophical foundation quite strangely if you just draw an imaginary line somewhere, without actual biological reasons, to drop some humans outside of the said rights. In this case, you would drop persons under 18 or 16 outside of the rights, while the biology of humans (and many other mammals too) suggests that creatures become independent long earlier in their development towards adulthood. Which is a never ending process by the way, 30-year olds are fuller adults, more complete in their adult development, than 20-year olds.

I suppose I have a unique perspective on this topic. I was raped (forcefully not statuatory) at the age of 14. At the time I was very confused if I had "asked for it" in a way by putting myself in a bad situation.

When I turned 18 I actually worked as an escort for a while, thinking I was in some way "taking my power back." I also thought the idea that you couldn't pay someone for sex was stupid if it was between two consenting individuals. At the time I thought I was quite clear about it. My arrest brought that to an end. At the time, I didn't necessarily agree that it was a crime, but in the end I realize it was for a few reasons.


One is that in the US (I can only speak for east coast) young women are sexualized younger and younger. Any young teen knows her sexuality could be a tool if she wanted it to be. And this tool like the three thousand pound car can have life threatening consequences. For example at the time I worked as an escort, AIDS was flying through the country. I was aware of AiDS and other STDs but because my brain wasn't really completely developed I never took it seriously. I could have infected many people without thinking. I am very lucky I never contracted any sort of disease. Really lucky looking back.

In addition I now realize how being an escort was a reaction to my first foray into sex and having it be violent and out of my control. Therefor I attempted to sort of "rewrite the script."

I don't consider myself a victim, more of a "ship happens, learn to deal" kind of person. At the same time I do recognize that I had no real idea of what I was doing or why. That was at 18. And some may argue that the rape caused me to oversexualize or create neuroses about the issue.

However I'd always been a very mature teen and also looked much older than my age. I wasn't some simpering teen. I was pretty strong willed and generally more self aware and intelligent than my peers. That still doesn't mean that I knew what I was doing as an escort.

The two issues that are sort of being dodged here are basic realities.

Young women are encouraged to be sexual by the media and the cultural attitudes.

The second issue is that men in society are rarely expected to take responsibility for their sexual behaviors. The only area we see this come to a full stop is statuatory rape, which at times I agree seems terribly unfair to the guy. For a long time I thought most statuatory rape charges or date rape charges were an unfair thing for guys to have to deal with. Case in point date rape: You and your girlfriend are both drunk. She consents and changes her mind, you are hit with a rape charge.


However I've come to realize that this is a necessary balancing act. Simply put, girls get pregnant. A girl who is not responsible with who she chooses to have sex with can and often is left with an unwanted pregnancy.

The reality of that causes major problems for both men and women. The pregnancy is a huge complication. The idea of having to pay for an unwanted child until the age of 18 is daunting to a lot of guys.

Sex is often impulsive. Society pays a price for these types of issues. Especially since it can often result in children on welfare.

Therefor the society has a right to draw parameters around sexual behavior by determining an age of consent that should act as a legal guideline.

Many people ignore these guidelines. However if it comes to consequence the individual has no leg to stand on. So in this way it becomes a deterrent.

The age of consent should be determined by society rather than idividuals when it stands to reason that society will pay for the consequences of sexual behavior.

IMHO