Statutory Rape Options

[LaszloWalrus]

Sorry for going a bit off topic, but am I the only one who thinks that statutory rape laws are silly?

[Drew1776]

Sorry for going a bit off topic, but am I the only one who thinks that statutory rape laws are silly?

I agree completely! At least statutory rape laws are named appropriately. What occurs when someone commits statutory rape is not real rape. It's an act which the government considers a type of rape but in reality isn't hence the qualifier Statutory

[DavidOdden]

Sorry for going a bit off topic, but am I the only one who thinks that statutory rape laws are silly?

No, but the question should be whether they are silly. One of the premises behind the intercourse / rape distinction is consent, which requires a particular capacity. I argue that having sex with an 10 year old girl who "agrees" is not consensual. Obviously, if the victim has substantially impaired ability to consent becasue of mental condition, that is also rape (check your local statutes). So your objection is way off. Maybe your locale is different, but the government doesn't actually have any laws against "statutory rape", whatever that is. If you wanna talk about a specific law which presumes diminished capacity, I'd need to see the law.

[Groovenstein]

It's an act which the government considers a type of rape but in reality isn't hence the qualifier Statutory

There is no such term in Nebraska. It's called sexual assault in the first degree. NRS 28-319. Note that it is only one type of this sexual assault. The first type is your standard rape (penetration w/o consent).

What occurs when someone commits statutory rape is not real rape.

Not necessarily. You are right to the extent you are suggesting that an act is not morally rape merely because it is legally rape. But that doesn't mean an act can't be both. If you rape a four-year-old, that would be rape of both varieties.

Remember what it is that we're calling "statutory rape" really is. In essence, it is an irrebuttable presumption that a person under a certain age can not consent to an act with a person over a certain age, which is a bright line rule intended to make for swifter administration of proceedings. You have to start analyzing the propriety of a statutory rape law by addressing a more fundamental inquiry: Are any legal bright line rules (ages of majority, filing deadlines, statutes of limitations) proper? What are the circumstances under which they are?

Well, probably that you are entitled to extra damages if you contract AIDS, but not if you wind up with cervical cancer some time down the road?

Not unless the lawyer's good enough. But yeah, it's some serious fact-specific action.

[LaszloWalrus]

To those who think "Statutory Rape" (I know that's what it's called in India) ought not to be a crime, consider this analogy: a kidnapper entices a 5 year old away with candy. Is that a crime, or should the law say that the parents can't complain, because the kid went willingly?

That's child molestation, and therefore should be a crime. Statutory "rape," on the other hand, can involve people who are, say, a month apart in age, one eighteen and one seventeen.

[DavidOdden]

That's child molestation, and therefore should be a crime. Statutory "rape," on the other hand, can involve people who are, say, a month apart in age, one eighteen and one seventeen.

In my jurisdiction, that's not so. Florida law is a bit complicated but it too doesn't work the way you describe. What state or country are you talking about?

[RationalBiker]

That's child molestation, and therefore should be a crime. Statutory "rape," on the other hand, can involve people who are, say, a month apart in age, one eighteen and one seventeen.

Groovenstein offers a good point.

In some states that "child molestation" would be codified as Statutory Rape as well your other example. Or Statutory Rape could be a 17 year old having sex with a 10 year old. While the term Child Molestion can always be associated with the concept you have in mind, it can not always be associated with a law an existing law that is titled "Child Molestation". Since your discussing is criticizing the law, it is necessary to split that hair.

It may be better to discuss the particular types of activity that may be construed as Statutory Rape that you disagree with as opposed to saying that Statutory Rape laws are stupid altogether. Alternatively, you could discuss how you would change the law to make it more objective and just. Additionally, it might be better for myself (when I have more time) or one of the other mods to split this line from this thread to either it's own thread, or a more appropriate previously existing thread.

[LaszloWalrus]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the variances across states. I support laws against sex between people who have a certain age difference (provided, of course, that at least one of them isn't an adult); but in some areas, eighteen year-olds who have sex with, say, seventeen year olds are charged as rapists and have to register as sex offenders. That was the kind of law (labeled "statutory rape" in some jurisdictions) that I was objecting to, as it is a world away from actual rape (and from child molestation).

[Groovenstein]

LW, it would be helpful if you could point us to a specific jurisdiction whose law you find offensive.

[LaszloWalrus]

I'm looking for it; it's been several years since I read a news story dealing with the law, so it might take me a while. In any case, I think I adequately explained the general principle I would use.

[DavidOdden]

I'm looking for it; it's been several years since I read a news story dealing with the law, so it might take me a while. In any case, I think I adequately explained the general principle I would use.

I have a dim memory that about 35 years ago, there may have been such "one week" laws, but they were reformed exactly because of the absurdity that you mentioned. This could be one of those lore things, like the infamous "stupid law" of Ohio where you can't fish for whales on Sunday (there is no such law). The media lies frequently, and they are ignorant the rest of the time.

[miseleigh]

Massachusetts state laws actually say that that sex with someone under a certain age is illegal, with punishments changing depending on if the person is under 14, 16, or 18, and depending on if the person has had sex previously or not. The law at the 18 year boundary says that "whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse" is subject to such and such punishment. The use of 'unlawful' in there seems odd to me, and this one says nothing about whether or not the person can consent. The 16 year boundary also contains the term 'unlawful sexual intercourse' without saying whether or not the 15 year old can give consent, though the implication for both of these is that they cannot. The 14 year boundary is clear in saying that anyone under 14 cannot give consent. No references are made to age of the perpetrator in relation to age of the victim; it also appears that if both people are under 18 then they are both guilty.

So, in MA, if you're 18 and the person you're dating is 17, it's statutory rape (if the 17 year old was a virgin- it's kind of funny that they put that in). Even if there's only a one week difference.

[DavidOdden]

As I read that MA law and surrounding statutes, that allows (a separate count for) prosecution of a person for patronizing an underage virgin prostitute, adultery, and before Lawrence could apply to first-time homosexual or non-missionary acts (depending on what forms of sex are legal in MA). In addition, the law does not limit you to simply having sex, you can be prosecuted for inducing a person to have sex, meaning that it is a crime to urge a classmate to become a prostitute. So that law is definitely bizarre.

I think what counts for our purposes is that the age of consent in MA is 16, so you can't be prosecuted for just having sex with a 1-week younger boyfriend when you turn 18. MGL c.272, sec. 35A. says "Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with a child under the age of sixteen shall be punished...", which establishes the absolute unlawfulness of sex under 16.

[miseleigh]

So when it says "Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished by..." it's saying that you can have sex with someone under 18 as long as you don't ask them to and it's not forced? What about if they're both 17 and both virgins at the time? Is the one who asked the one who commited a crime?

It's still statutory rape if there's a one week difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old though, right?

[Maarten]

Hmm, how do you have sex with someone without asking them to? It sounds a little strange to say that if you do not ask them if they consent, it's perfectly alright, but it becomes illegal once you do? Or do you mean asking in a different manner than simply: Would you like to sleep with me?

[miseleigh]

I suppose it depends on what they mean by 'induce'. What's the line between 'inducing' and asking?

[Maarten]

I would say it is fine, no matter what. If the girl is a little unsure whether it's a good idea and you manage to change her mind, does that make you a criminal for coercing her into having sex with you?

Obviously some things are a no go, if you for example use get the girl in question drunk, or give her some chemicals that make her more likely to go along with it, but simple discussion? Also any other type of force would not be acceptable, or even the threat of using it.

Does anyone know if there are clearly defined boundaries here? Do you have to fear as a guy (or as a girl, although I don't think the reverse happens quite as often) that you might be prosecuted for changing someone's mind? Or is there a lot more required than this for you to become prosecutable?

This post has been edited by Maarten: Jul 12 2006, 10:16 AM

[DavidOdden]

So when it says "Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished by..." it's saying that you can have sex with someone under 18 as long as you don't ask them to and it's not forced? What about if they're both 17 and both virgins at the time? Is the one who asked the one who commited a crime?

It's still statutory rape if there's a one week difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old though, right?

Of course there is, legally speaking, no such thing as statutory rape in MA, but there is a law. The behavior of prosecutors (which is more important, in reality, than the letter of the law since actual strict constructionists are pretty much nonexistent) is, to the best of my knowledge, that a year difference would not actually matter. This is a matter for prosecutorial discretion. But the under-16 law is equally applicable to two 15 year olds, and theoretically both parties could be prosecuted for having sex.

Similarly with the under-18 law (which was only enforced once), two 17 year olds could get in trouble for having sex, so the one-week absurdity would not apply (a different absurdity would). The law, first, states that inducement is the crime, not the actual sex. Second, it limits the victim to being "of chaste life", so no penalty attaches (under strict construction) to having sex with a non-chaste person under 18. Third, the law only punishes "unlawful sexual intercourse", not any sexual intercourse. Put that in contrast to the under-16 law which states "Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act". Now the question is, what forms of sex are illegal in Massachussetts? Prostitution, for one; incest; adultery; non-missionary sex; pre-Lawrence homosexual intercourse once was (that was the basis for the one prosecution under this statute).

I suppose it depends on what they mean by 'induce'. What's the line between 'inducing' and asking?

Well, "inducement" is defined as enticing or persuading a person to act. So the distinction might be between "Hey baby, let's do it" and "If you really loved me, you'd show me how much".

[Maarten]

David, do you know of any cases where someone was convicted for having sex in a non-missionary position? That being illegal is so absurd it's almost funny... Almost, because I am not sure if it's enforced or not.

I do wonder how the government ever would know whether or not people are complying with this law...

[DavidOdden]

David, do you know of any cases where someone was convicted for having sex in a non-missionary position?

I kind of hate the Lexis-Nexis search engine, because it has these quirks that I forget. So after wasting a potload of time to find the apparently non-existent case.... Commonwealth v. Foley (506 N.E.2d 1160) is about this law, G. L. c. 274 §6 (now 272 §4). Some guy offered a 14 year old kid $5 for a BJ, and the kid turned him down. The offer alone was enough. So that was going to be the case, but it was overturned and anyhow since the kid was 14, that's illegal enough. There have been such laws throughout the US though I'll have to dig to see if I can find one, especially a conviction. I suppose maybe the laws don't say anything about who gets on top, but they do include where and what specifications.

I do wonder how the government ever would know whether or not people are complying with this law...

I've got tons of newspaper clippings that I could show you, in case you wonder how.