Statutory rape

[Ed62]

This thread was inspired by Alex's thread on the age of 18.

If I'm not mistaken, someone who is 18 or over, and has sex with someone younger than 18 can be charged with statutory rape. So if a guy is 18, his girlfriend is 17, and they have sex, he can be arrested for that. It just doesn't seem right to me. How do the rest of you feel about it? Should there be a specified difference in ages before it is a crime? Should he be tagged as a child molestor? That could make a very hard life for him.

Ed

[ragswl4]

This thread was inspired by Alex's thread on the age of 18.

If I'm not mistaken, someone who is 18 or over, and has sex with someone younger than 18 can be charged with statutory rape. So if a guy is 18, his girlfriend is 17, and they have sex, he can be arrested for that. It just doesn't seem right to me. How do the rest of you feel about it? Should there be a specified difference in ages before it is a crime? Should he be tagged as a child molestor? That could make a very hard life for him.

Ed

I could be wrong on this but I believe the age of consent is 18 so by the book, a girl (or boy) does not have the right to consent to sex under the age of 18, in the legal sense.

As to how I feel about, well if its the law then a person who is 18 years of age or older should not have sex with a person under the age of 18. And if we allow it at age 17, then how about 16 or 15 or......... I guess we had to draw the line somewhere and 18 appears to be it.

I believe that the 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old would be classified as a sex offender and have to register as one and live under the rules established for that class of offense. A royal PITA.

[Pappy]

The law is plain but, in a case like this, doesn't seem right. And the older of the couple gets tagged as a sex offender the same as an adult molesting an 8 year old child. Most people he/she comes in contact with would not know the circumstances, just the brand.

[billwmeyer]

Exception in Ks.

My state has an exception to the law for the scenario that you described. I think it is coined the "Romeo and Julliette" law. However there is one local resident that is on the sex offender list for that very reason. He was prosecuted a year or two before the exception was passed. So, even though I really support the sex offender list, this guy is on the list for having sex with the girl that he later married, and has been married to for many years. That doesn't seem right.

I also believe, but I might be mistaken, that in Kansas the age of consent is 16. So if that is correct, they can legally have sex at 16, but can't get a drink for 5 years.

Bill

[ironhat]

A similar situation where the law was followed to its fulles extent is a case where a physician dated and then married a patient. After they were married he was successfully prosecuted for violation of a health care practitioner statue. It states that due to the authority that a patient may see in a practitioner they could feel pressed into a relationship which they may not have otherwise chosen to enter. The law in many states says that there may be no social or professional contact between a physician and a patient prior to the commencement of a romantic relationship. I can see the point but I can also see the potential for abuse where the now spouse of the practitioner files for divorce and oh, by the way, states that he started the romance prior to the end of the prohibited period. Not the same but some similar elements... I guess.

[Jeffrey Schronce]

Every state is different. I do not know of a state applying strict enforcement of person >18 having sex with someone under <18 being illegal until certain requirements are meet. Examples: In most states any sexual pentration under 13 is off limits. 13 - 18 is off limits if you are > 2-3 years older. Two 15 year olds are fine in most states and even if they do violate the law neither will bring case against the other in fear of same. A 13 year old and 17 year old is a no-no in most states even though both actors are minors.

To answer Kansas question, age of consent is 17.

[crokett]

The law may be unfair but it is really simple. If you are 18 don't fool around with a 17 year old. Or a 16 year old or whatever.

[Jeffrey Schronce]

The law may be unfair but it is really simple. If you are 18 don't fool around with a 17 year old. Or a 16 year old or whatever.

No, that is actually cool in most states. Proving this whole mess is not really simple.

Crocket : Your home state:
First-degree rape is sexual intercourse with a victim under age 13 when the actor is at least age 12 and at least four years older.

Statutory rape or sexual offense of person age 13, 14, or 15 is intercourse with someone age 13, 14, or 15 when the actor is (1) at least six years older and (2) between four and six years older.

So your sample case can get it on all night long.

[Alex Franke]

So if they're old enough to have sex at that age (say, two 15's), then why is it not OK for them to get married without permission? Or do they have to get permission for the sex, too? (Gee, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation: "Err... Uh... Mr. Smith, your daughter and I would like your permission to start having premarital sex." )

I think if you're grown up enough to start having sex, you're grown up enough to get married, pay taxes, vote, and -- by all means -- have a glass of champagne for your wedding toast!

[herb fellows]

The law is the law, but...

Too often, as the quote goes, 'the law is a ass, sir!'

To ruin someone's life for something as absurd as consensual sex between a 17 year old and an 18 year old, is patently ridiculous. This is indeed why laws need to be interpreted, not necessarily adhered to the letter.

[crokett]

No, that is actually cool in most states. Proving this whole mess is not really simple.

Proving what? That that is cool or that statutory rape occurred? The latter should be easy. If the ages of both parties meet the definition of the law, then statutory rape occurred.

My point was if you are in doubt then don't dip your wick. Although I suppose that most of the people who are the ages this would be relevant aren't thinking that far ahead.

[dkerfoot]

To ruin someone's life for something as absurd as consensual sex between a 17 year old and an 18 year old, is patently ridiculous.

I've known people who think the same way about prosecuting drunk drivers, but the emergency response people who have to clean up the body parts don't feel that way. I'd argue that "consensual" sex among young people has tragic consequences for both the individuals involved, their families and society as a whole. I've been involved in helping to clean up the mess left behind enough times to have a pretty firm opinion on this one.

Add to that the ability of an older teen to manipulate the younger one (and yes, even one year can be significant) and there is good reason for these laws to be on the books.

As explained previously, it is actually rare for the 18/17 combination to be illegal, but where it is, it is. Period. If an 18 year old doesn't like the laws of the State they live in, they can follow them while working to change them or they can move. (and we should NEVER take for granted the right to do either of those two things) But, if they choose to break the law, they should not then expect sympathy.

When my oldest son turned 18, I sat him down and made sure he understood what that meant - he was now seen as an adult in the eyes of the law. He was no longer under my protection and he needed to be aware of the law and carefully consider the consequences of breaking it. I just had a similar conversation with my oldest daughter.

When you are 17, you get detention. When you are 18 you go to jail.

And yes, a Doctor or Psychiatrist who has sex with their patients (whether they marry them later or not) should be prosecuted - and they, better than anyone know why!

The age limit for drinking was slowly raised to 21 across the nation because 18 and 19 year olds were doing damage to themselves and killing others in numbers far exceeding those of people 21 and over.

Just in case military service is dragged into this, it is an honor and privilege to be able to serve the country in that capacity. It is all about duty and sacrifice and requires the voluntary suspension of many of the rights that the rest of us take for granted. The drinking age is to military service what a duck is to a table saw (note the smooth way I bring the topic back to woodworking!)

[scorrpio]

This topic was ever about woodworking? Unless, of course, you mean *that* kind of wood.

So I understand most states include an age difference exception to the statutory rape law. How that relates to marriage? I'd say that marriage is a knot involving more than physical - there are also certain financial and legal components to it, and those are the ones usually not applicable to those under 18. If sex results in kids, my understanding is that grandparents are responsible for child support until parents turn 18.

And while I understand about a psychiatrist and a mentally deficient patient, (or a professor and a student) can somebody explain why a patient falling in with, say, her dentist, should be considered a bad thing?

[ragswl4]

The law may be unfair but it is really simple. If you are 18 don't fool around with a 17 year old. Or a 16 year old or whatever.

Our brains are in alignment.

[LinuxRandal]

So if they're old enough to have sex at that age (say, two 15's), then why is it not OK for them to get married without permission? Or do they have to get permission for the sex, too? (Gee, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation: "Err... Uh... Mr. Smith, your daughter and I would like your permission to start having premarital sex." )

I think if you're grown up enough to start having sex, you're grown up enough to get married, pay taxes, vote, and -- by all means -- have a glass of champagne for your wedding toast!

Too often, as the quote goes, 'the law is a ass, sir!'

To ruin someone's life for something as absurd as consensual sex between a 17 year old and an 18 year old, is patently ridiculous. This is indeed why laws need to be interpreted, not necessarily adhered to the letter.

In Missouri, the age of consent is 17 plus ONE day. Because your bodies are physically capable, doesn't mean your minds, senses are (sex verse marriage). If people got married at this young of age, it would just add to the divorce rate (from my experiences). We've lost that idea, that even though you grow apart (normal), if your lucky your still very much in love, and it is til death do you part.

As to sex between a between someone under the legal age, and someone who is a semi adult (18), that is why we have jury's. It is their responsibility to decide their regions customs and laws and how they coinside. (Sounds like I am getting into Jury nulification here).