Another Example of Our Screwed-Up Laws

[DanP]

Maybe people should make better choices in marriage... and remember that, in the end, odds are against the marriage contract staying whole.

Marriage is a form of civil union less and less adapted to the world in which we live in. World changes drastically, while family laws are changing slowly, too slow IMO.

 

[DanP]

Actually, I'm curious: what is your country, and what's your Native Language? I've never been able to figure it out from your use of English.

Born and raised in Romania.

 

[DanP]

Informed Consent. As I have already noted many young people are held legally responsible for their actions when they are underage. The law acknowledges that a minor can do a thing of their own freewill even as it says that they are too young to make responsible decisions on their own. In the case of sex with an adult if they are unwilling, not just unable to render informed consent, then it is rape. If they willingly have sex with the adult then it is statutory rape because although they have rendered consent they are legally considered unable to render informed consent.

The issue is, again, that we legally deem a 15 years old unable of informed consent, while we
keep him totally responsible for other actions, and hence we indirectly recognize the very faculty we deny in statutory rape laws.

15 to 16 years is a reasonable age for informed consent. If you hold a man responsible for his actions, do recognize his right to "informed consent". Else stop pretending he is not able to make a informed decision regarding sex, but he can make informed decisions about anything else and hence he is to be hold responsible.

You can't have both denial of ability to have informed consent and holding him responsible for everything else without a terrible hypocrisy.

 

[BobG]

I meant if I were the judge. And the child did not screw anyone over.


It is a rather unhealthy attitude to take of equating the child to the mother and completely unfair as I have already pointed out. I think that this is a symptom of our modern dysfunctional family portrait.


Think of this. A friend of mine had a kid. His wife cheated on him several times and he stayed with her anyway so he could be there for his son. One day she left him and took their son with her. She obviously got custody. Then one day she decided to inform my friend that she had put in notice with her job, gave one months notice to her landlord, and spent all of her savings on a downpayment for a house in another state to which she would be leaving by the end of the month with their son.

My friend was rather torn. She just screwed him out of being able to see his son except perhaps once or twice a year. He wanted to get back at her and decided to file a complaint with the court since she is not legally able to take their son out of state without his consent. What it came down to though was that she had so perfectly set up the whole thing that there was no way she could stay without being broke and homeless along with their son. His choice was to try to keep her here because it was his right and allow his son to be homeless and suffer or allow her to leave and keep custody so that his son could have a home and food and such.

He was quite ready to keep her here. He wanted to do it because of how much he despised her for the tricks she had pulled and how she had tried illegally to take away his son. When he thought of his son being homeless he only thought of how that could help him to get custody in court.

Now how disgusting and despicable is that? This is the sort of thing that kids go through in these situations. Parents hate each other so much that any responsibility to their child becomes some evil perpetrated by their ex. This is how these kids get screwed up.

Actually, it was a risk, not a choice. The mother can't take the child out of state without the father's consent. The mother's actions made it impossible for her to care for the child in state. Custody would have to go to the father, at least temporarily, until the mother obtained a house and the means to take care of her kid.

The outcome would have been almost certain. The path to get there would have been a lot more uncertain. The hearing to transfer custody from the mother to father would be scheduled a month to six weeks into the future, then the hearing would be delayed, then the mother would deny that she was incapable of caring for the kid so the court would appoint a Guardian Ad Litem to investigate the living conditions and report back in a month to six weeks, etc. The process is so imperfect that even winning a custody case carries serious risks.

Makes it tough to make decisions like that.

 

[DanP]

in related news: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,588707,00.html"
She isn't that bad looking to be honest. Still illegal, but not ugly.

Not bad looking face indeed. No blame from me to her. She got something which reminds me of Jessica Simpson.

 

[Dembadon]

The issue is not whether or not he knows sex can lead to pregnancy but whether he is emotionally and intellectually mature enough to turn down an opportunity to have sex with a 19 year old (or, at least, to insist on birth control). We can find 10 year olds who know how babies are made, but it suddenly becomes less possible, because of their age, to ascribe responsibility to them if they are talked into sex by someone over 18. By your logic any sexual predator could avoid prosecution by explaining exactly how babies are made to their victim no matter what their age.

In the case of this 19 year old girl, if she can get child support from a 15 year old she can also get it from a 10 or 11 year old (as long as he's past puberty), provided she can prove he understood sexual reproduction. (I used to mow lawns, rake leaves, and shovel snow after school and on weekends when I was 10. Any 10 year old could be required to do that to come up with $50.00 a month child support.)

To deter people from taking sexual advantage of children the law has set an age of legal consent. People simply don't mature emotionally and intellectually at the same rate so this ends up being somewhat arbitrary, but as we consider younger and younger children it's clear there does have to be a law. Once that age is set it has to be stuck to. Making an exception for a 15 year old is as good as making an exception for a 10 year old, and you pretty much end up with no law.

The alternative to the arbitrary (but more or less reasonable) cut off age we now have would be some sort of state run sexual maturity test or screening procedure. Imagine the legal power struggle between liberals and conservatives, the religious and non-religious, over what criteria the test should include. Imagine the outrage of 30, 40, and 50 year olds who are screened and deemed too sexually reckless to legally have sex. Imagine 20 year old married couples who tied the knot mostly because the guy knocked the girl up who get barred from legally having sex with each other because of a history of irresponsible sexual behavior. It's a proposal worthy of Michael Critchton novel: rife with both obvious and also unexpected twists and turns. A can of worms.

Some people seem to be willing to bend the law when the issue of taxpayers footing the bill for raising the baby comes to mind.

If we imagine a different scenario where the 19 year old seducer had been a homosexual male who caught herpes from the 15 year old male and was suing the 15 year old for medical expenses, how would it change people reaction?

Then let's change it to a 19 year old male who caught herpes from a 15 year old girl and was suing her for medical expenses. What then?

Then let's consider a mugger who cuts his victim with a knife in the course of the robbery and then sues him when he finds out he's contracted aids from the blood?

It seems to me any damages or problems you create for yourself in the course of committing a felony are your problem and not the victims.

You've articulated your point very well (perhaps better than I've done for mine), Zoob.

I realize changing laws is dangerous. My main concern is people not being held accountable for their actions. I can see a potential exploit; what if this fifteen year old decides to go around having kids under the protection of this law? What is to stop him from impregnating women if there are no consequences for his behavior?

Not every minor who engages in sexual intercourse is innocent and/or being taken advantage of. I believe there needs to be some form of responsibility on his part for the child. It cannot all fall on the mother.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The issue is, again, that we legally deem a 15 years old unable of informed consent, while we
keep him totally responsible for other actions, and hence we indirectly recognize the very faculty we deny in statutory rape laws.
...

You can't have both denial of ability to have informed consent and holding him responsible for everything else without a terrible hypocrisy.

Statutory Rape laws and legal age of consent are a whole other can of worms. I'll jump in if you would like but I'll cut it out for now.

But regarding what I quoted you are making it too black and white. Either he is responsible or he is not by your logic. That is not the way the law works here nor do I think it ought to be.

The law does not deny that a minor can make decisions or that they should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. The law does not state that a minor can not have sex. The law does not state that a minor (or their family) can not be held responsible for their own children. It merely makes allowances for the level of responsibility that can be reasonably expected of a person of that age, based on a somewhat arbitrary scale of course. The reason for statutory rape laws is that engaging is sexual activity brings with it the possibility of certain life changing repercussions and legal responsibilities that the adult is fully expected to be aware of and the minor is not. By having sex with the minor the adult has exposed the minor to these issues which they are legally considered ill equipped to handle. The law does not consider this to have been against the minor's own will or inclination, those cases are just called rape. Some may think that the law is to protect minors from being persuaded to have sex against their inclination or under false pretenses. In reality this is also legally considered rape, not statutory rape, and any person, regardless of age, can claim that they were raped under these circumstances. The qualifier "statutory" means that it regards issues of legality and not any sort of deception, coercion, or violence. For instance if a person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol they are considered incapable of rendering consent. Having sex with this person is called rape, not statutory rape. If a person is suffering from dementia or some mentally debilitating handicap they are considered unable to render consent and having sex with them is considered rape, not statutory rape. So statutory rape is not a matter of actual willful consent but a matter of legal consent in the same sense that a minor can not legally enter into a contract of their own accord. The likely original intent of these laws was to protect the marriageability of young persons whose choice in partners was not in their own hands but that of their parents until the age of majority. Seeing as how the age to legally wed is often lower than the age of consent the law effectively protected the ability of parents to whore their children to whom ever they chose and allowed them legal satisfaction against anyone who endangered that "right". And bastard children have long been allowed their rightful due from their biological parents.

Sorry for the length of that rant.

 

[DanP]

The reason for statutory rape laws is that engaging is sexual activity brings with it the possibility of certain life changing repercussions and legal responsibilities that the adult is fully expected to be aware of and the minor is not. By having sex with the minor the adult has exposed the minor to these issues which they are legally considered ill equipped to handle.

Yes, I understand the law and it's reasons. It's not a problem of how it works or why, it's a problem of numbers.

The issue is that "if you consider a man ill equipped to handle" sex, you should consider him ill equipped for just everything else. This is the hypocrisy. We consider the minor ill equipped to handle sex, but if he happens to commit a felony we can send him to be tried in an adult court of law. So the poor guy is ill equipped to handle sex consequences, but it is very well equipped to be treated as an adult when we want to **** him and try him as a fully responsible adult.

Most of the world fortunately recognizes this hypocrisy and sets very close age differences for age of responsibility and consent.

It is in only in several legislation where conservative (and probably influenced by religious politic forces) this hypocrisy is raised to the rank of law, by making the age of consent disproportionately higher. (I speak mainly of any legislation which uses > 16 as age of consent).

15 would be the ideal age of consent (as it is in many EU states) or maximum 16.

 

[MotoH]

I can't believe this wasn't posted yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgoXUzIwXk0

 

[BobG]

Yes, I understand the law and it's reasons. It's not a problem of how it works or why, it's a problem of numbers.

The issue is that "if you consider a man ill equipped to handle" sex, you should consider him ill equipped for just everything else. This is the hypocrisy. We consider the minor ill equipped to handle sex, but if he happens to commit a felony we can send him to be tried in an adult court of law. So the poor guy is ill equipped to handle sex consequences, but it is very well equipped to be treated as an adult when we want to **** him and try him as a fully responsible adult.

Most of the world fortunately recognizes this hypocrisy and sets very close age differences for age of responsibility and consent.

It is in only in several legislation where conservative (and probably influenced by religious politic forces) this hypocrisy is raised to the rank of law, by making the age of consent disproportionately higher. (I speak mainly of any legislation which uses > 16 as age of consent).

15 would be the ideal age of consent (as it is in many EU states) or maximum 16.

The thread started out with an assortment of news articles that someone dug up with some diligent research. Well, semi-diligent research, since none of the articles ever seemed to provide follow-up on how the case was ultimately resolved ... and the author was only able to come up with a small handful of cases spread out over an entire decade.

And from this, we've ridden the game out to the point where we say that laws against minors having sex are to protect boys from the consequences of sex?

The intent of laws against minors having sex is to protect females from becoming a teenage mom with no support from the dad. The law is intended more for the consequences of teenage pregnancy on the infant than on the teen.

In any event, deciding on different age limits for different activities is entirely appropriate. The age limit for riding the big roller coaster should be different than the age limit for driving a car, which should be different than the age limit for drinking, etc. I never understood the logic behind "If he's old enough to vote, he ought to be allowed to drink!"

 

[DanP]

And from this, we've ridden the game out to the point where we say that laws against minors having sex are to protect boys from the consequences of sex?

I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion. Various example where given in this thread, but they are generic examples, with no intent whatsoever to link statutory rape laws to a certain sex.

The intent of laws against minors having sex is to protect females from becoming a teenage mom with no support from the dad. The law is intended more for the consequences of teenage pregnancy on the infant than on the teen.

I am sorry, but this is simply not true.

The statutory rape laws only incriminate adults performing sex with minors which are under the age of consent. Two underage partners of close or same age do not fall in this category. You can't legislate the age at which one decides have sex. Sex between two minors over a certain age , but below age of consent, is as probable to produce offspring as it is sex between an underage and an adult. Furthermore, it is not incriminate by laws.

I never understood the logic behind "If he's old enough to vote, he ought to be allowed to drink!"

Conservators usually don't. Nor christian fundamentalists. (Im not inferring you are part of any of those categories). This is why this is fought politically.

 

[BobG]

I am sorry, but this is simply not true.

The statutory rape laws only incriminate adults performing sex with minors which are under the age of consent. Two underage partners of close or same age do not fall in this category. You can't legislate the age at which one decides have sex. Sex between two minors over a certain age , but below age of consent, is as probable to produce offspring as it is sex between an underage and an adult. Furthermore, it is not incriminate by laws.

Admittedly, my statement was an oversimplification with no explanation.

If both are below the age of consent, but near the same age, there's an assumption (that may be wrong) that the teens are able to stand up against the other. The girl that had no interest in becoming a teen mom could tell the guy to take a hike.

It's going to be harder to stand up to a person that's older and more mature. There's extra pressure for the teen to prove they're an adult.

I don't think this holds up very well in practice. In fact, I agree that the whole idea of statutory rape has some flaws. At least enough that a person could legitimately argue that it should apply only to much younger kids than it does.

That doesn't mean it has no effect. I'm sure there's many teens that would have unprotected sex just because of peer pressure. I'm sure there's many teens that would have enough composure to stand up for themselves regardless of the age of their partner. There probably is a range that could stand up to their peers, but would be intimidated by an older partner. And even within that range, the statutory rape laws only have an effect if they intimidate the older partner. In other words, statutory rape laws probably have some positive effect, just not a lot.

But, regardless of how well it works in practice, it is based on the idea that the more mature person could bully, or at least manipulate the younger person into making decisions they normally wouldn't make; and decisions that are going to have some long term consequences. It's the consequences that make it a crime. It wouldn't be a crime to manipulate a teen into cleaning their house, mowing their lawn, or some other activity that had no serious consequences.

 

[DanP]

But, regardless of how well it works in practice, it is based on the idea that the more mature person could bully, or at least manipulate the younger person into making decisions they normally wouldn't make; and decisions that are going to have some long term consequences. It's the consequences that make it a crime. It wouldn't be a crime to manipulate a teen into cleaning their house, mowing their lawn, or some other activity that had no serious consequences.

Which is true, but again I am not debating the fact that statutory rape is a crime. I am debating the reasonable limits of applicability of the law.

The argument that a "could could bully, or at least manipulate" is of dubious value. It is applicable to both young adults and adults. This is why we have today sexual harassment laws. It is pretty easy for a person in a position of authority to manipulate, bully, or otherwise con another person in doing something they wouldn't normally do. We heuristically know this from the dawn of civilization, but we got scientific confirmations again and again starting with 1963.

Most legislations who have a low age of consent include special legal provisions for the cases in which an adult is in position of authority over the young adult. In this case, the age of consent is higher than the one involved in regulating adult not in position of authority / young adult. The actual implementations are different from legal system to legal system, in some it requires a complaint from the alleged victim itself (not from the victim's parents, which pretty much makes sense)

Second, I believe that young adults in their teens can be pretty much as persuasive as an adult when it comes to sex. (authority position notwithstanding)

The only question is: what is a reasonable age at which a young adult can be considered to make a informed decision ? Most of the world seems to believe that is between the age of 15 - 16, which is sensibly near the age where law starts to look at the children as a young adult from the responsibility point of view. Including, but not limited to, the possibility to stand trial in an adult court of law for your deeds.

This avoids hypocrisy.

 

[Char. Limit]

Even so... let's say that we change the age of consent to 16.

It doesn't change the fact that this person is the victim of a felony crime, and has to pay money to the person who made him a victim.

 

[DanP]

Even so... let's say that we change the age of consent to 16.

It doesn't change the fact that this person is the victim of a felony crime, and has to pay money to the person who made him a victim.

We will never have a perfect system. We can only try to improve it as much as possible.

An important distinction here is that he is not paying money to the person who made him a victim. He is paying child support to support his biological children.

What is interesting with statutory rape is that is a felony which is possible without having an actual victim, in the sense that the young adult can very well be NOT harmed individually and directly by the adult, nor physically, nor psychologically. It may be even possible that the young adult was the part actively seeking a sexual encounter.

An age of 15-16 is perfect for assuming responsibility as well as enjoying the privileges of adulthood.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

and has to pay money to the person who made him a victim.

He was not victimized by his child.

The issue is that "if you consider a man ill equipped to handle" sex, you should consider him ill equipped for just everything else. This is the hypocrisy. We consider the minor ill equipped to handle sex, but if he happens to commit a felony we can send him to be tried in an adult court of law. So the poor guy is ill equipped to handle sex consequences, but it is very well equipped to be treated as an adult when we want to **** him and try him as a fully responsible adult.

I am unsure how it works out there but here it is only a possibility that a minor can be tried as an adult. They are not automatically tried as an adult simply because they commit a felony. They are most often tried as a juvenile and usually are only tried as an adult for serious crimes like murder.

 

[DanP]

I am unsure how it works out there but here it is only a possibility that a minor can be tried as an adult. They are not automatically tried as an adult simply because they commit a felony. They are most often tried as a juvenile and usually are only tried as an adult for serious crimes like murder.

It is on the case by case basis here as well.

 

[Char. Limit]

You're all too trusting. How do you know that this mother, already proven to be irresponsible, will spend the money that he is giving her on the child? Answer: we don't.

So I'm not saying his child victimized him, Statutory. I'm saying we can't trust the father's (statutory) rapist.

 

[DanP]

You're all too trusting. How do you know that this mother, already proven to be irresponsible, will spend the money that he is giving her on the child? Answer: we don't.

1. Mother is not proven to be irresponsible. This term has a very precise legal understanding.

2. Should / Would / Could is of no concern here. Good faith is assumed.

 

[Char. Limit]

Really? Committing a felony is not proof of irresponsibility? And good faith should be assumed in a forum argument, not here! Why should I assume good faith of a felon?

 

[DanP]

Really? Committing a felony is not proof of irresponsibility? And good faith should be assumed in a forum argument, not here! Why should I assume good faith of a felon?

It is not proof of irresponsibility at all . Check the meaning of the word.

 

[Hepth]

He should just sue her for cost of child support as damages from the crime committed against him :)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You're all too trusting. How do you know that this mother, already proven to be irresponsible, will spend the money that he is giving her on the child? Answer: we don't.

So I'm not saying his child victimized him, Statutory. I'm saying we can't trust the father's (statutory) rapist.

She has custody of the child to the money goes to her as custodian. If she fails to use the money to support the child then he can sue her for the money on behalf of their child. If he wins he will also likely receive custody. From the details of the stories linked I think it most likely that his family will get custody anyway.

He should just sue her for cost of child support as damages from the crime committed against him :)

Yes. Go into court and refer to support for your child as "damages" and see how well that goes over.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You've articulated your point very well (perhaps better than I've done for mine), Zoob.

I realize changing laws is dangerous. My main concern is people not being held accountable for their actions. I can see a potential exploit; what if this fifteen year old decides to go around having kids under the protection of this law? What is to stop him from impregnating women if there are no consequences for his behavior?

Not every minor who engages in sexual intercourse is innocent and/or being taken advantage of. I believe there needs to be some form of responsibility on his part for the child. It cannot all fall on the mother.

By way of response I need only repeat myself:

"To deter people from taking sexual advantage of children the law has set an age of legal consent. People simply don't mature emotionally and intellectually at the same rate so this ends up being somewhat arbitrary, but as we consider younger and younger children it's clear there does have to be a law. Once that age is set it has to be stuck to. Making an exception for a 15 year old is as good as making an exception for a 10 year old, and you pretty much end up with no law."

By ordering this kid to pay child support this judge has set a precedent that grossly muddies the water and undercuts the law against statuory rape. He has said that the minor, IS, in fact responsible when he has sex with someone who's not a minor. If he is responsible, then how has the 19 year old committed any crime?? If he is responsible then her attorney should be able to have the charges against her thrown out. And if he does, then the age of legal consent will, de facto, have been pushed back to 15. If he does, anyone charged with statutory rape of anyone ages 15-17 can have the charges thrown out citing this precedent.

Anyone here who believes the kid should be held responsible is saying the same thing: 'the age of legal consent is too high; 15 year olds know what they're doing. This 19 year old girl committed no crime.'

It's fine if you want to lobby to get the age pushed back, but the law as it is now, exonerates the boy of any responsibility, and a judge, of all people, should not be making decisions that undercut a clear law.

It would all have been fine if the judge had merely given the boys parents a stern lecture with the strong recommendation that they require him to contribute $50 a month to child support to teach him responsibility. Legally requiring him to do it suddenly upsets the whole law.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Zooby and I seem to have been in agreement throughout this whole thread. Zooby's logic is correct in that requiring a minor to pay child support through the mother of his child that is not a minor implies that the adult in the scenario is not guilty of a crime. I really don't know what else to say. I don't see a flaw in this logic.

 

[Dembadon]

Zooby and I seem to have been in agreement throughout this whole thread. Zooby's logic is correct in that requiring a minor to pay child support through the mother of his child that is not a minor implies that the adult in the scenario is not guilty of a crime. I really don't know what else to say. I don't see a flaw in this logic.

It is not Zooby's logic with which I am in disagreement. It is the law itself which I find to be unsatisfactory. Since, as Zooby has pointed out, laws should not be undermined, I would favor an amendment.

 

[Char. Limit]

And zoobyshoe articulates my ideas far better than I could myself.

Dembadon, an amendment is all well and good (or maybe not, depending on your point of view), but we should consider the law as it currently is.

 

[NeoDevin]

As much as I think that the age of consent in the states should be lowered, I feel the need to point out that even in (most) countries with an age of consent of 15 or lower, what she did was still a crime. As a babysitter, she was in a position of authority over the boy.

 

[DanP]

As a babysitter, she was in a position of authority over the boy.

Position of authority is legally defined and not arbitrary. ruling in previous cases is also important in many legislations.

 

[NeoDevin]

Position of authority is legally defined and not arbitrary. ruling in previous cases is also important in many legislations.

Yes, but almost universally it includes (temporary) caregivers/guardians.