Change in law on consensual teen age sex law.

[techs]

http://www.reformer.com/region/ci_3638310

VERMONT
MONTPELIER (AP) -- A Senate committee has taken up a House-passed bill that seeks to decriminalize sex between consenting teenagers, so long as they're both at least 15 and within three years in age.
The House passed an amendment to a bill toughening penalties for sex offenders by trying to ensure that such sexual relationships would not be considered crimes.

"We didn't want to subject those kids to being a sex offender that would be put on the registry for life," Rep. Thomas DePoy, R-Rutland, said in a reference to the state's sex-offender registry. "It doesn't mean we're trying to condone it."

Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed the aim was not to condone teen sex. But he said he knows of cases where young lives have been ruined as a high school romance results in a permanent criminal record and dashed college hopes.

"This issue isn't about whether kids should have sex, but the question is should it be a criminal offense," Sears said.

Vermont's age of consent under current law is 16 and a 17-year-old having consensual sex with a 15-year-old can be prosecuted for sexual assault on a minor.

No figures are available for how many such cases are prosecuted in Vermont. Windsor County States Attorney Robert Sand estimated there are five to 10 such cases per year around the state.

Sand said his fellow prosecutors don't oppose the change proposed by lawmakers, but he called the problem "minuscule."

Defender General Matt Valerio cited Sands' higher number and said, "For the 10, it's devastating."

Sarah Kenney, public policy coordinator with the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, urged against lowering the age of consent further or widening the age gap beyond three years. Lowering the age another year and allowing a four-year age difference could allow sex between a 14-year-old and an 18-year-old.

"You can have a 14-year-old and you're all over the map in terms of maturity level," Kenney said.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I disagree with the "and."

It should be sliding scale.

13yo must be within 2 years, 14-15yo must be within 3 years, and then 16yo age of consent.

One year outside of the range is a misdemeanor (16yo with 13yo) mandatory 500 hours of community service.
Two years outside of the range is a misdemeanor (17yo with 13yo - high school Senior and Frosh) with mandatory house arrest, years of probation, and 500 hours community service.
Three years outside the range is a felony, mandatory min, and sex offender for life (18yo has no business having sex with a 13yo).

Such a law would accurately tag the adult sex offenders, put older adolescents on notice (SR having sex with a FR becomes a BIG caution sign), even middle adolescents would be inclined to ask,"OK I need to see some ID."

Naturally, schools with comprehensive sex ed programs would effectively inform their students about the law and the consequences. I guess those abstinence ed programs will say . . . what's sex?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Sounds like a reasonable law.

Remember, in most cases of even consensual sex between teenagers, it is the boy who is prosecuted, even if it was determined that the girl was acting as a sedructress.

 

[Moonbeam]

We need to develop a tool which measures peoples motivation and sincerity. I can't for the life of me see sex between two people, say 15 and 21 even being wrong if they are truly in love. Are we going to also demand that marriage partners be just a few years apart at any age? I guess we have to punish love because there are so many abusers who are only out to have sex. Sad.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

While I won't discount the "possibility" that a 15yo and 21yo could be in love . . . it's difficult for me to comprehend an unrelated 15yo and 21yo spending enough time together to fall in love.

The most common setting for such interactions would be schools, athletic teams, etc . . . and in those settings the older person is "trusted" to help a child's development . . . NOT scope them out. In my time, I've been around some outrageously attractive 14-17yo females. Some of which were extremely bright with great personalties. But they are still GIRLS. And unless I'm a BOY I have a responsibility to look out for their best interests which is inherently inconsistent with a nonplatonic relationship.

 

[Rainsford]

I think the law is a great idea...it allows tougher penalties for true sex offenders without lumping teenagers fooling around into the sex offender group. Of course people will get their panties in a wad about teenage sex, but even if you think it's a problem, it's really a seperate issue. No mater how much you hate your 15 year old daughter's boyfriend, I would think you'd care more about a teacher at her school pressuring her to have sex with him to get a better grade.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Of course people will get their panties in a wad about teenage sex, but even if you think it's a problem, it's really a seperate issue.

Not really

I see both problems being taken care of in many instances with the help of a shotgun

 

[Jhhnn]

I see this as a positive move, and also see Moonbeam's pov as cutting through to the heart of the matter...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
While I won't discount the "possibility" that a 15yo and 21yo could be in love . . . it's difficult for me to comprehend an unrelated 15yo and 21yo spending enough time together to fall in love.

The most common setting for such interactions would be schools, athletic teams, etc . . . and in those settings the older person is "trusted" to help a child's development . . . NOT scope them out. In my time, I've been around some outrageously attractive 14-17yo females. Some of which were extremely bright with great personalties. But they are still GIRLS. And unless I'm a BOY I have a responsibility to look out for their best interests which is inherently inconsistent with a nonplatonic relationship.

You mean you don't look out even more for somebody you really love? And lots of large families spend lots of time together. Geez there must be millions of ways people come together.

 

[smack Down]

I think the new law is good but I would like to see some sort of a statment to the jury stating that this law is intended to protect minor and if that isn't how the law is being applied feel free to find not guilty.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
While I won't discount the "possibility" that a 15yo and 21yo could be in love . . . it's difficult for me to comprehend an unrelated 15yo and 21yo spending enough time together to fall in love.

The most common setting for such interactions would be schools, athletic teams, etc . . . and in those settings the older person is "trusted" to help a child's development . . . NOT scope them out. In my time, I've been around some outrageously attractive 14-17yo females. Some of which were extremely bright with great personalties. But they are still GIRLS. And unless I'm a BOY I have a responsibility to look out for their best interests which is inherently inconsistent with a nonplatonic relationship.

You mean you don't look out even more for somebody you really love? And lots of large families spend lots of time together. Geez there must be millions of ways people come together.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Why would I not look out for someone I love/care about? My point is that there's a huge difference between looking out for someone I love (ie acting in their best interest) and being IN LOVE.

Sure lots of large families spend lots of time together but my teenage nieces, cousins, or even unrelated teens . . . are NOT potential love interests . . . they are children.

I see your point that "love happens" but lust seems exceedingly more likely in a Lolita (or Lolito) relationship from the perspective of the adult. The kid probably doesn't know any better and would typically have very limited means of establishing and maintaining contact (Web notwithstanding). To the contrary, the adult is likely in a position to INCREASE contact explicitly for the purpose of pursuing the child. In my book, that's the definition of a predator and deserves absolutely no protection under law.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: smack Down
I think the new law is good but I would like to see some sort of a statment to the jury stating that this law is intended to protect minor and if that isn't how the law is being applied feel free to find not guilty.

Yeah but then some zealous prosecutor will claim the protection of "other" minors by putting the perp away. A well written (and vetted) law makes far more sense than trying to mitigate after the fact.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Of course people will get their panties in a wad about teenage sex, but even if you think it's a problem, it's really a seperate issue.

Not really

I see both problems being taken care of in many instances with the help of a shotgun

So what? That doesn't mean that treating them as the SAME issue is the best way to go about it. In the end, you may like the same "solution", but that doesn't make them the same problem.

Also, I am highly amused by how many people get bent out of shape over teenagers having sex. I was talking with some guys at work who have kids they are going to worry about in a few years. They were going on and on until I asked them if THEY had fooled around when THEY were that age. "Well, yeah" was the response. That's ALWAYS the response, because that's what teenagers do...and most of them turn out just fine.

Of course I am only recently not part of the teenager group. Give me a few years, and I'll probably forget that my sexual escapades didn't result in teen pregnancy or anything falling off or any moral decay that I can see.

 

[EatSpam]

I've always believed in kind of a sliding scale.

Ages 17+, legal.
Ages 15-16, as long as the partner is no greater than 5 years older.
Age 13-14, as long as the partner is no greater than 3 years older. (That's a senior and freshman in high school, to put it in perspective.)
Age 12, as long as the partner is no greater than 2 years older.
<Age 12, on an individual basis... but probably not an issue. That's 5th grade, maybe 6th.

A fixed number is stupid, because it doesn't reflect the changes in maturity in teens.

And to the religionists - I don't condone sex as young as 12, but the reality is, kids do have sex that young, When they do, I believe it should be a matter kept between them and their parents. These laws should only be prosecuting actual pedophiles, not teenagers screwing around.

 

[fitzov]

No jail for kids having sex, that's stupid. Parents can punish their kids just fine.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We need to develop a tool which measures peoples motivation and sincerity. I can't for the life of me see sex between two people, say 15 and 21 even being wrong if they are truly in love. Are we going to also demand that marriage partners be just a few years apart at any age? I guess we have to punish love because there are so many abusers who are only out to have sex. Sad.

It's an issue of distribution. Let's say that occurs (with a large enough sample size, 0% and 100% generally cease to be). It will be extremely rare. That the older person is taking advantage of the younger is far more likely.

However, it will be much less likely that either is taking advantage of the other if their ages are close together. There is no perfect solution...at least not one that can actually work. This law is definitely going in the right direction.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
These laws should only be prosecuting actual pedophiles, not teenagers screwing around.

However the laws are written, this must be kept as the final goal.

Good luck, however, getting a Republican Congress to pass this, and good luck getting Bush to sign it.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: EatSpam
These laws should only be prosecuting actual pedophiles, not teenagers screwing around.

However the laws are written, this must be kept as the final goal.

Good luck, however, getting a Republican Congress to pass this, and good luck getting Bush to sign it.

Actually its a proposal in the state of Vermont so there is a good chance it will pass.

 

[OFFascist]

I think either 15 should be the age of consent across the board.

 

[dmcowen674]

At least it is a start.

The whole sex issue has been a total dsaster in the U.S. as bad as the "Under God" issue.

We need to start fixing the problems instead of useless banter.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: techs
Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed the aim was not to condone teen sex.

The aim may not be, but that will surely be a consequence.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: techs
Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed the aim was not to condone teen sex.

The aim may not be, but that will surely be a consequence.

Yeah, because I really cared what the government thought when I was 15. :roll:

Laws like this aren't going to change a thing when it comes to numbers of kids having sex. It simply keeps stupid DAs from trying to make a name for themselves - see the movie "Jailbait!" Also, it protects teens from vengeful parents who are pissed off the little Suzy isn't a virgin anymore and want to blame everyone but themselves.

 

[DealMonkey]

Decriminalizing consensual sex. You have to wonder why it was a crime to begin with?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Yeah, because I really cared what the government thought when I was 15. :roll:

Laws like this aren't going to change a thing when it comes to numbers of kids having sex. It simply keeps stupid DAs from trying to make a name for themselves - see the movie "Jailbait!" Also, it protects teens from vengeful parents who are pissed off the little Suzy isn't a virgin anymore and want to blame everyone but themselves.

Most people do care about what the law is, even 15 year olds, not only to avoid punishment but also because they - without good reason - consider it a moral teacher.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Without going into specifics, we needed a law for this for a long time.