Statutory Rape Laws- Is it a deterrent?

[JEDI]

Or is it like this article where deterrent laws don't work

CNN

"Oklahoma City officials this week pulled the plug on a city-run television channel used to show pictures of prostitutes and their customers. They said the channel did not deter prostitution. "

"It was launched in 1999 with the intention of frightening people not to engage in prostitution out of the threat that their face would be splattered across the airwaves. "

 

[Eli]

Well, it didn't work for my girlfriend and I.. We were against the law for about 6 months before she turned 18. 😛

 

[WinkOsmosis]

In Texas you can have sex with someone below the age of consent if the age difference is less than 3 years.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Eli
Well, it didn't work for my girlfriend and I.. We were against the law for about 6 months before she turned 18. 😛

Weren't you within 3 years of her age?

It's not just a matter of over/under 18 in Oregon.

Viper GTS

 

[amnesiac]

I started dating my first g/f when she was 14 and I was 17. She was illegal for the majority of our relationship.

But then again there's a difference between a 19 year old dating a 16/17 year old versus a 23-24 year old dating a 16-17 year old.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
In Texas you can have sex with someone below the age of consent if the age difference is less than 3 years.

Exactly... They are trying to prevent 35 year old men from sleeping with 16 year old girls, not 18 year old boys from sleeping with 16 year old girls.

: ) Hopper

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Eli
Well, it didn't work for my girlfriend and I.. We were against the law for about 6 months before she turned 18. 😛

Weren't you within 3 years of her age?

It's not just a matter of over/under 18 in Oregon.

Viper GTS

Hmm.. Before she moved down here, the laws were different.. They changed in June, because that's the month she moved down here... and it was the going joke, ya know. 😉 The old laws were much like Washington's.. at least 16 and less than 4 years apart. I guess it's 3 now.

I'm looking the laws for Oregon up now, and it says..

Under ORS 163.365, "[a] person who has sexual intercourse with another person commits the crime of rape in the second degree if the other person is under 14 years of age." A defendant charged with rape in the second degree has a complete defense to the charge if "the victim's lack of consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less than a specified age, [and the defendant] was less than three years older than the victim at the time of the alleged offense."

So yeah, we were illegal.. We're 3.8 years apart.

The person in this story I'm reading.. that was tried for statutory rape.. was 3 years and 10 days older than his partner.. She was 13, he was 16.

 

[Eli]

Interesting..

Female circumcision is considered "genital mutilation", and is against the law in Oregon.. Class B Felony.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Exactly... They are trying to prevent 35 year old men from sleeping with 16 year old girls, not 18 year old boys from sleeping with 16 year old girls.

: ) Hopper

Yes, such laws certainly target that reprehensible behavior but the more pervasive problem is teens having sex with teens. Those statutory laws don't work either all the more reason to try other approaches with the enthusiasm that twit DAs take to statutory rape cases.

The person in this story I'm reading.. that was tried for statutory rape.. was 3 years and 10 days older than his partner.. She was 13, he was 16.

Part of the problem with the law is that it lauds its foundation in morality while being almost entirely arbitrary. It is certainly possible for a 13yo to be a sexual predator on a 15, 16, or 17yo. In the more typical scenario where an older child is taking advantage of a younger child the outcome will likely be determined by the quality of services in the area, the quality of the offender's legal representation, and the political aspirations of the prosecuter.

For instance, at my current location we ONLY treat juvenile sex offenders (JSO) appropriate for outpt treatment . . . acknowledging their offense, adjudicated and compelled to enter treatment, and intellectually compentent. I know of one 15yo with an IQ 83 who couldn't make it in the program. Due to the lack of appropriate facilities a judge released him although we made it clear he's going to offend again. Laws typically deter the law-abiding . . . anyone believing they are above the law (elites) or unable to understand the law (young or otherwise mentally incompetent) are not deterred.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Eli
The person in this story I'm reading.. that was tried for statutory rape.. was 3 years and 10 days older than his partner.. She was 13, he was 16.

That is stupid, they are both kids...

: ) Hopper

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Eli
Interesting..

Female circumcision is considered "genital mutilation", and is against the law in Oregon.. Class B Felony.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Yes, such laws certainly target that reprehensible behavior but the more pervasive problem is teens having sex with teens. Those statutory laws don't work either all the more reason to try other approaches with the enthusiasm that twit DAs take to statutory rape cases.

Yes, but I don't require a law to tell me that a 27 year old man (me) should not be having sex with a 16 year old girl.

Heck, I don't want to be with a 18 year old girl and that's legal!

Common sense is far too uncommon.

Part of the problem with the law is that it lauds its foundation in morality while being almost entirely arbitrary.

That is one of the best quotes ever.

Laws typically deter the law-abiding . . . anyone believing they are above the law (elites) or unable to understand the law (young or otherwise mentally incompetent) are not deterred.

Another great quote...

: ) Hopper

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: Eli
Interesting..

Female circumcision is considered "genital mutilation", and is against the law in Oregon.. Class B Felony.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Well.. I just found it interesting. I didn't really know it was against the law, just thought it wasn't practiced here. I don't want to turn this into another circumcision thread, but isn't it kinda hypocritical that female circumcision is not only not practiced, and frowned upon.. but is a Felony, while male circumcision is well practiced and certainly not against the law?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well.. I just found it interesting. I didn't really know it was against the law, just thought it wasn't practiced here. I don't want to turn this into another circumcision thread, but isn't it kinda hypocritical that female circumcision is not only not practiced, and frowned upon.. but is a Felony, while male circumcision is well practiced and certainly not against the law.

The difference is that a pediatrician or urologist can make a reasoned case for circumcising males . . . reduced risk of urinary tract infections during the first two years. A larger group would argue that the risk reduction is not sufficient to justify the procedural cost. Fortunately, the standard of care is to use local anesthesia and the procedure is essentially painless. So you can look at it as $200 on a dubious procedure compared to the female procedure which has NO medical utility.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Well.. I just found it interesting. I didn't really know it was against the law, just thought it wasn't practiced here. I don't want to turn this into another circumcision thread, but isn't it kinda hypocritical that female circumcision is not only not practiced, and frowned upon.. but is a Felony, while male circumcision is well practiced and certainly not against the law.

The difference is that a pediatrician or urologist can make a reasoned case for circumcising males . . . reduced risk of urinary tract infections during the first two years. A larger group would argue that the risk reduction is not sufficient to justify the procedural cost. Fortunately, the standard of care is to use local anesthesia and the procedure is essentially painless. So you can look at it as $200 on a dubious procedure compared to the female procedure which has NO medical utility.

Yeah.. I figured it was something like that. I do realize that male circumcision can possibly have some health benefits in some situations, and that female circumcision is esentially worthless.. still found it interesting tho. 😛 It seems like "genital mutilation" is a pretty broad term and wouldn't be only applied to females. 😛

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I don't have the link but I do remember a case two years ago where a 1st year resident essentially mutilated some kids wee wanker. I think they settled for $1.5 million. Circumcision suit in ND
Unrelated case but equally troubling for men expecting to have kids that look just like Dad.