Why is statutory rape illegal?

[Atreus21]

It seems to me that if it's consensual, why is it rape?

You might say the implication is that the man is taking advantage of the woman. First of all, so what? Why do we not prosecute taken-advantage-of cases for consenting women older than 18? Second, if the woman consented, how can we say she was taken advantage of? Do we not trust her answer?

I'm looking for an answer other than, "Because it's f'd up." That sounds like morality. I'm not looking for a moral answer. I want to know why, when there's no harm done, statutory rape is or should be illegal.

 

[bbdub333]

So what if a 25 year old dude convinced your 14 year old daughter to say yes? Do you trust her answer?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
It seems to me that if it's consensual, why is it rape?

You might say the implication is that the man is taking advantage of the woman. First of all, so what? Why do we not prosecute taken-advantage-of cases for consenting women older than 18? Second, if the woman consented, how can we say she was taken advantage of? Do we not trust her answer?

I'm looking for an answer other than, "Because it's f'd up." That sounds like morality. I'm not looking for a moral answer. I want to know why, when there's no harm done, statutory rape is or should be illegal.

There isn't a clear answer, other than there being a figure decided upon by the legislature of when a child officially becomes an adult. During that time before they become an adult, it is typically stated that they have free will but lack the thinking process to make a fully informed decision.

That being said, given the development of teenagers in this country, I think statutory rape on cases where someone is 16 and 17 is ridiculous. The age of consent should be pushed down to 14 IMHO. When I was 14 most of the kids I went to high school with were already having sex. Had the state decided to prosecute every case, then literally half of my class would have wound up in jail. Move that age to 16, and about a quarter of the girls I went to school with were pregnant. In one case a girl was on her second child. This was an inner city high school.

A fair amount of the kids I grew up with ran away from home or had abusive parents and wanted to get out as soon as possible. One kid I knew ran away from home at age 13 and lived off the street for a while, then got her GED, and went to college. Another girl I knew ran away at 16, got her GED, went to school and got her bachelor's degree. One guy I knew ran away at 14 and ended up having a successful career. To me, the age of thinking would seem to be around 14 or so. Granted you can still make stupid mistakes, but by 14 you can typically know whether you're being coerced or not. At least thats how it was in the city I grew up in.

 

[Vette73]

Yea!!1 I should also be able to trick your grand parents out of their life savings. Tell them i am a king and need their money to get into my accout. They agreed with it so thats fair as well. right?

 

[halik]

Minors can't make legal decisions - that's why you need parent's permission for medical procedures and so on.


The more interesting legal issue is if you get the parents' permission, would it still me statutory rape? So if i get permissions to have "relations" (said in chris turk voice), I should be immune to statutory rape.

When does statutory rape turn into pedophilia? 12? or is that state by state?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: halik
Minors can't make legal decisions. The more interesting legal issue is if you get the parents' permission, would it still me statutory rape?

With the parents permission, a child can marry at an earlier age. Basically it seems to me that some of the laws on the books are basically for parents who don't like the guy / girl that their child is dating.

 

[dbk]

Teenagers are prone to making rash decisions.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dbk
Teenagers are prone to making rash decisions.

And the law prevents that how?

 

[Xavier434]

It boils down to the government providing both the parents and teens more power to protect themselves. Obviously it has a lot to do with morality too. You can't escape that fact. If no one cared based on their moral opinion then there would be no law.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dbk
Teenagers are prone to making rash decisions.

And the law prevents that how?

Teens who know the law also know that up until a certain age the parents can nail the offender regardless of consent between the two teens. This may not stop the younger teens from making the rash decisions but it does help influence the older teens and adults from making the decision. It takes two to tango.

 

[SP33Demon]

Because our law says at age 18: You're an adult and as a result you have the privilege to vote. Only an adult can have sex with an adult because adults can now make decisions.

If you don't like it, simple: move to a country that has a different viewpoint more similar to yours.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dbk
Teenagers are prone to making rash decisions.

And the law prevents that how?

Teens who know the law also know that up until a certain age the parents can nail the offender regardless of consent between the two teens. This may not stop the younger teens from making the rash decisions but it does help influence the older teens and adults from making the decision. It takes two to tango.

In my teen years I drank while underage, smoked while underage, and had with a person old enough to be punishable for them under the law.

I submit the laws in practice do nothing to limit the behavior of teenagers. Trying to keep teens from having sex (age of the partner be damned) is even more of a futile effort than the drug war.

 

[jonks]

Minors cannot legally give consent. Contracts cannot be enforced against them. The state has put the burden on the adult to assume the risk that the person they have sex with is of age. They do this for a variety of reasons, some more justifiable than others. There is a puritanical element in the law which seeks to discourage casual sex, as it would be much more difficult to have sex with someone you didn't know was underage if you dated them for any length of time, whereas if you meet someone in a bar and go screw in your car, they could simply have lied about their age and you don't know enough about them to see through the lie.

I do think that where a 16 year old girl gets gussied up and goes to a 21+ bar, appears mature and seduces a man, that he should not spend 5-10 years in prison. That result is unjust due to the puritanical aspect mentioned above. But in almost any other circumstance where this situation occurs, strict liability is necessary to prevent the seduction of children by adults. It would be easy enough to fool a poor 15 year old girl into sex for the promise of gifts, money, etc.

As to why an 18 year old girl has the right to give such consent where a 17 year old doesn't, it's simply that a relatively arbitrary line must be drawn somewhere, just as it is for drinking and voting.

Originally posted by: K1052
I submit the laws in practice do nothing to limit the behavior of teenagers. Trying to keep teens from having sex (age of the partner be damned) is even more of a futile effort than the drug war.

Statutory rape laws are not about trying to limit the behavior of teens, they are directed at adults who would seduce teens.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: K1052
I submit the laws in practice do nothing to limit the behavior of teenagers. Trying to keep teens from having sex (age of the partner be damned) is even more of a futile effort than the drug war.

Statutory rape laws are not about trying to limit the behavior of teens, they are directed at adults who would seduce teens.

This.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: K1052
I submit the laws in practice do nothing to limit the behavior of teenagers. Trying to keep teens from having sex (age of the partner be damned) is even more of a futile effort than the drug war.

Statutory rape laws are not about trying to limit the behavior of teens, they are directed at adults who would seduce teens.

But they end up wrongfully applied to teens as well as we have seen because laws are usually enforced to the word and not the in spirit which they were written.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: K1052
I submit the laws in practice do nothing to limit the behavior of teenagers. Trying to keep teens from having sex (age of the partner be damned) is even more of a futile effort than the drug war.

Statutory rape laws are not about trying to limit the behavior of teens, they are directed at adults who would seduce teens.

But they end up wrongfully applied to teens as well as we have seen because laws are usually enforced to the word and not the in spirit of which they were written.

An 18 year old is expected to know better than to have sex with a teen whose age is below the point where they are legally permitted to give consent. We have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to when a person is expected to be responsible about the laws at hand. 18 is fine.

 

[StageLeft]

So if a 30 year old convinces a 7 year old to let him have sex with her in exchange for a box of chocolate it's ok? Fvck me.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: K1052
I submit the laws in practice do nothing to limit the behavior of teenagers. Trying to keep teens from having sex (age of the partner be damned) is even more of a futile effort than the drug war.

Statutory rape laws are not about trying to limit the behavior of teens, they are directed at adults who would seduce teens.

But they end up wrongfully applied to teens as well as we have seen because laws are usually enforced to the word and not the in spirit of which they were written.

An 18 year old is expected to know better than to have sex with a teen whose age is below the point where they are legally permitted to give consent. We have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to when a person is expected to be responsible about the laws at hand. 18 is fine.

thr prob with that is that 2 people both under the age doing it is fine but the second one of them hits that age limit BAM hes now a pedofile and a rapeist

the law is stupid because its seemingly used wrongly more often then not

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
So if a 30 year old convinces a 7 year old to let him have sex with her in exchange for a box of chocolate it's ok? Fvck me.

Disagreeing where the line should be drawn on age of consent isn't an endorsement of pedophilia.

Personally I think some consideration should be given to moving it to 14-15-16. US age varies by state from 16-18.

 

[waggy]

I had ot check and see who posted this question. i thought it was oh uh.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dbk
Teenagers are prone to making rash decisions.

And the law prevents that how?

Teens who know the law also know that up until a certain age the parents can nail the offender regardless of consent between the two teens. This may not stop the younger teens from making the rash decisions but it does help influence the older teens and adults from making the decision. It takes two to tango.

In my teen years I drank while underage, smoked while underage, and had with a person old enough to be punishable for them under the law.

I submit the laws in practice do nothing to limit the behavior of teenagers. Trying to keep teens from having sex (age of the partner be damned) is even more of a futile effort than the drug war.

The laws don't prevent, they're meant to discourage and mitigate. Young people aren't just smaller adults, they are inexperienced and immature. I'm a strong believer in parental control and responsibility yet I know we need certain laws to help support the parents. We can debate all you want to about the what, when, and where of the laws... but to say we don't need any is adolescent in itself. It's sort of like saying kids will break school rules so why have them?

I submit that the laws do in fact regulate teenage behaviors. I broke about every law as a teenager but I would have been infinitely worse if there were no laws at all.

Regarding statutory rape I think many of the laws on the books are old and silly. If I had any say I would make it so a 19 year old banging a 17 year old is not the crime it is in most places today.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Xavier434
An 18 year old is expected to know better than to have sex with a teen whose age is below the point where they are legally permitted to give consent. We have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to when a person is expected to be responsible about the laws at hand. 18 is fine.

thr prob with that is that 2 people both under the age doing it is fine but the second one of them hits that age limit BAM hes now a pedofile and a rapeist

the law is stupid because its seemingly used wrongly more often then not

I understand, but what exactly are we supposed to do? The law must be clear and without debate over interpretation. There must be a line drawn. It sucks for the 17 year old dating that 15 year old and turning 18 before he/she turns 16 but that's the way it goes. The rest is up for a judge to decide.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dbk
Teenagers are prone to making rash decisions.

And the law prevents that how?

The better question is....

So does the rest of the human race, we don't give them any kind of law saying "oh hey you made a rash decision so the other party is at fault for your stupidity and later regretting a choice you made on the fly".... But for kids thats okay...

Yeah I fully expect the "we have to protect our children" line, but thats a load of crap. The law will stop them from having sex with somebody 18+ just as much as the law will stop a a person from stealing. A person will steal something if they are going to steal it, just like if a teenager wants to have sex with a 25 yr old they will the law won't stop it. If the 25 yr old is even to the point of having sex with a person <18 they will and take the chance.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dbk
Teenagers are prone to making rash decisions.

And the law prevents that how?

Teens who know the law also know that up until a certain age the parents can nail the offender regardless of consent between the two teens. This may not stop the younger teens from making the rash decisions but it does help influence the older teens and adults from making the decision. It takes two to tango.

In my teen years I drank while underage, smoked while underage, and had with a person old enough to be punishable for them under the law.

I submit the laws in practice do nothing to limit the behavior of teenagers. Trying to keep teens from having sex (age of the partner be damned) is even more of a futile effort than the drug war.

The laws don't prevent, they're meant to discourage and mitigate. Young people aren't just smaller adults, they are inexperienced and immature. I'm a strong believer in parental control and responsibility yet I know we need certain laws to help support the parents. We can debate all you want to about the what, when, and where of the laws... but to say we don't need any is adolescent in itself. It's sort of like saying kids will break school rules so why have them?

I submit that the laws do in fact regulate teenage behaviors. I broke about every law as a teenager but I would have been infinitely worse if there were no laws at all.

Regarding statutory rape I think many of the laws on the books are old and silly. If I had any say I would make it so a 19 year old banging a 17 year old is not the crime it is in most places today.

I never said we don't need any laws, merely questioned the standard in this case.

The unrealistic and puritanical views large a part of our society holds is reflected in our drug and sex laws. Most other developed nations don't share the same views and have yet to fall apart so I'd consider examining the results of our laws to be legitimate. Thus far most people can't come up with any further justification than "its the law".

 

[Brovane]

Because our law says at age 18: You're an adult and as a result you have the privilege to vote. Only an adult can have sex with an adult because adults can now make decisions. If you don't like it, simple: move to a country that has a different viewpoint more similar to yours.

However why is it that we regularly charge people younger than 18 as adults for crimes they commit? It seems kind of contradictory to me to say a 15 year is not old enough to consent to sex but this same 15 year can be charged as a adult for criminal activity.