statutory rape & age of Consent

Well in terms of Lit, since it is a US based site, generally people assuming anything under 18 is too young.

Outside of that, I'm not sure what you're really asking.
 
sonofabeeech said:

I think if the adult is less than 2 1/2 years older then the minor there shouldn't be a problem.
So what do you think?

Actually what we think is irelevant. Its what the prosecuting attorney thinks that matters. Most states have guidelines, like not charging SR if the age difference is less than 3 years etc. But its really up to the attorney to make that call. The guidelines are just that, guidelines, not laws.
 
I have a friend, who has a 14 year daughter that is pregnant by a guy over 18 that in Ohio, they can't charge him with rape. They can however, charge him with contributing to the delinacy (sp?) of a minor.

Forgive my spelling, haven't had my first cup of coffee yet.
 
Missingmeds said:
I have a friend, who has a 14 year daughter that is pregnant by a guy over 18 that in Ohio, they can't charge him with rape. They can however, charge him with contributing to the delinacy (sp?) of a minor.

Forgive my spelling, haven't had my first cup of coffee yet.

Really? I though OH was 17???
 
Re: Re: statutory rape & age of Consent

Bobmi357 said:
Actually what we think is irelevant. Its what the prosecuting attorney thinks that matters. Most states have guidelines, like not charging SR if the age difference is less than 3 years etc. But its really up to the attorney to make that call. The guidelines are just that, guidelines, not laws.


This is so true. I work in the Social Services field, and we see this quite a bit. Not only does it come down to the age difference between participants (in California, typically, it is 5 years) it also comes down to how much time the DA wants to spend on the case and if s/he thinks the case is worth prosecuting.

For example, in So Cal we have a number of young Hispanic girls (14+) who come to this country, meet a man in his 20s, and moves in with him (it is illegal for her to marry him in this country, and her parents are usually still in her native country so they cannot offer consent). When she comes to the hosptial to give birth, a report is filed, but the DA will not prosecute usually because 1.) there are just too many of these cases, 2.) these cases normally expend more effort/money than they are worth, and 3.) it places an even bigger responsibility on society in that if the man is imprisoned, the young girl and her baby must now receive government aid.

So, it comes down to how easily a DA believe s/he can prosecute a particular rather than if a wrong was truly committed, in most cases.

But, um....just how does this relate to "How To"???
 
Re: Re: Re: statutory rape & age of Consent

SexyChele said:
....snip.....But, um....just how does this relate to "How To"???

"How to avoid getting busted for statutory rape?" lol
 
Damn, the little troll deleted all his posts, and I didn't even think to quote him. Bad Dollface!!:mad:

I guess our suspicions were right on target.
 
dollface007 said:
Damn, the little troll deleted all his posts, and I didn't even think to quote him. Bad Dollface!!:mad:

I guess our suspicions were right on target.

Yep. Somehow I suspect he's gone back hiding under his rock. Makes you really wonder why he thought there was a problem with the age of consent?
 
Bobmi357 said:
Yep. Somehow I suspect he's gone back hiding under his rock. Makes you really wonder why he thought there was a problem with the age of consent?

yeah, seeing as his post wasn't so much a question as a gripe, and seemed very well-researched. also, he didn't seem to want to answer my question about his motivation.

It's not like there's some big nationwide debate on repealing the unjust laws on statutory rape (outside of NAMBLA, that is).
 
its 16 here in australia, and i think thats a pretty fair age. although i still think there are many kids that age that arent responsible enough to have sex
 
Well I find the American way wierd. By your laws its ok for a 13 year old and 17 year old to have sex, but not a 17 year old and an 18 year old?!?

And what if two 17 years olds were sexually active, but one is a few months older. So when one turns 18, its suddenly illegal for a little while until the other turns 18?!?!

Well I get it in general. I just like pointing out little flaws. :p
 
In most places in America they have rules for that sort of thing, in Washington, the rule is 2 years so 16 and 18 is cool. But in a lot of places state laws haven't been changed since the nation was founnded by the religiously oppressed, as opposed to the Aussies whose prison colony beginnings led to a more open society (just kidding, the brits used the americas as prison colonies too).
 
cryptictravler said:
In most places in America they have rules for that sort of thing, in Washington, the rule is 2 years so 16 and 18 is cool. But in a lot of places state laws haven't been changed since the nation was founnded by the religiously oppressed, as opposed to the Aussies whose prison colony beginnings led to a more open society (just kidding, the brits used the americas as prison colonies too).

Perhaps you're speaking of DC, because that's not the law in Washington State. The law is if one person is 16 or 17, they may have sex with someone who is up to 5 years older...21 and 22, respectively, without prosecution on statutory rape or molestation charges. Other laws apply for mental disabilities and sex under 16.
 
The whole age difference thing seems very strange from this side of the Atlantic. Over here once you reach the age of consent (16), you can have sex with anyone you like, no matter what age they are.
 
In the US its the same -- once over the age of consent, the age difference doesn't matter. The statutory rape statutes vary by state, and of course there is always discretion as to what to prosecute. I think some of the people posting here may have the law slightly wrong -- and for that matter, the police and prosecutors don't always get the law correctlyewither.
 
Back
Top