Triggering: Statutory Rape

I wasn't sure what prefix to add for this thread. So I put in triggering, mainly because it involves the word "rape", but I will expand on that soon. Anyways, I know this would be highly controversial perhaps and please remember: I do not condone pedophilia. It is disgusting and pathetic. Ok, onto the debating bit.

Statutory rape means, as defined by http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com: Sexual intercourse by an adult with a person below a statutorily designated age. A statutorily designated age in the US, for example, is 18 federally. It varies state by state, and a lot of states have broken-down specifics. Also, some are more strict: IE Alabama sentences you to 10-Life for having sex with a 12 year old, but it's a misdemeanor in California and you get a few years.

Anyways, these days, young teenagers (12-14) are having sex and some of them sleep with older guys. Guys beyond the maximum given age that differentiates what is or isn't statutory rape. Sometimes it is actually forcible rape, but in the cases it isn't, it's still called rape. Even if it was the girl's (or boy's) idea, that older person is still charged criminally.

Also, I was just replying to a thread... that thread actually led me to making this thread here. Boys (and girls, but I've never heard of it) who are freshmen in high school or even still in middle school, are capable of rape. I don't mean raping a classmate, because that would still qualify as rape. But suppose a 13 year old boy rapes a 19 year old girl, that boy can't be charged criminally because he's a minor in this case and the girl is the 'rapist', she committed statutory rape.

I'm just wondering, what do you guys think about the law/limitation on sex? I don't mean to go around sleeping with young teens, that's messed up. But if a guy in college and a girl a freshman in high school just happen to have the same level of maturity and anything else that qualifies them as proper boyfriend & girlfriend, should they or should they not be together? Should the law on statutory rape be thrown out?

I don't know, I'm just babbling and I'm scared I might be opening a can of worm or setting up an enternal flame doomed to destroy the Earth... or Teen Help, at the very least.

[Kate*]

The reason minors can't consent to sexual activity is because the law (backed by scientific evidence) has said that they are not mature enough to make the decision to have a sexual relationship because they don't understand the full extent of what that means or the ramifications of it. An adult (thelaw says 18+), has the capacity to understand these concepts and can therefore make a fully informed decision. There's nothing illegal with an adult dating a minor (say ages 18 and 16), but they can date without having sex because the minor cannot consent and may not realize what he/she is getting into even if they think they do.

[Dream]

"But suppose a 13 year old boy rapes a 19 year old girl, that boy can't be charged criminally because he's a minor in this case and the girl is the 'rapist', she committed statutory rape."

I'm pretty sure he will still be charged. He might not be charged as an adult depending on the state, but he can still go to jail for it.

There are some cases where it is pretty ridiculous, i.e. a 18 year old college freshman who does a 17 year old high schooler. In general though, it is a good law because the brains of teenagers haven't really developed and they don't have the life experience either to make good decisions.

Personally, I don't see why people are having sex before 18 anyway. I lost mine at 20.

[Lelola]

Also, I was just replying to a thread... that thread actually led me to making this thread here. Boys (and girls, but I've never heard of it) who are freshmen in high school or even still in middle school, are capable of rape. I don't mean raping a classmate, because that would still qualify as rape. But suppose a 13 year old boy rapes a 19 year old girl, that boy can't be charged criminally because he's a minor in this case and the girl is the 'rapist', she committed statutory rape.

Lol, wut? No, seriously. That is not how the law works. That law involves the consenting adult having sex with a child. A child rapist is still a rapist. Now, they may be able to only to have the trial in the juvie courts though.

I'm just wondering, what do you guys think about the law/limitation on sex? I don't mean to go around sleeping with young teens, that's messed up. But if a guy in college and a girl a freshman in high school just happen to have the same level of maturity and anything else that qualifies them as proper boyfriend & girlfriend, should they or should they not be together? Should the law on statutory rape be thrown out?

The issue is that most teenagers think they are on the same level of maturity and they are not. There are different expectations required of them. If the teenager is on the same level of maturity and would like to be treated like an adult, it is her or his responsibility to graduate high school early, start college, get a job, and emancipate themselves through the courts to be recognized as an adult. As very few teenagers do this, then no they are not on the same level of maturity as someone who is in college is expected to have.

Most states have a "Romeo & Juliet" law where there is a age range with it. I believe mine is 2 years. So the whole 17 and 18 would not be rape.

I still standby that either they can wait for sex till the girl is 18 or try and get her emancipated. Once she is emancipated, she should be mature enough to take care of herself 100% including school, working, and having her own place. They cannot declare themselves as mature as someone who is 18 but not be able to take on the same responsibilities. I know of two or three teenagers who did leave home at sixteen to get a job and do college online. That is 2 or 3 out of thousands that I have met.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Skyways and Starlights

But suppose a 13 year old boy rapes a 19 year old girl, that boy can't be charged criminally because he's a minor in this case and the girl is the 'rapist', she committed statutory rape.

As others have said, I'm afraid that's incorrect. They would be charged as a minor, but under the vast majority of definitions of rape the 13 year old would be charged with rape. The 19 year old would not be charged. The law is not so perverse that the victim of a crime is charged with the crime themselves.

On the wider issue of statutory rape, Katie has already covered what I was going to say very well and I see no need to add to what she wrote.