• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is this justice?

CBL4

Master Poster
C
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
2,346
A fourteen year old boy had consensual sex with his twelve year old girlfriend. He was slightly more than 24 months olds which made it a statutory rape. What should his punishment be?

The girl did not tell anyone until she was 17 which meant the boy was now legally an adult. He admitted the sex. He had absolutely no troubles with the law and was a good student. What should his punishment be now?

In a plea bargain, the boy pled guilty and had to serve a short jail term (60 days?) plus a few years of parole. This seems excessive to me but it is only the beginning. He will be a registered sex offender for 15 years from the time of the plea bargain.

In the most bizarre part of the case, for the rest of his life he will be a registered "domestic abuser." In Washington state, if you commit various felony against your spouse or girl/boy friend, you are a registered domestic abuser. Since he "raped" (consensual sex but statutory rape) his girlfriend, he is a domestic abuser. If it had been a one night stand, he would not be on the registry.

So for having sex with his girlfriend at the age of 14, he will always have to register with the police. He will have to tell all employers and landlords about this case. He is ineligible for many jobs and housing e.g. he was not allowed to live in an apartment building because a two year lived there.

BTW, I have no links. I heard the story from the offender and his parole officer verified it.

CBL
 
60 days in jail for raping a 12 year old child seems excessive?

As we've been through repeatedly, 12 month olds, 2 year olds, 6 year olds, 12 year olds, can not give consent, so it is rape, not 'consensual sex'.

Also as pointed out, we don't write our criminal laws to describe the actor, but rather the actions.

Ceteris paribus, it is murder if a 40 year old pulls a trigger or if a 14 year old pulls the trigger.

Likewise, It is rape if a 40 year commits that act, or if a 14 year old commits the act.

The fact that the person comitting the crime is young, or old, or black, or white, etc. shouldn't alter the fact that a particular crime was committed. Those things can be taken into account during other portions of the CJ process, such pre-trial diversion, plea bargaining, or sentencing.
 
crimresearch said:
60 days in jail for raping a 12 year old child seems excessive?
Click to expand...

There was no rape, and the other person involved was 14.

As we've been through repeatedly, 12 month olds, 2 year olds, 6 year olds, 12 year olds, can not give consent, so it is rape, not 'consensual sex'.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy.
 
As always, feel free to cite some facts to back up whatever assertions you are making.

Or provide us with whatever definitions you are using to draw your conclusions.

You could start with your definitions for 'age of consent' and 'rape'.

And 'dichotomy'.
 
crimresearch said:
As always, feel free to cite some facts to back up whatever assertions you are making.

Or provide us with whatever definitions you are using to draw your conclusions.

You could start with your definitions for 'age of consent' and 'rape'.

And 'dichotomy'.
Click to expand...

Talking, in this case posting, to yourself isn't a good sign.
 
Originally posted by DaratHave you got a link to the story? I'd like some more details before I comment.
Click to expand...
No, I cannot. I am a landlord and the man in question came to me and my partners as a tenant. He originally went to some landlord friends of ours but he was not able to rent a place because of a two year living there.

When we heard his story, we were sceptical. We called his parole office and she verified the gist of it. We looked at the state laws and discovered it was quite plausible. The domestic abuse registry part is clearly spelled out once the statutory rape (in Washington it was 3rd degree rape or something) conviction occurred with a girlfriend.

He has been an ideal tenant.

CBL
 
Originally posted by Tony
There was no rape, and the other person involved was 14.
Click to expand...
I agree that morally there was no rape but legally it is a different story.

The girl was 12.

CBL
 
crimresearch said:
As we've been through repeatedly, 12 month olds, 2 year olds, 6 year olds, 12 year olds, can not give consent, so it is rape, not 'consensual sex'.
Click to expand...

Nor can 14 year olds give consent. Thus, neither was able to consent to the act.

He is not being charged because she was under the age of consent. If that were the case, it would be both being charged. So why is he being singled out? I see two possible explanations. 1) He is male. 2) He is older.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I will assume it is because he is older.
 
CBL4 said:
I agree that morally there was no rape but legally it is a different story.

The girl was 12.
Click to expand...

But the boy was 14, and also unable to consent. Why is he the one being charged and not her? She also had sex with an underage person.
 
crimresearch said:
As we've been through repeatedly, 12 month olds, 2 year olds, 6 year olds, 12 year olds, can not give consent, so it is rape, not 'consensual sex'.
Click to expand...
It's true that 12-year-olds cannot give consent under US law. However, it might be reasonable to suppose that a 14-year old, who also cannot give consent, might not reasonably be expected to understand or appreciate that point of law to the extent we expect an 18-year old to. If we're not going to hold children responsible for their sexual "choices" on the entirely reasonable theory that their "choice" is not meaningful, might it not also be reasonable to extend that standard to both parties if they are both underage?
 
Dammitall, pgwenthold's posts weren't there when I composed the above. I apologize that the effect of those posts in order seemed to be piling on.
 
What bothers me about cases like this is the sudden cutoff. If the girl had been just a little bit older, it wouldn't have been a crime at all (I'll refrain from commenting on a law that greenlights having sex with a 12-year-old under any circumstances).

Unless you're arguing that something magical happens in those days or weeks, it seems absurd that there should be so small a difference separating a perfectly legal activity from a felony.

Jeremy
 
pgwenthold said:
But the boy was 14, and also unable to consent. Why is he the one being charged and not her? She also had sex with an underage person.
Click to expand...

That thought occurred to me, too, but the OP said, "He was slightly more than 24 months olds which made it a statutory rape." From this, I think you can infer that there are exceptions built into the statute that mean it wasn't illegal on her end. I'd have to know what state we're talking about.

Jeremy
 
What would be 'illegal on her end'? Being the vicitm of a rape?

Are you seriously saying that a victim should be charged criminally for their 'part' in the crime?


One more time, 12 year olds cannot give consent.

Under the existing legal definitions and elements, that make it a rape, not sex between two consenting people.
 
manny said:
It's true that 12-year-olds cannot give consent under US law. However, it might be reasonable to suppose that a 14-year old, who also cannot give consent, might not reasonably be expected to understand or appreciate that point of law to the extent we expect an 18-year old to. If we're not going to hold children responsible for their sexual "choices" on the entirely reasonable theory that their "choice" is not meaningful, might it not also be reasonable to extend that standard to both parties if they are both underage?
Click to expand...


The legal age/mental standard for giving consent, and the legal standard for knowing right from wrong and being held accountable for voluntary criminal actions are two entirely different things.
 
crimresearch said:
Making what illegal? Being the vicitm of a rape?

Are you seriously saying that a victim should be charged criminally for their 'part' in the crime?


One more time, 12 year olds cannot give consent.

Under the existing legal definitions and elements, that make it a rape, not sex between two consenting people.
Click to expand...

The question is whether the 14-year-old was capable of giving consent, which is unclear from the original post. If neither person could consent, why the different treatment? Why was the older, male participant singled out for punishment?

Should the older of the two always bear the full brunt of the punishment? Or is it always the male (assuming there is one...or just one) who's to blame?

In other words, there is concern of a double standard being applied here. It all hinges on what the law in that state says about fourteen-year-olds.

Jeremy
 
crimresearch said:
The legal age/mental standard for giving consent, and the legal standard for knowing right from wrong and being held accountable for voluntary criminal actions are two entirely different things.
Click to expand...
Right, but why? In the case of statutory rape, the thought as I understand it is that a 12-year old can't meaningfully grant consent because of the very real prospect of an older authority figure (or presumed authority figure) manipulating the younger person's feelings into "consent" to sex -- rape. I think in the case of a 12-year old and a 14-year old the 24 month statute apparently in play in this case is too rigid and doesn't take into account the possibility that neither actor was able to understand the consequences of their actions under the law.

Hey, if it's an 18-year old and a 12-year old, lock him up and throw away the key. A 16-year old and a 12-year old? Probably. a 14-year old? IMO, not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom