Talk:Statutory rape/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge?

I added what I like the call the "passive age of consent" versus the "active age of consent" definition. I also outlined the idea that there are differences between a violation of the AOC, statutory rape, and a differently set AOC for positions of authority. Other related notes concerning editing may be found in the discussion section for Age of Consent I believe that this article and the age of consent article should likely be merged in time, but both may mature more effectively separately. Jimbobjoe 08:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I re-established this as its own article for a couple of reasons. For one, because a number of articles link directly here and the redirect maked it more difficult to find this discussion. More importantly though, is the issue of NPOV. Redirecting this article to the one about rape in general implicitly asserts the POV that "statutory rape" is indeed a form of rape. But this places a 21 year old New Yorker with a 17 year old lover in the same general category as someone who violently sexually assaults someone. I think a large majority of people, even if they felt that the 21 year old in question was doing something wrong, would consider these two situations to be entirely different. And in the articles which link to this page, it is discussed as somthing different. Furthermore, there's no concencus on what the age of consent should be set at (the U.S. states don't even agree with eachother) or if there should even be such laws. --Blackcats 00:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

edited the part aboput varying age of consent laws to say "in the US" -Unknown

Indiscretion?

Strange Circumstances: Regarding my edits; I feel that referring to a sexual practice that could be executed responsibly (specifically one-night stands) as a sexual indiscretion is a clear violation of the neutral point of view requirement on Wikipedia. Corvun, plain and simple, I don't believe that this complies to the NPOV rule. I want to start the process by agreeing to mediation. No reason we cannot resolve this like adults. --The Supervert 07:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is this a "clear violation" of the neutral point of view requirements on Wikipedia? I'm forced to wonder what you think the word "indiscretion" means and why you equate it with a moral judgement. If you for some reason find that word objectionable (though I can't imagine why you would, perhaps you've heard it mainly in contexts which were trying to make moral judgements in a "nice" way), then by all means replace it. My objection has nothing to do with the removal of the word "indiscretion" but to the radical restructuring of the whole paragraph, use of very odd grammar (such as shifting between the singular and plural when referring to a single person) and the failure to avoid weasel words. Well, actually I'd consider "indiscretion" a weasel word itself, but I'm obviously not reading into the word any of the things you are. I don't see where you're finding any kind of POV, nor do I even have the slightest idea what POV you think is being expressed or how you think the word is making some kind of moral or character judgement, especially when the first few sentences specifically denounce the idea of sexual indiscretions having anything to do with what you seem to think the word implies. Thus far this whole thing has looked to me like someone randomly deleting/altering text and trying to stir up trouble over non-issues. --Corvun 08:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

And I do not see why you have to get so insanely frantic over one paragraph, and cry "vandalism." The fact that you don't agree with an edit does not make it vandalism. Now, if I had written in 72-point font, "LOL COCKS HAY LETZ ALL RAPE DA' KIDZ ALKHJADHKLJSGDH" and attached a photograph of hardcore pornography, then yes, I can see where it would warrant two reverts. I also think that you need to reconsider your stance on how you handle grammatical imperfection. Rather than go off on tangents, how about suggesting ways for people to re-word it? If you want Wikipedia to improve, simply scaring people you don't like away with condescending arrogance isn't the way to accomplish it. In short, lighten up. --The Supervert 16:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine, I will lighten up. You're completely right, I did over-react, and I apologize. --Corvun 04:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Recent change

I removed the sentences "Such extreme consequences, all too common in the United States, are considered barbaric in many other western cultures, most of which enforce a lower age of consent than anywhere in the United States. For example, in Canada the age of consent is 14."

First, it lacks citation. Second, it is innaccurate, the age of consent varies widely across the globe and even inside of the United States consent varies across the nation. Third, the addition lacks the neutral POV required of a wiki entry. Fourth, prison rape and abuse of child abusers is an unintended effect of incarceration and not an official punishment, and occurs in many countries, even Canada, when inmate populations find out convicted sex offenders are guilty of child molestation. --SNJ 10:17, April 27, 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed "one-night stands" to "anonymous sexual encounters". The reason I chose to use the term "sexual indescretion" was because a one-night stand is typically done at the spur of the moment or when one's usual faculties are inhibited (such as by alcohol), isn't planned for, and isn't typically gone about in a careful manner. While one might take precautions, such as wearing a condom, there is still risk involved: the other involved party could be (as the point the paragraph is making) lying about his/her age, lying about his/her name, or place of origin, or pretty much anything else, being untruthful about sexual history, or even a rapist attempting to victimize the other person, etc., and that one doesn't typically check another's I.D. before such encounters, or request the other present a recent STD check result form, or anything the like. While my use of the term was making no moral judgement, as has previously been accused, it was taking a stance concerning what it means to go about a sexual encounter in a careful way. It is possible that some people consider asking someone's name and age, and using a condom, sufficient precautionary measures, though most would still consider this an indescretion as the other party could very easily be lying (not to mention that if one engages in this sort of activity regularly, rather than treating it as an indiscretion, condoms will not provide adequate protection as they are not 100% effective and may easily break). Additionally, (and this is probably the most important part) it is possible to have a "one-night stand" with someone that one actually knows very well but has had no previous sexual encounters with nor plans to in the future, though it is debatable if this kind of "one-nighter" would qualify as a "stand", implying standing the other party up by disappearing anonymously. Because of this ambiguity, I therefore replaced "one-night stand" with the less ambiguous "anonymous sexual encounters", as sex with anonymous partners would be by the very definition of the word an "indiscretion", since it implies making no attempt whatever to take any descretionary steps before entering into such an activity, and thus logically provides opportunity for exactly what the paragraph states, in addition to dozens if not hundreds of other potential dangers. --Corvun 05:32, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

"condoms will not provide adequate protection as they are not 100% effective and may easily break". Methinks you need to look at more current studies on condom use, though I'm not surprised to see just about anyone feeling that way with the misinformation that generally floats around about them. One very large, well-regarded study (cited in this one as a source for information about errors on condom use in federally-funded abstinence-only sex education curricula) showed that proper, consistent condom use resulted in a 0% infection rate of HIV (the study followed couples where one partner was HIV positive and the other HIV negative, where the people as a whole had intercourse a total of 15,000 times, still with no infections of the HIV-negative partners). While it is true that "typical use" of condoms results in a 14-15% pregnancy rate over the course of a year, this is NOT the people who use it consisently and properly, who have a pregnancy rate over that same amount of time of between 2% and 3% (so, it would seem that it's not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy, sure, but seems to be considerably more effective at preventing HIV, which I would actually consider a much greater worry!). Also, good quality, modern latex condoms do NOT "easily break", at least not during the actual act, though there has been some weird stuff in the past where a certain kind of lube broke up the latex coating on a small level leading to less effectiveness, and certainly, if you fail to put the condom on before penetration or fail to use it properly, it can end up useless. However, those are generally special cases. </nerdout>

By the way, while I can see how you'd be a little confused about the way your use of the term "indiscretion" was taken, I can see the other editor's point; "indiscretion" goes beyond saying "it wasn't well-planned", it really does sound like a polite way of saying "improper behavior" :P. (Also, just to play devil's advocate for a little while, I'd like to note that in many species, "anonymous sexual encounters" are normal, and that even in humans, there's evidence to suggest that women who are more sexually active and with more partners are statistically more likely to have a better immune system than those who aren't, not to mention the biological advantage to varying the genes you combine yours with, implying potential evolutionary advantages to such "indiscretions" for some individuals :P ). Runa27 18:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Different jurisdictions

Should there be mention of cases where a legal marriage under one jurisdiction would be regarded as statutory rape in another. (For instance Jerry Lee Lewis and Myra Gale Brown.)

Yes, but we have to get the legalities right. One of the constitutional issues that comes up in the context of same-sex marriage is that states have to honor each other's marriages. Alienus 15:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

~How about a list of different states' ages of consent? -Unknown

Note that it is legal for a 14-year-old to marry an adult in Texas (which also constitutes emancipation) with parental consent, but illegal for that same minor to have sex with an adult if they are not married. I believe there should be mention of this apparent discrepancy in the article.

Sexual interactions amongst minors?

What happends under U.S. law (stste of California) if a minor "rapes" another minor. For example what happends if a 15 year old male rapes a 15 year old girl? What type of felony would this be? I think that the article adresses elder people raping younger children, but does not adress rapes by children of the same age. Alse, what would happen if a 10 year old boy rapes a 14 year old girl? I read somwhere that the age difference hhas to be 4 years older here, but what if 4 years yonger?--67.49.215.31 05:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk is not to offer legal advice. I recommend you speak to a lawyer. -Will Beback 05:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but it might be relevant to a Statutory Rape article to mention age similarity laws. -[Anon]-

I think the question raises a nice piece of nomenclature. The question;

"For exaMPLE WHAT HAPPENDS IF a 15 year old dude rapes a 15 year old girl?"

Probably means "What happens if two 15 year olds have consensual sex?" It probably does not mean "What happens if a 15 year old male has sex with a 15 year old female against her will?" The confusion only arises when consensual acts are called "rape".

Assuming the first meaning, the answer in Victoria, Australia, is that (leaving aside questions of marriage & mistaken belief about the child's real age) one commits an indictable offence if one sexually penetrates a child under 16. Consent is not a defence if one is more than two years older than the victim. However, if one is that close in age and the acts are consensual, there is no offence. Does that help? Avalon 13:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Two people, both under the age of consent, having sex with one another can be prosecuted, but it is not statutory rape. It is mentioned in a post above, but needs to be made clear in the article and the age of consent article, that statutory rape and age of consent are not the same thing, and importantly (because this is where most confusion is involved) are not necessarilly even related. The age of consent can be say, 16; a 17y.o. and a 16y.o. with one another is perfectly legal. But an 18y.o. with a 17y.o. could be statutory rape. Often, statutory rape is anyone over 18 with anyone under 18 - regardless of the age of consent. It is not necessarily someone over the age of consent having sex with someone under the age. - Matthew238 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger discussion

The merger discussion is underway on the AoC talk page if you want to join in. --Monotonehell 09:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a law that states minors and adults can't date? -Unknown

I'm not aware of that state it technically. It is illegal to meet a minor with expectations of sex, however, and dates might be interpreted as that in court. If you went on a date to an opera or movie or dinner with her parents, as opposed to one's house or a private party or driving out in the country at night, it would probably be construed as innocent enough. Although, if you do it against parents' wishes, they could try to press charges for kidnapping. I'm not sure how the difference between that and the minors becoming runaways is though. Perhaps a lawyer contributing could better clarify. Tyciol 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

Why is it called statutory rape? If it is rape that violates a statute, then all rape is statutory rape.

To distinguish it from the unqualified term "rape" which in a legal sense means to use force or the threat of force to coerce someone to have sex against their will. "Statutory rape" in the legal sense means that one of the parties is considered unable to give informed consent because of their age. It can be argued that having sex with someone who can not give informed consent due to mental or psychological defect could be considered rape, but those cases are usually prosecuted as ordinary rape or sexual assault.Troodon 07:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what it is, but why is it called "statutory" - because it is against "statute", because of a persons "stature"...?

because it is a crime by statute, rather than by common law, like murder, forced sexual intercourse (aka rape) or theft. This should be in the article... Mikedelsol 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is called statutory rape to distinguish it from actual rape, which by definition is forced, and statutory rape is not.

What kind of sex?

Since the term "sex" is thrown around so loosely (sexual intercourse, oral sex, etc.), I am curious to know which kind of sex is considered statutory rape. Is it simply sexual intercourse (anal sex, vaginal sex), or does that crime spread to other forms of sexual contact, not technically considered "sexual intercourse" (oral sex or even sexual contact such as "feeling up")? Any answers would be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joneboy07 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Don't quote me on this, but I believe oral sex, anal sex, and vaginal sex are what constitute statutory rape; I remember from some crime show or another that "feeling up" and its cousins are more clearly defined as molestation rather than rape. Darkwhistle 00:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yarrow

Peter Yarrow was added to the convicted-persons list... I haven't been able to find any primary sources about this... Here is a secondary source: "March 26, 1970 in History: Peter Yarrow (Peter, Paul and Mary) plead guilty to "taking immoral liberties" with a 14 year old girl". While I see enough secondary sources to indicate that this is almost certainly true, I don't see absolute proof from a reliable news source that it's not a rumor. (Also the question, does "taking immoral liberties" (whatever that is) == statutory rape?) Anyway, unless and until a properly sourced version of this is put in the main Peter Yarrow article, I think we better not have it here on WP:BLP grounds. Herostratus 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

All mention of this was removed from the bio too, which I've questioned. There is ample evidence that he was convicted and later pardoned by Jimmy Carter. The only question here is whether the crime he committed is anything like statutory rape. I'm not an expert in the field, but in general I'd say that only actual charges of "statutory rape" should be included. However that standard would exclude several the people now on the list, including Debra Lafave, Mel Reynolds, and Roman Polański. -Will Beback · † · 18:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I see. The absence of that in the Yarrow article was one red flag for me. No it should be sourced not removed from the article. But it should not go in this article until is in his main aricle, I don't think. As to the other point, I don't think that any statute actually says "such-and-such is statutory rape"; it might not even say "such-and-such, with a minor, is rape"; I think that basically unlawful carnal knowledge is the key point, however the legislators in a given state define it; I suspect that "taking immoral liberties" is pretty much "statutory rape", except the lawmakers who made the law Yarrow violated preferred that wording. Herostratus 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the neutrality template?

Ok, here's my question.

Overall the article is VERY informative, NPOV conforming, and is A HECK OF A LOT better then the adolescent sexuality article (Now THAT article needs improvement), anyways.. Why is there a nuetrality banner?

It seems NPOV to me. Just information on the dynamics and differences etc. of statutory rape laws.

My only gripe though is that it's entirely U.S. centric, Maybe we should rename it to

'statutory rape laws in the united states'?

So could someone please be kind enough to explain why there is a big fat nuetrality banner on the top of the page?, I have a mind to remove it myself but I want some info first because i don't really want to get into an edit war or end up removing it when it was there for a good reason.

yours truly, Nateland 20:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put the tag up on August 19 of last year. At the same time I severely redacted the opening paragraph (and not for the first time), which had read

"The term "statutory rape" is used when national and/or regional governments, legally presume people under a certain age to be unable to give informed consent, and therefore define sexual contact with them as a felony regardless of the minor's actual consent."

However, I dunno, maybe the article is OK now, so I'll remove the tag for the time being. If you want to put a {{globalize}} tag on it that would be fine and appropriate, I think. Herostratus 03:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Oh wait, it does have a globalize tag. Well, I think the best thing would be to find and insert info from other countries, if you're willing to do any research in that vein it'd be great, if you're up for it. Herostratus 03:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV In general

What do other editors think of having the Articles related to Abuse template on this page? I can see that one POV would be that having such a template ostensibly labels the article as "abuse" where in some cases there clearly isn't abuse occurring. Whereas an opposing view would say that anyone under the AOC is too young and abuse is inherent in any such activity. --Monotonehell 09:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to not have it. Statutory rape is too fraught a subject to simply be labled abuse. Herostratus 08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable persons convicted of statutory rape section

What purpose does 'outing' of particular individuals serve in the context of this article? This seems like a rather tabloid editorial type of thing. Morbid fascination at best, vilification at worst. I don't think it serves any academic purpose. Any other thoughts? --Monotonehell 09:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't contribute to scholarly understanding of the term, so I removed it. Herostratus 07:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Rationale of statutory rape laws"

Basically, this section is (1) unsourced and (2) sounds like various people's speculations and (3) is an unreadable glorp of text and (4) isn't even true, at least not all of it and (5) is magnet for various people to add their points of view. My inclination is to delete it altogether.

For a section called "Rationale of statutory rape laws" I would like instead to to see quotes from legislators who after all do make the laws and/or quotes from pressure groups which were instrumental in getting the laws passed (which might not be easy since these laws go back quite a long way). I recall reading that the first such law in the USA was made in Massachusetts in colonial times, when some guys had sex with a 9-year-old and the authorities found to their dismay that they hadn't actually broken any law (I don't have a cite for that, though, and I've looked). Meh, anyway, it needs to either be removed or severly redacted, in my opinion. Herostratus 08:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section is horrible. I would add that it is (6) boringly repetitive, and (7) written in a rather non-NPOV style; it feels like the author is trying hard to convince a doubting reader that it is good to have a concept of statutory rape. Deleting it all would be fine, but that would be to start over rather than to bury the subject. It appears to be a reasonable encyclopedic goal to provide the reader with an explanation of why consentual sex with a minor is considered a crime even by people with the (common but sometimes controversial) standpoint that all sexual acts between consenting parties is a private matter which should not be legislated about. Sourcing actual legislative intent would take quite some research, though, as the applicable legislation will be rather old. A possible strategy would be to look for a jurisdiction which changed its age of consent recently enough that the legislature's archives on the decision are available online; the bill is likely to be accompanied with background material including an official summary of the purpose of having an age of consent. –Henning Makholm 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Some states have revised their laws in recent years so the "background" material demonstrating legislative intent is most likely out there. Getting a hold of it might prove tricky since I'm not sure if this kind of material is archived on line. After all, there is usually a lot of testimony (written and oral) on such a controversial subject as this. Storing dozens (or hundreds of hours) of audio--let alone video--testimony would take up huge amounts of storage space (digitally speaking). Transcripts, obviously, would take up far less room. But I don't know how often such testimony is transcribed (I think it has to be to be included in the National Register, the official book that United States Federal laws have to printed in to be valid; until a law is included in the National Register, the law is not yet "on the books." Note: I may have the name of this book wrong.

The general trend has been to lower the AOC to sixteen and to include the "Romeo and Juliet" provisions I mentioned earlier.

The rationale is generally, A.) to keep these matters from clogging the criminal justice system, since prosecuting a 17 yr old from having sex with a 16 yr old is considered by many to be a waste of resources as well a punishing the 17 for life--forcing them to register as a sex offender with the police every time they move--for what is an Class A misdemeanor or an E felony.

B.) To avoid gross miscarriages of justice such a the boy in Georgia who is serving a 10 year term for having sex, when he was 17, with two different 15 year old girls. (GA's legislature has since changed the law, yet, insanely enough, the prosecutor of the boy refuses to agree to allow him to be released from state prison!).

PainMan 00:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Statutory rape

so if a 14 year old girl agrees to go out with a 17 year old boy would that be bad? what if they agreed to have sex, would that be bad as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.62.142 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 1 February 2007

That all depends on where they are, and what the law is there. It's different everywhere. See also Age of consent which has more details on local laws. I'm assuming when you say "go out" you mean engage in sexual intercourse. --Monotonehell 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I wondered also, what if the female wanted you to have sex with her and said she would say you tried to rape her if you didn't. It seems at least American Society would believe her automatically. The snare 09:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Where was the discussion before moving this article to a (grammatically incorrect, miscapitalized) US-specific name? It is true that the content of the article was moderately US-centric, but moving an article is not the way to deal with that - getting the article expanded with a more global view is. The topic of the article is by no means specific to the USA; most or all industrialized countries have laws against sex with children on their books, though naming it as a variant of "rape" may be less common. Even so, as far as I can tell, "statutory rape" is also the term used in Britain, so even the title of the article is not US-specific. This change should not have been made without discussion. –Henning Makholm 14:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As per above, this article needed to be expanded and "Globalized", and possibly merged into Age of consent when stabilized. Moving it off to a strange article name is not the answer to a problematic article. --Monotonehell 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Current issues

Should the Current Issues section be removed? It seems to just be an almost trivial collection of cases in the media without any reference to how these cases are having an effect on lawmakers or public opinion. They are also very US centric. --Monotonehell 01:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be rewritten by I'm not sure that it should be removed wholesale. I think wider coverage of non-US laws should also be included. That's why I included the Age of Consent web site. See footnote 1 in the article.

PainMan 23:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)