Category talk:Statutory rapists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Should Sex Statutory Rapists be Classified with Child Molestors?

My opinion: It depends...

I would have to disagree with placing those convicted of statutory rape with child molestors indiscriminately. Statutory rape laws are always clearly defined so legally there's nothing fuzzy about the distinction. Plus states vary widely in their ages of consent as well as how they treat the "major" in the case. The age of consent varies from 14 to 18 in this country. (In other First World countries, it's lower; in Spain it is 13, changed only a couple of years ago from 12. For the age of consent laws for all 50 states and dozens of countries, see World Wide Ages of Consent)

I think each case would have to be considered individually. If an 18 is convicted of having intercourse with a 17 year old in a state where the age of consent is 18 (e.g. California), is that in anyway similar to sexual acts with an 8 year old? Of course it isn't.

Many of us are descended from teenaged marriages. Take a look in your family Bible (or where-ever the family record of births, deaths, marriages, et al, are kept) and I'll be you'll almost certainly find that one, or more, of your great grandparents was a teenager. My mother's maternal grandmother was 15 when she married my great-grandfather. They were married until she died in the 60s of Alzheimer's.

Until about 150 years ago, it was routine for girls of 13, 14, 15 to marry and start having children. (This may have also had something to do with the much higher rates of maternal mortality in those days.)

In the 15th century, around the War of the Roses, the first non-Royal English duke, Humphrey of Lancaster, married a 12 year old girl. Many much less exalted and much more recent examples can be found.

The distinction, which the law makes by differentiating between child molestation (under whatever name) and statutory rape, is clear. A child (and again the ages differ widely) usually cannot understand "the nature of" sexual acts. This cannot be said of the overwhelming majority of 14-17 yr olds. It's a question of judgement. The state interposes its judgement for giving consent for sex because, it is felt, that under a certain age a teenager is not ready for the burdens of possible parenthood.

Finally, few older persons who marry their underaged partner are ever prosecuted the Matthew Korso case is a rare example. And almost certainly an example of an ambitious prosecutor (Jon Brunning of Nebraska) using a case to get his face on TV and keep it there so he can piously proclaim, "I protect the children, I will always be the guardian and the sentinel to protect the innocense of the most vulnerable members of our society." Blahblahblahblah. If there's been zero media interest in this case, Koso would be out earning a living, paying taxes and taking care of his wife and child. Instead, by putting him in the joint, and almost certainly putting his wife and child on welfare, this Attorney General is going to cost the state of Nebraska as much as $50,000. That's free publicity for his gubenatorial or senatorial campaign. Paid for by the taxpayers of Nebraska. I hope Nebraska voters think about that the next time this guy's before them. PainMan 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)