18 Year Old Girl Facing Felony for Dating 15 Year Old Girl

[Cosara]

No. They're charging the girl because the obviously committed statutory rape which is a felony.

To say that this was a case of statutory rape is absolutely fucking INSANE

Sorry to rain on your parade, but it's statutory rape and is a felony.

[Wisconsin9]

To say that this was a case of statutory rape is absolutely fucking INSANE

Sorry to rain on your parade, but it's statutory rape and is a felony.

I think he meant that it shouldn't be considered statutory rape.

[Bralia]

They were perfectly fine and consenting. Although I do think they should've waited, it's their decision.
Still, what's the problem with their relationship all of a sudden?

One of them turned 18 . . .

[Cosara]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but it's statutory rape and is a felony.

I think he meant that it shouldn't be considered statutory rape.

Should it be? Yes. There is an age of consent.

Is it? Yes.

My side is this.

[Resora]

Do you think that most fifteen year olds are capable of consenting to sexual intercourse?

I certainly do. Adult-level maturity is not a prerequisite for sexual activity -- they just have to be old enough to avoid facing any psychological or emotional harm from premature sexual activity (the typical reason for AoC laws in the first place). No fifteen year old suffers from the sex itself with people of comparable maturity.

[Cosara]

They were perfectly fine and consenting. Although I do think they should've waited, it's their decision.
Still, what's the problem with their relationship all of a sudden?

One of them turned 18 . . .

And an 18 year old having sex with a minor is a felony.

[Wisconsin9]

I think he meant that it shouldn't be considered statutory rape.

Should it be? Yes. There is an age of consent.

Is it? Yes.

My side is this.

I understand that the problem is that it was legal for them to have sex before 18 but not afterwards.

[Cosara]

Do you think that most fifteen year olds are capable of consenting to sexual intercourse?

I certainly do. Adult-level maturity is not a prerequisite for sexual activity -- they just have to be old enough to avoid facing any psychological or emotional harm from premature sexual activity (the typical reason for AoC laws in the first place). No fifteen year old suffers from the sex itself with people of comparable maturity.

The law kicks the fuck out of this argument. Until you reach the age of consent, you cannot legally consent.

[Grenartia]

Why is this an assumption?

Because..
Man having sex with younger girl/boy: HANG HIM! STONE HIM! YOU FUCKING PEDOPHILE!

woman having sex with younger boy/girl: It's just a harmless relationship. Nothing to see here.


That's basically what happens. Wasn't there a George Lopez episode on this?

You do realize that its not merely a matter of the gender of the older person at work here, do you not? Its also a matter of the fact that, for all intents and purposes, THEY'RE CLOSE TO THE SAME FUCKING AGE.

I would be just as outraged if this were a 50 year old man fucking a 16 year old as I would be if this were a 50 year old woman/person of another gender fucking a 16 year old. But this is not the case. This is a (newly turned) 18 year old fucking a 15 year old. The age difference is less than 4 years, it doesn't fucking matter, and pursuing charges is not only discriminatory (because EVERYBODY here knows that if the 18 year old were a guy, nobody would even bat a fucking eye), but a fucking waste of the entire state's time and money.

Do you think the world is so black and white that anyone who disagrees with you on this one specific issue must fit into the category of "Libs" and must be your political rival?

Having a problem with people being punished for crimes they commit is the liberal speciality.

It shouldn't be a crime any more than, as another poster alluded to, Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat.

Rare? They exist?

Occasionally, yes.

The only reason we have laws like this is to keep 40 year olds from fucking 12 year olds, because 40 year olds, being in a position of relative authority, have the capacity to abuse said authority. However, this problem does NOT EXIST between two high school students, or a high school student and a recent HS graduate. This law inherently prevents two students who feel they love each other from expressing their love for each other. If that is not oppressive, I don't know what the hell is.

Do you think that most fifteen year olds are capable of consenting to sexual intercourse?

With their peers, yes, I do.

[Bralia]

One of them turned 18 . . .

And an 18 year old having sex with a minor is a felony.

Which is bullshit. It's legal for two minors to have relations, last I checked . . .

[Lemanrussland]

http://www.westpalmcriminallawyers.com/ ... uliet-law/

What is illegal about this?

[Cosara]

And an 18 year old having sex with a minor is a felony.

Which is bullshit. It's legal for two minors to have relations, last I checked . . .

Not in California.

[Wisconsin9]

Which is bullshit. It's legal for two minors to have relations, last I checked . . .

Not in California.

Except they're not in California.

[Bralia]

Which is bullshit. It's legal for two minors to have relations, last I checked . . .

Not in California.

Source? Where can I find this law? You been checking up on me, Cosara?

[Evraim]

With people of similar relative age and maturity? Yeah, or, more to the point, I don't think we can practically prevent it.

However, if we'd get real sex ed, I might be able to say "yes" without reservation.

It seems to work all right in Sweden, or so I'm led to believe.

I do agree that it would be quite impossible to prevent. I'm just not sure that closeness in terms of age matters, especially if you have yet to fully develop your rational faculties. You're not an adult until that happens. You shouldn't be able to drink alcohol, use recreational drugs, vote, or volunteer in the military - at least not according to the United States government. Would you be willing to let a fifteen year old perform any of the aforementioned activities? Or does the specific level of maturity matter?

I'm not so certain sexual education can fix this problem. I've heard rather frightening things about Europe in that department.

[Sophian]

I certainly do. Adult-level maturity is not a prerequisite for sexual activity -- they just have to be old enough to avoid facing any psychological or emotional harm from premature sexual activity (the typical reason for AoC laws in the first place). No fifteen year old suffers from the sex itself with people of comparable maturity.

The law kicks the fuck out of this argument. Until you reach the age of consent, you cannot legally consent.

I have a hypothesis that you view sexual activity among teenagers to be as unfavorable as bank robberies, and you are envious of the ability of other humans to "get it".

[Isolated China]

They were perfectly fine and consenting. Although I do think they should've waited, it's their decision.
Still, what's the problem with their relationship all of a sudden?

Most likely, neither of them could legitimately consent before. Now, one of them is facing a penalty because she is old enough for society to begin caring that her partner is probably too young to consent to sexual intercourse.

Even though they had a perfectly fine and legal relationship before? The fact there's a case over this depresses me.

They were perfectly fine and consenting. Although I do think they should've waited, it's their decision.
Still, what's the problem with their relationship all of a sudden?

One of them turned 18 . . .

So? They obviously had a perfectly fine relationship before her 18th birthday. It's not like she's 27.

Rare? They exist?

No.

Of course not over religion.
Kidding.

[quote=Evraim]
I forgot. This is NSG. Rational debates on any subject whatsoever are rare.

Rare? They exist?

Occasionally, yes. [/quote]
Occasionally? I now refute your answer!

[Bralia]

One of them turned 18 . . .

So? They obviously had a perfectly fine relationship before her 18th birthday. It's not like she's 27.

I'm making the exact same point you are.

[Cosara]

Not in California.

Source? Where can I find this law? You been checking up on me, Cosara?

There's some sources at the bottom of this page.
http://m.voices.yahoo.com/california-statutory-rape-laws-8784643.html

[Grenartia]

To say that this was a case of statutory rape is absolutely fucking INSANE

Sorry to rain on your parade, but it's statutory rape and is a felony.

Shouldn't be.

I think he meant that it shouldn't be considered statutory rape.

Should it be? Yes. There is an age of consent.

Is it? Yes.

My side is this.

She had consensual sex with a peer. It shouldn't, by any reasonable or sane stretch of the imagination, be considered statutory rape.

One of them turned 18 . . .

And an 18 year old having sex with a minor is a felony.

Yeah, I could see it being reasonably considered a felony if the minor in question were, say, 8, but this is not the fucking case here.

[Evraim]

I certainly do. Adult-level maturity is not a prerequisite for sexual activity -- they just have to be old enough to avoid facing any psychological or emotional harm from premature sexual activity (the typical reason for AoC laws in the first place). No fifteen year old suffers from the sex itself with people of comparable maturity.

And, you would maintain that an average eighteen year old possesses a level of maturity comparable to an average fifteen year old? I would disagree.

Even though they had a perfectly fine and legal relationship before? The fact there's a case over this depresses me.

Yes. It doesn't change the probable fact that neither of them could have consented to sexual intercourse - at least not operating under the current assumptions.

[Isolated China]

So? They obviously had a perfectly fine relationship before her 18th birthday. It's not like she's 27.

I'm making the exact same point you are.

Ah. Apologies, then. I failed to recognize such.

[Bralia]

Source? Where can I find this law? You been checking up on me, Cosara?

There's some sources at the bottom of this page.
http://m.voices.yahoo.com/california-statutory-rape-laws-8784643.html

Either way, it's not relevant to the thread . . . nor is it relevant to me, I haven't been a minor in over 5 years now. And it was never even a problem back then.

[Gideus]

It's good that they're facing equal penalties under the charge but a fifteen year old is old enough to decide if they want to have motherfucking sex.

The problem here is the age of consent; furthermore there is NO WAY TO PROVE THAT THEY HAD SEX WHILE SHE WAS 18. They were dating first when one was 14 and one was 17; that is 100% legal and if they had sex then they cannot be prosecuted. If they did not have sex after the time that she turned 18, she CANNOT BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED. If they can prove this, they can get off scott-free or whatever that term is.

The age of consent laws are fucking ridiculous in most states. No, a twelve year old shouldn't be convinced (and/or allowed) to have sex with a twenty year old. But a fourteen year old and an eighteen year old? In a 100% consenting relationship? There's nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, a fifteen and seventeen year old - they began dating at those ages, if I'm not mistaken - would not be charged. Why should her turning 18 make it a criminal offense?

[Bralia]

I'm making the exact same point you are.

Ah. Apologies, then. I failed to recognize such.

No worries.