Posted on 11/26/2006 10:21:45 AM PST by wagglebee
It just isn't worth the trouble to become POTUS these day's....
That's why there are statutory rape laws so that it doesn't matter what the girls thinks or says about if she's underage the guy does time.
First and foremost, I'm not a lawyer (yet--only a pre-law student), nor do I live in AZ. Second, I'll try to explain this as best as I can (though any lawyers or law students in the audience--do feel free to add on or correct me) 8^)
Having said that, I don't think it was liberals who wrote such laws. Nor is it "fishy"--although at first glance it does appear something isn't right.
The key principles is in how the statute defines 'sexual contact' and the age of consent (how old one has to be in order to be considered able to consent to sexual activity)--both are defined specifically in each state.
In your case, Arizona defines the age of consent (AOC) at 18 and broadly defines 'sexual contact' to include most any contact with genitalia (there are obvious exceptions--e.g. the doctor's office)
Knowing this, we can figure out what the law means. So, going back to your example...
Under the law, the 17 year old girl cannot legally consent to having anyone touch her breast (age of consent at work), not to mention that touching the female breast is considered 'sexual contact' under the law (sexual contact definition at work).
And because the girl cannot consent, it's considered statutory rape. Thus the stiff penalty--by legal definition, the perpetrator is in fact a rapist.
Interestingly enough, I've heard of cases in a few states (including mine) where the state attorney reviews the cases and generally (as a rule of thumb) doesn't charge most teens caught, er, together so long as both parties are under 18 and within three or four years of each other (e.g. a 16 and a 15 year old), and the parents don't press for charges.
Another thing to consider is whether such contact is a felony or misdemeanor. To use an example, Wisconsin's AOC is also 18. Sexual contact with a minor under 16 is a felony and gets one prison time. However, if the minor(s) in question is/are 16 or 17, it's a misdemeanor punishable by nine months in the county jail and/or a $10,000 fine.
In your case, I would presume that AZ has a similar setup and thus the 15 year old could be charged with a felony and the 17 year old a misdemeanor (though a bit of a stretch, you could argue a felony charge by way of her parts touching his hand)
If one of the parties is over 18 or there is a larger than three or four year gap, then there's no exception.
Is it perfect? Far from it. But IMHO, there aren't any better ways of rectifying the issue--so this is what we have.
Hopefully, this answers your question...8^)
*sigh* Thanks for that very rational post! Can't believe you haven't been flamed for it yet.
Another problem with it is, is that "Once tried as an adult, always tried as an adult for any other crime even if you are a juvenile." I know that most of the time it is thrown out but if a kid who is just messing around one day and ends up having his entire life ruined because of it is pretty bad and I think the law should be changed to something a little less harsh.
LOL!!! Your government school systems actually "teach" that?!? The ACLU will put a stop to religion ("the devil") being brought into the classroom. Please give them a call to straighten this out.
No wonder so many kids graduate unable to read and write - they have government school curriculum that focus on silliness rather than reading/writing/arithmetic. And why wouldn't a competent teacher quit is they had to tell kids that "sex is the devil and will get you killed?" What kind of moron "teachers" are these?
This is about as bad as expelling government school kids for drawing pictures of guns!
My sarcasm was obviously lost on you. The Canadian school system is arguably even more deficient than the US system. I was just pointing out what abstinence education amounts to the way that many "conservatives" preach it.
Then I'm guessing it isn't even going to court--there's a good chance because of the similarity in age and both under 18 the state's attorney might be looking the other way.
"The minimum sentence of a 15 year old having sex is 5.2 years,"
However, as you're well aware, the 15 year old must be charged as an adult, go through adult preliminary proceedings, be tried as an adult, and be found guilty by 12 of his peers. IMHO, the state attorneys figure they have bigger fish to fry, so long as the kids are otherwise keeping out of trouble...
As for incest, I agree that needs to be raised quite a bit. In the state I live in (WI), it's a class C felony--meaning a term not to exceed 40 years and/or a fine not to exceed $100,000, or both. (Incest between adults is a class F felony--up to 12.5 years in prison and $25k fine)
"Another problem with it is, is that "Once tried as an adult, always tried as an adult for any other crime even if you are a juvenile." I know that most of the time it is thrown out but if a kid who is just messing around one day and ends up having his entire life ruined because of it is pretty bad and I think the law should be changed to something a little less harsh."
Here's where something called discretion comes in--though generally you are correct (most often with repeat offenders).
Generally, if it's a kid with their first or second run-in with the law and everything else points to their being a good kid, they may be charged and placed in juvy hall rather than be waived to adult court.
However, there are also limits as to who and what can be waived to adult court--IIRC, not all crimes can be waived (though big ones like rape, murder, armed robbery, serious assault & battery, etc. can and usually do). Not to mention that kids under 14 cannot be waived into adult court except for the most heinous crimes (e.g murder)
In short, this discretion relies on three things:
-The prior history of the kid
-The crime allegedly committed, including its severity
-The age of the defendant
Well then it sounds like Hillary was right. I does take a village to raise a child. Sad, very sad.
Also, wasn't the traditional cure for a man caught sleeping with your daughter a shotgun marriage?
About 35 years ago I asked a friend of mine
"Is it going to be a shotgun wedding"?
He said "yes but it's formal her daddy has a white shotgun"
Oh yes they should. One has to wonder why he feels that way.
To the liberal mindset abstinence is not even a viable alternative. In their world they "know" that there is only the option of engaging in sexual activity, and the cure is just to provide the means of avoiding pregnancy. They don't care about the psychological trauma that results from young boys and girls engaging in sexual behaviors. I truly believe that the liberals in our country want young boys and girls engaging in sexual activity, which is why we have sex forced into our faces every day. That is the real problem in this country when it comes to children and sex.
How true: "It's a lack of education in morals, not sex, that's the problem."
The end of the article sounds like a sales promotion for Planned Parenthood.
Although that is important, abstinence taught at home, by loving parents, is much more so. I pity the child who learns about sex and morality only at school.
How would these girls feel better if they lost their virginity to a lout when they were drunk if they were 16 rather than 14 or 15??? I don't think this article gets to the heart of the problem, which more "sex education" isn't going to solve. This is a country where topless "page 3" girls are in mass circulation newspapers, where the expectation is that young girls will "do it."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.