Posted on 01/20/2011 6:24:25 PM PST by SmithL
A defendant charged with sexually abusing a child under 14 by using threats or coercion can't argue that the victim consented, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday, resolving a 27-year dispute over the meaning of California's molestation laws.
Most molesting cases are charged under a law that makes it a crime to commit a "lewd or lascivious act" on a child under 14, who is considered incapable of consenting freely. Thursday's case, from Santa Clara, involved a more serious charge, molestation through force or duress.
A defendant convicted under that law faces a mandatory prison term of up to 10 years, or 20 years to life if the victim is injured. The maximum sentence for other molesting charges is eight years.
The court upheld Jaime Vargas Soto's convictions and 12-year sentence for molesting his 12-year-old cousin and her 11-year-old friend in 2005.
Prosecutors said Soto, then 19, had hugged and groped both girls over their objections, pressed his body against theirs and locked the door of his car when his cousin tried to leave. The defense argued that both girls were lying and also denied that Soto had used force or duress.
A state appeals court overturned Soto's convictions on the most serious charges, saying the trial judge had wrongly instructed the jury that consent is not a defense to molestation by duress. The court relied on a series of appellate rulings since 1984 that said a defendant charged with using duress - threats or coercion that overcame the victim's will - can claim that the minor freely consented.
In a 4-3 decision Thursday, the state's high court rejected those rulings.
"The victim's consent is not a defense to the crime of lewd acts on a child under age 14 under any circumstances," . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
ONLY 12 years??? Really?
But it’s Okay if you’re a TSA agent?
Amazing.
I think it should be the death penalty whenever someone has sex with a minor. Think maybe that would have a deterrent affect?
What I find amazing is when I was a teen, every guy knew 16 and under was considered jail bait..Their dads let them know the law. There should be no doubt about jail bait...but the 60’s and “let it all hang out” made people stupid. Along with if it feels good its OK.
That was back when people had more than one brain cell
Thats for sure. :O)
For people who are that sick and depraved, no. The death penalty would not deter them. It would reduce repeat offenders though.
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.