How old is the woman? If she's within a few years of the B man, then I don't think it's that big a deal. On the other hand, if she's much older, then yeah, she is sleazy.
The Genders are different. If the law understandably can't recognize that on paper it can be recognized in the court of public opinion, and in the discretionary processes inherent in the legal system: prosecutorial discretion as well as the Jury process.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Age of consent is a joke anyway. Most states just roll 2d10 to see what age its okay. I eagerly await the day one needs a test and license to engage in sexual activity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Under CA law, it was NOT statutory rape. She was 19, he was 16. That falls within the acceptable range.
Under CA law, it was NOT statutory rape. She was 19, he was 16. That falls within the acceptable range.
19 & 16? Yeah, I have a hard time seeing Justin as a victim here. YMMV.
Under CA law, it was NOT statutory rape. She was 19, he was 16. That falls within the acceptable range.19 & 16? Yeah, I have a hard time seeing Justin as a victim here. YMMV.
So do I. While the CA age of consent is 18, if the two individuals are within 3 years of age there is no criminal liability, so there isn't going to be a prosecution in this case.
That's kinda messed up that she can sleep with an underage kid with no consequences and then slap him with a paternity suit.
It is more than kinda messed up that some woman I haven't seen in fifteen years can show up and demand (then get) years of back child support. I think that you're conflating the issues -- the fairness of paternity laws is beside the point.
So do I. While the CA age of consent is 18, if the two individuals are within 3 years of age there is no criminal liability, so there isn't going to be a prosecution in this case.Under CA law, it was NOT statutory rape. She was 19, he was 16. That falls within the acceptable range.19 & 16? Yeah, I have a hard time seeing Justin as a victim here. YMMV.
I know a few high school students in Minnesota that wish this was the law here. MN is still a state where 17 and under = statutory, even if one consenting partner is 17 and 3/4, and the other is 18, you still could potentially see fines/probation/jail-time. The whole "three year range increment" thing makes a lot of sense.
Slightly more on topic. Do you think the Biebs would ever own up to it? I mean, who's to say he won't just buy the verdict he wants on the paternity test? He could easily pay the girl, her relatives, the doctors, etc., to all say that the test came out negative, whether it did or not.
|
That's kinda messed up that she can sleep with an underage kid with no consequences and then slap him with a paternity suit.It is more than kinda messed up that some woman I haven't seen in fifteen years can show up and demand (then get) years of back child support. I think that you're conflating the issues -- the fairness of paternity laws is beside the point.
There's no conflation.
He's underaged, she's not.
Under CA law, it was NOT statutory rape. She was 19, he was 16. That falls within the acceptable range.No, legally it doesn't.
Actually, legally it does. The CA age of consent may be 18, but if the two individuals are within 3 years of age there is no criminal liability. Erefore, no statutory rape.
For what it's worth, it would have been legal in Missouri as well. The age of consent is 17 here, and if the child is between 14 and 17 it's only illegal if the adult is over the age of 21.
As to the issue of the paternity suit, the reason that those issues are not related is because paternity and child support are about the best interests of the child product of the relationship. This would seem especially relevant when Mr. Bieber is not treated as a child for prosecution purposes in CA.
There's no conflation.
He's underaged, she's not.
Then what is the relevance of the paternity suit?
That's kinda messed up that she can sleep with an underage kid with no consequences and then slap him with a paternity suit.
Ah, I see your point.
Broken down to either issue, imo it's just not right what a win/win situation this is for her (if true) thanks to California. He will treated like an adult in both cases.
Gotcha. While I personally don't have a problem with a 19-year-old sleeping with a 16-year old (thought that's about the edge of what I'm comfortable with), I understand that others may.
Not to pull the thread too far off topic, I've always found child support to be a little weird. If a rich man fathers a child, he should be responsible for providing a basic level of support, not enough money to support a lavish lifestyle to which the child is supposedly entitled. But again, that's pure opinion. :)
|
|
[Not to pull the thread too far off topic, I've always found child support to be a little weird. If a rich man fathers a child, he should be responsible for providing a basic level of support, not enough money to support a lavish lifestyle to which the child is supposedly entitled. But again, that's pure opinion. :)
I agree 100%.
Age of consent is a joke anyway. Most states just roll 2d10 to see what age its okay. I eagerly await the day one needs a test and license to engage in sexual activity.
Yeech. What happens on the outlier rolls?!
Everyone knows it's half-plus-seven. Anything else is barbaric.
Age of consent is a joke anyway. Most states just roll 2d10 to see what age its okay. I eagerly await the day one needs a test and license to engage in sexual activity.Yeech. What happens on the outlier rolls?!
Everyone knows it's half-plus-seven. Anything else is barbaric.
The states that have a population capable of basic math average out several rolls to prevent such an event. So really, anything north of Oklahoma is looking at around 11+, the rest are more or less followed original method.
Actually, legally it does. The CA age of consent may be 18, but if the two individuals are within 3 years of age there is no criminal liability. Erefore, no statutory rape.Under CA law, it was NOT statutory rape. She was 19, he was 16. That falls within the acceptable range.No, legally it doesn't.The age of consent is 18. Its still a crime, the only difference is whether it is a misdemeaner or felony. Since she was within three years of age to him, it would be a misdemeaner.
"Acceptable range" implies that it isn't a crime (neither a misdemeaner nor a felony). So, no, it didn't fall within acceptable range. If it did, in fact, happen, she committed a crime.
Now, the question is whether the courts should force the victim of a crime to pay the consequences of that crime.
If the sexes had been reversed and a young girl were stuck with a baby as the consequence of a rape, would she have to pay child support if she turned down custody?
Citation? This looks one of your "unique" interpretations.
Actually, legally it does. The CA age of consent may be 18, but if the two individuals are within 3 years of age there is no criminal liability. Erefore, no statutory rape.Under CA law, it was NOT statutory rape. She was 19, he was 16. That falls within the acceptable range.No, legally it doesn't.The age of consent is 18. Its still a crime, the only difference is whether it is a misdemeaner or felony. Since she was within three years of age to him, it would be a misdemeaner.
"Acceptable range" implies that it isn't a crime (neither a misdemeaner nor a felony). So, no, it didn't fall within acceptable range. If it did, in fact, happen, she committed a crime.
Now, the question is whether the courts should force the victim of a crime to pay the consequences of that crime.
If the sexes had been reversed and a young girl were stuck with a baby as the consequence of a rape, would she have to pay child support if she turned down custody?
READ MY POST. Under CA law, if the individuals are within 3 years of age, THERE IS NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY. No criminal liability means SHE CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME.
READ MY POST. Under CA law, if the individuals are within 3 years of age, THERE IS NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY. No criminal liability means SHE CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME.
They did read it. They're still looking for a citation.
California
The age of consent is 18, with a misdemeanor if the minor has 3 or fewer years of difference with the major, and potentially a felony if the major is more than 3 years older. It is worth emphasizing that unlike most other states, the close-in-age rule in California (3 years) do not provide an exception nor provide any defense; it merely lowers the crime to a misdemeanor. Under this law, two minors of the same age could both be prosecuted. Penalties increase if the minor is under 16 and the major is above 21 or if the minor is more than 3 years younger.[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#California
You know, if california has a statute preventing people from profiting from their crimes that could severely limit her child support.
No reason to shout. Discussions about rape are high strung enough.
Do you ever feel like a parent for needing to say stuff like that?
Citation? This looks one of your "unique" interpretations.
This looks like one of your "jumping to conclusions before doing any critical reading" interpretations.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-11-04/bieber-allegati on-statutory-rape-california/51075408/1
Where do you see a conclusion I drew? Also, defensive much?
Where do you see a conclusion I drew? Also, defensive much?
Citation? This looks one of your "unique" interpretations.
This looks like one of your "jumping to conclusions before doing any critical reading" interpretations.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-11-04/bieber-allegati on-statutory-rape-california/51075408/1
You accuse me of routinely making "unique" interpretations (ie. routinely making things up) and didn't expect me to be defensive?
And did you even read the article? It makes it really clear when it says
"In California, someone more than three years older than a sexual partner who is under the age of consent can be charged with a felony. In this case, Yeater's attorney insists that she was within three years of Bieber's age — making her crime only a misdemeanor"
That the three year difference is only for determining "felonies vs. misdemeaners", not "crimes vs. not crimes".
NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY! Furthermore, I grew up in Cali, and I have never heard of a 19 year old getting arresting for SR.
Seriously, all caps is shouting and we don't need that here.
I feel like taking totally unrelated IRL rage out on forum debates. How am I to do this without shouting at people to provoke them so I can shout some more?
Hey, at least I'm honest about it.
If you're serious, we can give you a timeout from the messageboards if you want. 24 hours usually does the trick. We don't need drama or acting out in threads about gun control or rape.
What's sad is that I can't actually say for sure if I'm serious. I think I'll just play some games or watch TV until the mood passes. I'd rather not have any more trouble than I've already caused. I know how I get in these moods, and I don't want to start that mess right now. It's better to be an adult and take a break from the messageboards without you having to make me take a break.
[worm can] Is this really rape though? Yes, I know that legally it is considered such, but as far as I'm concerned this is far and away a different circumstance than someone forced/coerced/incapacitated and then violated sexually. It's two people consensually engaging in sexual activity. It carries little to none of the humiliation, pain, and terror that actual rape victims suffer. If Beiber the superstar has young women throwing themselves at him, I'd say it's a reasonable assumption that he's not suffering much pain and humiliation from the experience.[/worm can]
I can't help but notice in all the furore about this that the fact that Bieber has a supposedly ongoing relationship with 19 year old Selena Gomez has been totally ignored.
Still one good thing that might come from this is that she'll dump him.
[worm can] Is this really rape though? Yes, I know that legally it is considered such, but as far as I'm concerned this is far and away a different circumstance than someone forced/coerced/incapacitated and then violated sexually. It's two people consensually engaging in sexual activity. It carries little to none of the humiliation, pain, and terror that actual rape victims suffer. If Beiber the superstar has young women throwing themselves at him, I'd say it's a reasonable assumption that he's not suffering much pain and humiliation from the experience.[/worm can]
Statutory rape is a joke; maturity and full understanding of the ramifications of engaging in sexual activity should not be decided by an arbritary age limit.
Regardless of how much an underage male may think he wants sex, the fact is that he is not able to give legal consent. Anyone able to give consent who takes advantage of this (that is, any one having sex with a person under the age of 18 with at least three years difference in their ages) is ethically and morally guilty of rape. They should be legally guilty of it as well.
No. If proven they did it, they are ethically and LEGALLY guilty of rape. Morality is an entirely different bag of tricks.
Morality should NEVER be confused with the law. It was a law that you had to turn Jews in, in Nazi Germany, and an order to have them put to death. Neither that law, nor that order, was moral.
I could call myself the president and make a law that every second Thursday, I get to shoot some random guy in the foot. Moral? Just because it's a law? No.
Despite the law, despite the fact that under that law, the average heterosexual boy of 16 cannot lawfully give consent, I guaran-damn-tee ya he's likely to give his full enthusiastic and moral support for the event. I tried to get into an older woman's pants when I was fourteen. I didn't know a single guy my age, except for a couple gay friends, who didn't try like idiot baboons when the opportunity came up. Difference for Beiber is, he's rich and famous and it could potentially work.
None of that changes the law. But you ought to be careful how you throw the work morality around. Remember your own ancestors likely thought it was a good idea to marry their daughters off at 13, sometimes to old men, sometimes to boys their own age. It was normal to them, their tradition (another thing sometimes confused with morality). Maybe those people even loved each other. In any event, those unions worked out well enough that you are here today.
(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
So, I guess, the question is "what does "more than three years younger" mean?
Does it mean the 1.) difference when subtracting the year of age or does it mean 2.)more than three years from birthday to birthday?
1.) If the statute means 1.) then say there are two individuals with one born in August '95 and one born in December of '91. In November of 2011, the two individuals would be "16" and 19". No statutory. But, if they had sex sometime from December until the next August, their ages would be "16" and "20". Statutory. Then, once August rolled around, it would no longer be a statutory until December came around again...Sounds silly to me.
2.) Take the difference between the ages. If more than three years from birthday to birthday, it is a statutory and would remain so until the younger turned 18. Sounds how it would be interpreted to me.
I think that the law's application would be 2.)
A.) Anyone disagree?
B.) Anyone know the birthdays of the individuals involved?
Attached is the requested booking photo for Mariah Laci Yeater, date of birth: 09/05/1991.
Bieber was born on March 1, 1994
So, assuming the above is correct, it goes to this...
(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
So, she committed a misdemeanor IF they had sexual intercourse (unless they were married...) and that is still criminal...I think.
No reason to shout. Discussions about rape are high strung enough.
This is about statutory "rape", though. Which isn't actual rape at all. It's a laughable term, just like "software piracy". All the more weird in a time where basically everything else is an euphemism.
And the guy was 16 at the time this was supposed to happen. 16! In what world is 16 too young to be considered to not be of age of consent?
The linked case of a teacher having sex with 13-year-olds is a different matter. I can get behind 13-year-olds being too young to be of age of consent.
Of course, I'm convinced that our local laws* are reasonable. Everything above (like 18 or even more) is draconian, helplessly outdated, medieval (well, actually not: In the Middle Ages, men could marry at 14, women at 12), while everything below is totally insane.
*In Germany, there are basically several ages of consent:
All in all a bit complicated, to be sure.
Just wondering ... can we talk about whether a paladin is capable of rape and skating by with the deity? I figure if the discussion is on a role playing board, we could apply it to game theory.
On second thought, please gouge my eyes out.
On second thought, please gouge my eyes out.
*stabs*