No jail time for woman who admitted having sex with 13-year-old, having his baby

[Brickjectivity]

I disagree on several issues here. Rape is a legally defined term. When we discuss rape outside of that legally defined meaning we don’t ignore the legal definition completely. So, while our definition may not be ruled by the legal definition, which can vary by jurisdiction, the general usage of the word rape means sex without consent. I am not twisting, stretching, or taking the word to an extreme as to suggest that all gynecologists are rapists.

You bring up how the legal definition of rape does not necessarily define rape outside of that legal arena, then, in the same breath, you leap back to what necessarily creates a viable foundation under law. This makes no sense to me. Further, consent is absolutely a viable foundation if by viable foundation you mean a basis on which actions can be reliably judged.

As far as our reasoning for the law in the first place, consent is one of many reasons. We shouldn’t have sex with them, because it is wrong is every bit as valid as we shouldn’t have sex with someone without consent because it is wrong. So I am not sure what you are driving at here.

Lastly, requiring consent in one instance does not then entail consent need be required in every instance. So, requiring consent for sexual intercourse does not then entail that we need to require consent for vaccination.

I can respect what you're saying. So lets say that rape is sex without consent, and that this comes from law. So why then does this woman get a plea deal? I don't know, but perhaps there was consent of a sort that the law did not recognize but that the prosecutor accepted. I don't know if that happened but it could be possible. We can decide that we won't recognize a minor's consent as real consent, but the prosecutor might make an exception. Maybe they think the situation was confusing for this adult woman. Probably not though. Probably there was some other reason, like she would have been difficult to prosecute or the prosecutor was uncertain that procedure was followed by the police or something of that nature.

Further, consent is absolutely a viable foundation if by viable foundation you mean a basis on which actions can be reliably judged.

In that post, no, I did not mean that. I distinguished between a test and a reason, because I did not consider consent to be a good enough reason by itself for things, although you brought me around by pointing out rape was sex without consent. True. If rape is sex without consent then lack of consent is a reason to consider sex to be rape, yes. However, we are talking about a case where the prosecutor has given a plea deal, so there are questions like "Was there really not consent?" That is where law and reality can separate, because now you can have a situation where a person gives consent but that the law won't recognize it as consent due to their age. Which is fine for the reason that its wrong to have sex with minors, even if they can give consent.

 

[Curious George]

I can respect what you're saying. So lets say that rape is sex without consent, and that this comes from law. So why then does this woman get a plea deal? I don't know, but perhaps there was consent of a sort that the law did not recognize but that the prosecutor accepted. I don't know if that happened but it could be possible. We can decide that we won't recognize a minor's consent as real consent, but the prosecutor might make an exception. Maybe they think the situation was confusing for this adult woman. Probably not though. Probably there was some other reason, like she would have been difficult to prosecute or the prosecutor was uncertain that procedure was followed by the police or something of that nature.

In addition to sexual assault/rape laws, there are what are known as statutory rape laws. This is what the woman was likely charged. There is no requirement of mens rea with a statutory charge. That is if they can prove it happened that is all that is needed. So, no the prosecutor could not make an exception. Prosecutors make deals because it is cheaper and easier than going to trial. Mistakes made by the police are very very rare to get someone off of a charge. So there is most likely not any question there. It is possible that the prosecution was worried she would get a sympathetic jury, but in all likelihood the reason is a combination of societal attitudes toward sex and the reality that such deals happen.

The first issue is that as a society we tend to think of the male as the aggressor and the initiator especially with respect to sex. There is likely bias in the system. Women tend to receive lesser punishments for the same crimes. While in the justice system, this may benefit female perpetrators, it is a symptom of our societies view on men and women and absolutely hinders women in other aspects.

The second issue, that deals like this happen, is another unfortunate example of bias. If you were to comb through all the cases of statutory rape, you would undoubtedly find examples of men who were given little to no prison time. This is less newsworthy though. The exceptional case of a female perpetrator magnified by her pregnancy creates a more sensational story.

That said, Female perpetrators of statutory rape are often, in my experience, never brought to trial. It is only when there is a parent pushing for prosecution, or the male victim is extremely young, under 13, that action is taken. Our society doesn’t have the same feelings of protection for young males as they do young females. Nor does our society feel the need to protect as strongly against female perpetrators compared to male perpetrators. That said, the majority of perpetrators are male.