A Topic For New Law Students.

"...age at which an actor may consent to sexual intercourse... and below which age another commits an offense such as statutory or sexual assault even if the sexual conduct is engaged is engaged in voluntarily by both parties..."

Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), by Steven Gifis.



"...statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a minor past the age of puberty, and may therefore be distinguished from child sexual abuse..."

Statutory rape - Wikipedia



Any lawyers or law students on these boards?

Anyways, how do you define terms like "age of consent" and "statutory rape". Age of consent was 12 under common law. It is 16 in most places in the US and the world now. And when I was in HS at least, we took statutory rape to mean it was legal for anyone to have sex with anyone 16 and above. What is the legal significance of these terms? And how they defined historically and legally?

And what are the larger socio-economic significance of these terms when it comes to things like wealth status, occupation and disability, both physical and mental? Please share all you know.

I will try to look up more today. Also I am going to try keep this thread going. Sex law, vice law and constitutional law have always been my favorite topics. So I have a lot to find and share.

 

I do know that this topic has been discussed at length in these forums. At least you have a new angle on it...

 

Where?? (Provide links...)

 

Yeah, you know there is the concept of Romeo and Juliet laws. It's legal for people under 18 to consent to sex with each other. But what if they are close in age. 5 years ("arbitrarily" they say) is the usual difference. (I know for a while in Michigan, the difference, for purpose of sex offender registry was 2 years. I don't know if MI has changed that or adopted Romeo and Juliet laws. BTW, where does one find state and federal statutes? Like I said, I was researching a legal question twenty years ago. And all I found was that watered-down law encyclopedia. And that was hard to locate. What if I wasn't going to CC at that time?) Michigan sex offender laws are pretty dumb, unless they have changed too. Public urinators and prostitutes have to register the third time they are caught and convicted. First time at the discretion of the judge.

Ages, of majority and consent, are pretty arbitrary anyways. In Canada you are a legal adult at 19. I think it's 18 in the US because that's when you graduate HS. It used to be 21 for legal adult and 21 for age of consent in some states for a while in the US. Last I heard, it was still 18 for age of consent in California.

Arbitrariness in law is an interesting topic. There are supposed to be two approaches to it. Malum In Se and Malum Prohibitum. Acts that are evil in themselves (In Se) and evil just because they are prohibited. My law dictionary says things that are evil in themselves, like murder and grand theft, can be felonies, because people are expected to know they are wrong/illegal. Malum Prohibitum tend to be regulatory and traffic offenses. The speed limit turns from 35 to 30 when you cross Elm Street. There was no sign to warn you, but you still get a ticket. But some laws that are illegal just because they are have severe penalties. There's nothing in the Constitution that says it can't.

Also, there's the phenomenon (also from my law dictionary) of mistake in law and mistake in fact. Mistake in law is rarely an excuse. In 1998, Linda Tripp recorded Monica Lewinsky on the phone using a recording device from a spy shop. She claimed ignorance, which was a defense in that state. The guy at the store told her recording someone on the was illegal in that state (which is odd, a spy shop "TELLING" you their product is illegal). But charges against her were later dropped. Mistake of fact can be related to intent. But not always. My law dictionary says a mistake of fact as to the underaged person's age is not a defense for statutory rape, except in a couple of states, it says.

There's also the constitutional doctrine of status crimes, dating back to the 19th century. Status crimes (Wikipedia defines it differently than my law dictionary) are unconstitutional. They don't involve mens rea, i.e., criminal intent. My law dictionary say California made it illegal to be addicted to drugs. The SCOTUS invalidated that law, because addiction to drugs is not a choice. My law dictionary says liberal and conservative judges are divided on laws against vagrancy. Because apparently some judges think homeless is a choice. (Some modern legal scholars think prostitution should be considered a status crime in the US, BTW.) Status crimes are usually regulatory to, my dictionary says. Or involve ultra-hazardous activity. Causing harm using explosives is considered a status crime, so the person using them will use that much more care, my dictionary says. Now this doesn't make sense. Simple drug possession is considered a status crime in the US. If someone puts drugs in the trunk of your car, you are the one who gets blamed. In MI where I live, there was a 1970's law that said if they find a certain amount heroine on your possession, you get life imprisonment. A woman didn't know that her boyfriend was into drug dealing and hid heroine in the trunk of her car. She recalled the police seemed awfully excited when they pulled her over in Detroit and found the heroine. She got life imprisonment but was later paroled when the law was changed. I brought up that on another message board, and they said that couldn't be true. As I said, it's a well-known news story in Detroit.

As you can see, there clearly is a lot of arbitrariness and unfairness in our legal system. I don't know how that relates to statutory rape laws because I don't know much about them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, they say (Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat), because as my law dictionary says, then no one would bother to learn the law. That Latin phrase has a interesting history. It refers to the 12 tablets of law in the forum in ancient Rome. All the laws of Rome (there were originally 10 tablets, BTW) were written there and the penalties were harsh then. But the average Roman citizen was illiterate. Which brings up a good point. If you are poor, uneducated, illiterate or don't have equal access to legal counsel as everyone else, then obviously ignorance of the law IS an excuse. It's not in the law or Constitution. But most people would agree it's only fair.

 

So, where and what? You mean this topic or law in general? Take you're time, because I'm busy now anyways. You can wait a day or two to answer.

I was going to say laws like this, and laws in general, are not widely known to the public. I asked a policeman at our precinct about the pepper spray law. He said ask yadda-yadda-yadda. I asked our probate lawyer what he meant. Our lawyer said, well actually, that's who the police refer to. Because legal knowledge is sparse. I know most people these days get their knowledge in short bursts on the internet, like me. Or on "Real Time" with Bill Maher LOL (he said that once). Legal knowledge is hard to find, even if you're going to a CC like I was. And statutes? Where do you find those? I don't think anyone knows.

Yeah, law in general. Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat. Sometimes ignorance of the law is an excuse. Especially if you have limited knowledge and limited resources. And esp. with laws like that heroin law above.

BTW, any lawyer on these boards? Feel free to chime in.

 

BTW, on the subject of the pepper spray law. That was about 20 yrs. ago BTW. I also asked a lady cop there. She said, wait, let me find out. And then came back a few minutes later and said she wasn't sure. Because you sometimes you know even the police don't know the law.

 

Toker, I'm still waiting. For Hip topics (general and specific) that are similar to this. At your leisure .

 

It's quite simple in the UK.
If the child is under 12 (I think it's 12) anything done in the context of your question is child abuse. (and more things besides that)
If they are under 16yrs of age and they willingly have sex, their willingness is irrelevant.
Because they are under 16 (17 in some parts of the UK), legally, they cannot give consent which is why it is statutory rape, if penetration occurs.

The terms 'age of consent' and 'statutory rape', are defined in law.

 

Search the boards.

 

The law is written on paper, in books
There are many legal books which you may find in college libraries and public libraries too. Maybe call your local courthouse and ask them where you can find such books in your area, if they're not in other libraries?

A search engine may also help you. Nearly all legislation applicable in the UK and its regions is available online from government websites.

 

In the UK and many other countries:
Historical definitions are largely irrelevant. Current law only is what matters.
Common Law is redundant as soon as specific legislation is put in place.
I'm not sure what you mean by socio-economic significance or wealth or occupation or disability.
The law is the law regardless of status, no matter what some people may perceive.

Disability may make a difference but it (and the issues pertaining to it), is also defined in law with regard to whether a person is mentally responsible and capable of giving such consent.

 

That's quite an assertion given the whole basis for this thread; that being, you don't know the law and you say you want to find out.

Some things I learned from a lawyer as I grew up.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Without knowing the facts of a subject, no-one is able to express an opinion.
Yes, one can hold an opinion but it's of no value to anyone else if the person holding the opinion doesn't know the subject matter fully.
Pick your sources for knowledge. If the place where we gather information/knowledge is not reliable (in fact), it's not a valid source.

Also, you've made a few references to your law dictionary. Don;t forget that laws change, dictionaries become out-dated. They are not a bible or an authority for that very reason.
That's why lawyers are referred to as practitioners.
They are constantly renewing their knowledge (the good one's are), to keep pace with current law.

 

As I mentioned before, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Where is the statistic to back up your assertion that 'most people would agree it's only fair'?

Ignorance of the law is not excuse. If someone fitting your description were to be charged, then, their lawyer or the judge can mitigate the sentence, because of said issues.

You mentioned poor, uneducated, illiterate.
In my experience the knowledge of doing what's right over what's wrong is nothing to do with poverty or family wealth - that's about upbringing.
I know many less wealthy people who have a better moral compass and a better 'knowledge' of right over wrong than many much more wealthy people who seem to have some sense of entitlement, a right, to do as they please.

Uneducated; don't forget ill-educated; those who think they learned something and were wrong or, they did learn something but assume the situation today is as it was when they learned it.

Illiterate. They are vulnerable people in many ways these days.
Their vulnerability may be taken into account when they are represented by a good lawyer in Court or by the judge if the lawyer isn't so hot.
I've seen judges tear strips off lawyers for not properly representing their clients.
In the UK, the Public Prosecution Service looks into all those issues before it is taken by them, to Court.

 

No, I've known that all my life. That a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I've known that all my life. I've always known that. And certainly I never said I was a lawyer. Though it's sad. Where I live, mentally ill and disabled people aren't given access to legal counsel. So income can make a big difference. And as far as my being a lawyer. No, I never thought I could do that. But in the US they said because it's hard for people to get legal help, "jailhouse lawyers", which is a fellow inmate (often intellectually disabled, BTW), are allowed. So ironically I more than meet the requirements for that. But no, I don't think I'm a lawyer now, if that's what you mean. But in short, justice is for sale in the US. I'm sure we're the only country that can say that.

Off that topic, and speaking of my status. I only recently found I have had a secret legal guardian since 1992. In 1992, I was wearing loose-fitting plastic gloves, and that led to that for some reason. And I won't name names or go into detail. But my legal guardian himself obviously has intellectual problems. My doctors started warning me about all this for the past two years. Now they are silent again. Also the police in my area, and possibly others, seem to be in on what's going on. A couple of years ago, my dental hygienist implied that she thought I couldn't even read. In 2001, the cops pulled me over and they kept asking me over and over again if I was secretly developmentally disabled. I told them I go to college. And I assumed back then they knew I had taken calculus and computer classes in college, and did well BTW. They kept saying we know that, but you are still developmentally disabled? Secretly? IOW. How would that even work?

I think something is being done about my false status now, even that I am not sure. But my doctor assures me everyone at least knows that I don't have an intellectual disability. I think though that may have been part of my false diagnosis. But again, taking calculus and computer programming classes? And being developmentally disabled? So much that I can't even read? As I said. How would that even work?

Anyways, as I said, I won't go into further detail. But you all will agree, I am clearly not the person here who made poor judgement or had the problem.

 

No, I just meant (speaking generally) it's the polite thing to do. Also speaking generally, on another message board I was on, the moderators were the worst behaved. They didn't even follow their own rules. The moderators not following their own rules? That's like the clowns running the circus, isn't it?

 

BTW, speaking of strange things I wasn't told of. I went to a very nice lady psychiatrist at age 7. She told my parents I see no problem here, he's perfectly normal. Just take him home. But in 2011, my doctor told she thought I had Schizotypal Personality Disorder. I had no therapists as a child. I certainly had no behavioral problems either.

Also, weird stuff my doctor told me in 2011. When I was still quite young, I was at a Halloween party. And I hugged one of my teachers. She stiffened up, obviously because that weird kid was touching her. Then she slapped me really hard. I still remember. I wasn't more than 50 lbs. at the time. I was sure she'd get in trouble. I even suppressed the memory for 6 years. Until I all came flooding back to me while I was sitting in our living room. I told my doctor about it and wondered why no one noticed and she didn't get in trouble. My doctor told me people did notice. And she told them she slapped me because she said I touched her inappropriately. I never did that. And when is it all right to slap a small kid?

 

A law dictionary isn't the best place to look up the law. And Gifis has the advantage of being relatively slim, inexpensive and in paperback. (Black's, a massive tome, is preferred as a reference source.) You should try the code books and case reporters for the jurisdiction concerned, and the law reporters for court decisions. Or a law encyclopedia, like American Jurisprudence 2d (available on Lexis) or Corpus Juris Secundum (available on Westlaw). The age of consent and statutory rape vary from state to state, as does when life begins and ends--paradoxical as that might seem. Where do you find these? Usually, in a law library or on the computer, but you may need to subscribe to Lexis and/or Westlaw.

Might I ask, is this question of yours academic, or is do you have a more personal stake in the answer? I'm sure you're aware not to rely on anything you pick up on a site like this, just as you wouldn't for medical advice.

Ordinarily, in the criminal law, the mental state of the accused is important in conviction and sentencing. Most crimes are defined in terms of the mens rea (mental state) involved: knowing, wilful, negligent, etc. And there are also defenses based on mental state or condition: insanity, diminished capacity, etc. You already mentioned mistake. The availability and/or definition of each of those terms can vary from one state to another. And yes, in a capitalist society, lawyers cost money. There are legal aid societies available for the poor, but they may be staffed by law students.

Law is a human institution, and as such subject to the major limitations that plague humanity--bias, stupidity, corruption, etc. We hope that the folks we elect to make these laws are reasonably intelligent, rational, and honest, but watching them in action often makes us wonder. That being said, order in our society makes it necessary, as a practical matter, to have rules, and those often involve making distinctions and cutoffs which seem (and often are) arbitrary. We in the U.S. have to drive on the right side of the road, while Brits must by drive on the left, at least when they're in the U.K. It's an arbitrary choice for the legislatures, but a necessary one, to avoid traffic accidents. Should the voting age be 18 or 21? Why not 19 or 20? And we need to be alert when driving, as speed limits (which are usually arbitrary, are known to change from 55 mph to 50 mph on a dime. That may not make sense, but it will determine whether or not the cops will pull you over (which they usually won't unless you're exceeding their unwritten limit of 5 miles over whatever it is, unless they have something better to do, or unless they have quotas to meet or the local jurisdiction depends on traffic fines as a revenue source. Do you feel lucky?) And yes, it is unfair, as is life. But that's the way it is. As the nineteenth century British jurist John Austin once said in The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (here I'm paraphrasing from memory): the law on the books is the law if it got there by proper procedures, until it is taken off the books by proper procedures. You may think it's unjust, unfair, stupid, ridiculous, etc. And you may be right. But if you think it isn't the law, we'll prove you wrong by hanging you up by the neck. (I'd add,or by throwing you in the slammer or fining you. His is more dramatic!)

 

I don't have a personal stake in any of this because I don't break the law. I was wondering though in a larger sense about people who don't know the law. And about ignorance of the law and unfair laws that deal with things like people being ignorant and laws that don't include intent.

BTW, I was going to CC about 20 years ago. And I was researching a totally unrelated topic. And I had a very hard time locating the information I needed. It had to do with free speech, BTW.

 

What is CC? I wasn't sure whether that was an abbreviation for a particular college or the generic community college. In either case, colleges vary a lot in their library resources. Depending on where you live, though, you might be able to find a university with a decent law library that would let you use it. You seemed to have learned a lot already, and certainly have an inquiring mind!