Should Statutory Rape Be A Strict-Liability Offense?
Whenever the subject of the statutory age of consent is brought up in conversation anywhere here in the United States of America, more often than not, screaming and arguing ensue all over the place in the form of fierce debates and verbal altercations. The term “rape” that is attached to this same offense can be very misleading in that there is a major difference between forcible rape and “statutory rape.” It’s kind of like you have cancer, but then you also have a canker sore. They both may sound alike, but they’re worlds apart in their respective definitions. The same rule applies when you have lymphoma as opposed to a lipoma. One thing is deadly, and the other thing is merely a nuisance.
Well, I must reemphasize that there is undoubtedly a major difference between forcible rape and “statutory rape.” As I pointed out in my previous Steemit article titled “Should A Statutory-Rape Conviction Warrant The Termination Of Someone’s Parental Rights?”, forcible rape is a violent act of sexual brutality. Usually, it causes trauma to its victims. Getting raped is a horrendous ordeal that none of us want to experience. On the other hand, “statutory rape” is merely a legal construct that is created in accordance to the societal norms of a given culture, and usually “victims” of it undergo no trauma or suffering from it at all. Watch the YouTube video below to get a more detailed description of “statutory rape.”
The Detailed Definition And Description Of “Statutory Rape”
The higher courts in our nation have determined that, unlike forcible rape, “statutory rape” is not a crime of violence. Nonetheless, social justice warriors and societal fundamentalists continue to seek to make a “statutory rape” conviction the most reprehensible crime that anyone can ever have on their police record. A gentleman who goes by the username of “thecast: life video blog” gives an interesting take in a YouTube video of his regarding what his perspective is of “statutory rape.” You can view his YouTube video below.
YouTuber Thecast: Life Video Blog Provides His Opinion Regarding “Statutory Rape”
A. A High Statutory Age Of Consent Does Not Mean That “Statutory Rape” Should Be A Strict-Liability Offense
Recently I stumbled across an online article titled “Ca Democrats Author Bill to Protect Sex Offenders Who Lure Minors” by Katy Grimes. In a nutshell, the article reported that California state legislators in Sacramento got a law passed that would grant judges in criminal courts in their state jurisdiction the discretion to determine whether or not someone who violated the California statutory age of consent should go on that state’s sex-offender registry if the age difference between the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim is fewer than 10 years. A myriad of discussions and debates ignited in the comments section of this article in the hundreds. Even though this same article was published on the Internet over a year ago, people have posted comments about it as recently as today – August 7, 2020.
I completely understand the frustrations of people who have posted in the comments section of this same article in the form of complaints about how easy this new law is going to make it for pedophiles to harm prepubescent children in California. After all, I am just as anti-pedophile as these people are, and I used to live in California. However, I still have concerns about some of the hateful and misleading comments that people have made therein regarding adult/adolescent trysts that may be no more harmful or destructive than adolescent/adolescent trysts or adult/adult trysts.
A man named Mark commented therein:
This is a joke !!! I think there are some states that have different age requirements for “engaging in legal sex”. Bull, the age should be 18 years old across the board for consensual sex. Anything else should be statutory rape and you should have to register as a sex offender. Period end of story !!!!
Quite frankly, in contrary to what Mark stated therein, I don’t think that the crux of the matter concerning whether or not these laws are fair to everyone is what age each state jurisdiction in our nation should set the statutory age of consent at but rather whether “statutory rape” should be a strict-liability offense. In other words, I don’t think that individuals like Mark should be focusing on the question of what the statutory age of consent should be in each state jurisdiction of our nation but rather whether or not “statutory rape” should be a strict-liability offense.
“Statutory rape” is notorious for being a strict-liability offense in all state jurisdictions of our nation. What it means is that it is a crime for an adult over the legal age of majority to have sexual intercourse with a minor who is below the statutory age of consent regardless of what the circumstances are. That is, it is a criminal offense that is based strictly on the math rather than on the overall actions and circumstances of the people involved.
Whether there is a Romeo-and-Juliet provision in the applicable statutory-age-of-consent laws depends on the state jurisdiction where the sexual contact takes place. The same rule applies on whether an older minor can be prosecuted for “statutory rape” or the likes if he or she has sexual intercourse with a younger minor in terms of how much age difference the laws in that state jurisdiction allow between the two parties before the sexual act can be treated as a crime. For a more detailed explanation of what strict liability means, watch the YouTube video below.
The Definition And Detailed Description Of Strict Liability
In Argentina, the statutory age of consent is 18 years old, but statutory-rape cases against adults who have sexual intercourse with a minor between 13 and 17 years old are not pursued in that nation if the prosecution cannot meet its burden of proof that the accused committed any kind of exploitation or corruption upon their alleged victim. These provisions in this same law do not necessarily mean that “statutory rape” is not considered to be a strict-liability offense in that nation, because, after all, the alleged victim is given no say on whether or not his or her older sex partner is going to be charged with a crime. However, this law does differentiate between adult/adolescent intimacy and actual child molestation.
My intuition is that individuals like Mark who posted the aforementioned comment in the comments section of the above-described article want draconian statutory-rape laws everywhere in our nation and that discussing whether or not “statutory rape” should be a strict-liability offense with him and others like him is a waste of time and energy inasmuch as they have been indoctrinated to be one-sided on this issue. However, if he or others like him were to have a negative experience with one of the laws pertaining to the crime of “statutory rape,” perhaps they would have a change of heart on how these laws should read. Usually, people who stubbornly believe that these laws should be as harsh as they can be made to be don’t see the light until after it’s too late.
What would happen if state legislators throughout our nation were to change the laws so that “statutory rape” would no longer be a strict-liability offense in each state jurisdiction? I will explain it all the best I can in accordance with my paralegal schooling.
B. “Statutory Rape” As An Intent Crime As Opposed To Being A Strict-Liability Offense Would Stop Punishing The Wrong People
If “statutory rape” were to be legislatively changed from a strict-liability offense to what is called an “intent” crime in state jurisdictions throughout our nation, then there would be at least three different elements needed before a conviction could be had for such an offense. There would have to be what is called “mens rea” and then what is called “actus reus” as well as a causal nexus or causation between both mens rea and actus reus before a prosecutor could establish that an actual crime had been committed. The crime itself could be described as either a “general-intent” crime or a “specific-intent” crime.
Regardless of how state legislators were to strip “statutory rape” of its strict-liability status, prosecutors throughout our nation would have more hurdles to jump over before being able to get someone convicted of that same offense if such a legislative change were to be made. Of course, if American lawmakers were to go down that same road, fewer incidents of prosecutorial misconduct would ensue whenever someone was accused of “statutory rape.” Unfortunately, attempting to make these legislative events happen would likely be more difficult than convincing our Congress and our president to bring Universal Healthcare to the United States of America. Self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts would do everything in their power to throw roadblocks against any meaningful reforms being made to our nation’s statutory-rape laws and statutory-age-of-consent laws, because they guard the status quo like gargoyles whenever any proposed changes to it go against their beliefs.
Now, before anybody reading this Steemit article here of mine starts hating on me for questioning the strict-liability status of the statutory-rape laws and the statutory-age-of-consent laws throughout our nation, allow me to introduce some situations to you that might cause you at least to question the fairness and the integrity of the American statutory-rape laws and the American statutory-age-of-consent laws. Back in 2008, a 13-year-old girl named Alisha Dean set up a MySpace page in which she misrepresented herself to be a 19-year-old female divorcee in Florida, and she did so with the specific intention of seducing adult men in their twenties. These men paid very severe consequences for not knowing what her real age was before they had sexual intercourse with her. The YouTube video below gives you all the details on what happened.
Alisha Dean’s Sexual Shenanigans Caused Many People To View American Statutory-Rape Laws In A Different Light
Surprisingly, a former New York prosecutor named Robin Barton even published an article on the Internet in which she sharply criticized the statutory-rape laws in our nation in terms of their unfairness and oppressiveness. Therein she stated:
I believe that mistake of age should be a defense to statutory rape across the country. I also believe that there should be consequences for lying about one’s age to a sexual partner.
Also, did you know that there are still state jurisdictions in our nation where an underage boy who has raped an adult woman can turn around and bring a statutory-rape charge against that same woman, even though he was the one who sexually victimized her? If you don’t believe me, read the online publication titled “The Paradox of Statutory Rape” by Russell Christopher and Kathryn Christopher.
C. My Conclusion To This Topic
These statutory-age-of-consent laws and statutory-rape laws throughout our nation that are supposed to be so infallibly perfect and so protective of minors could not be more oppressive than they have become in recent years. Nonetheless, American state legislators continue to make these laws more and more detrimental to the best interests of our society as a whole at the demands of social justice warriors, societal fundamentalists and ill-informed parents.
The press and the media barely publicize stories like those of Alisha Dean and the likes here in our nation. Finding the online publication titled “The Paradox of Statutory Rape” was like finding a needle in a haystack. Anyhow, this same publication is a wealth of information regarding how broken our statutory-age-of-consent laws and our statutory-rape laws are throughout our nation and how they do more harm than good to our society. In any event, judge for yourself on what should be done after viewing the above-described video about Alisha Dean and reading the aforementioned online publication.
If a parent is to ask you whether or not you have kids after you disagree with that person on this issue and you don’t have kids, let them know that you have just as much right to voice your opinion regarding this topic as they do. You likely pay more taxes than they do to send their kids to public school in your state jurisdiction in that you don’t get any deductions on your income tax returns for claimed dependents as they do. The argument simply doesn’t cut it anymore whenever a parent says, “Do you have kids? Thought so!” If they agree with you to seek the passage of a law that would no longer require childless taxpayers to fund the public school system in our nation, then they will have all the rights in the world to tell you that you should have no say about the statutory-age-of-consent laws or the statutory-rape laws here in the land of milk and honey. Of course, that will never happen.
This Article Is Copyright-Protected.