What do you think needs to be changed to the age of consent laws? And do you agree that a teenagers brain is not fully developed, which makes them easier to be victims of manipulation etc?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
What do you think needs to be changed to the age of consent laws? And do you agree that a teenagers brain is not fully developed, which makes them easier to be victims of manipulation etc?
Terrywayne? It's interesting that you should bring up the question of when the human brain fully develops, because there have been debates about it. According to Jason B Truth's article titled "Do Human Brains Really Take 25 Years To Reach Full Maturity?," there has been scientific pushback against the contention that the human brain is not fully developed until 25 years of age.
In Argentina, the statutory age of consent is 18. However, their laws pertaining to it also have a clause in them that sets special burden-of-proof requirements for their prosecution if the alleged “victim” of a carnal knowledge case is between 13 and 17 years old. That clause requires that the prosecution prove that the alleged “victim” suffered exploitation at the hands of their older partner or that their older partner corrupted them in some way during their sexual encounter. It is not based solely upon the math in view of the age of the defendant and the age of the alleged "victim." It is also based upon the case-by-case circumstances behind it all.
The United States at least needs to take their age-of-consent laws in that same direction as Argentina. When I first moved to California, the law there used to read that if a 14-year-old boy had sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old girl, he could be charged and arrested for statutory rape. I found it somewhat bizarre that someone could get arrested for statutory rape merely for having a consensual relationship with someone three years older than them. Eventually, California legislators revamped that law so that such nonsense could no longer occur in their criminal justice system.
The age-of-consent laws in New York are ridiculous. If someone commits a crime and they are 16 years of age, they will automatically be charged as an adult; whereas they are not legally capable of consenting to sexual relations until they are 17 years old in that same state. Both of these laws go into conflict with each other.
Not too long ago a 14-year-old Florida boy broke into the home of an elderly woman in her nineties and brutally raped her. In most state jurisdictions, a criminal defense attorney cannot use prior sexual conduct of a minor as a defense to a statutory-rape rap against his or her client. However, if a minor engaged in CRIMINAL sexual conduct previously that involved violence, I don't see how it is just and fair that it would be inadmissible as evidence in a statutory-rape case where the minor's parents are alleging the minor to have been a victim.
If that 14-year-old Florida boy gets a slap on the wrist for raping an elderly woman and he has an affair with a woman in her thirties a year later, I am skeptical to believe that he would be vulnerable to manipulation given the nature of his past. There are so many things wrong with the age-of-consent laws here in the United States that it is not even funny.
I strongly oppose a teenage minor being held in contempt of court for refusing to testify against his or her significant other in a frivolous and malicious statutory-rape case in a situation in which their age difference is further apart in years than what the minor's parents approve. If the authorities are insisting that the teenage minor is a victim, it is hypocritical for them to treat him or her as a criminal simply for refusing to go along with their witch hunt.
Back in 2013, there was this one married couple in their forties that Kamala Harris was persecuting because before they were married, the husband got arrested for having sexual intercourse with his wife back when he was 19 years old and she was 17 years old. He was charged with statutory rape back then merely because they each were on opposite sides of the legal line at the time. Part of the husband's sentence included lifetime registration as a sex offender. I've linked the article here so that you may read it.
And I'm not pinning the blame on any one political party for this sort of thing or telling anyone to vote a certain way in the upcoming election. I've seen this tyranny come from both sides of the political aisle. However, what I am saying is that we seem to be the only country in the world that has these kinds of problems with our lawmakers and elected officials.
You may or may not agree with me, but I've been finding that many of these people in our criminal justice system want to have their cake and eat it too. I simply cannot remain silent about it.