12 year olds Statutory Rape Conviction overturned by Ohio Supreme Court

[Sythan]

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...t-a-crime.html

I found this piece of new to be incredibly interesting, heres the jist of what it is.

In 2007, two boys, aged 12 and 11, engaged in exploratory sex. The 12 year old was arrested and convicted of multiple counts of deliquent Statutory Rape and was sentenced to be committed to the Ohio Department of Youth Services until his 21st birthday. The sentence was suspended, but he has still been in Sex Offender Therapy for 3 years.

Arguments heared in the High Court in February, caused the Justices to question why authorities charged the boy in the first place. The Justices unanimously voted that the Statutory Rape laws were extremely vague and violated the right of Equal Protection of Law. The Justices decided there was no crime, because both children were under 13 and the sex was consensual.

[Heretic]

I really do think the entire case should have been thrown out to begin with. It was consensual sex between two people who were roughly the same age. I certainly don't encourage sex at twelve years old, but making it a literal crime is overreaching.

I think the statutory rape laws in general need to be rewritten. I understand that it can create a slippery slope argument either way, but if an eighteen year old has consensual sex with his/her sixteen year old partner, it shouldn't be a crime.

[forfrosne]

Good. I see no problem with what they did.

[Brandon]

Exploratory sex doesn't mean statutory rape, as far as I know. Was a stupid case to begin with.

[dr2005]

It does sound like the definition of "statutory rape" was stretched beyond breaking point to be honest - given that both parties were minors and the matter should have fallen within so-called "Romeo and Juliet" clauses, I don't understand how this ended up in the court in the first place. Were it not for the fact that it was two boys rather than a boy and a girl, I'm sorry to say I suspect it wouldn't have done, and that raises more pressing questions.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

the older boy initiated the activity and gave the younger boy video games to go along ... while the conduct was consensual, the older boy was much taller and heavier, suggesting he may have intimidated his friend

The above was from the article and even though both parties agreed it was consensual, I can understand how the above could be spun to suggest it truly was not consensual. After all, the older boy gave the younger one a "gift" to calm him, then started the activity. Plus, if the younger one disobeyed, the older one could intimidate by strength and size. This suggests the younger boy's testimony was incorrect and all of it is based on recollection of previous cases, where the rapist is stronger or has some advantage over the victim. Overall, it's bending the idea of statutory rape so far, its definition became falsified.

I'm not sure why it was even allowed to go through to trial because the seemed to be no evidence to disregard the younger boy's testimony as well as state the older boy was clearly the offender. It was all loosely implied.

The only thing I'm glad about is the issue is being examined before the older boy turned 21.

[Age of Ignorance]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

The above was from the article and even though both parties agreed it was consensual, I can understand how the above could be spun to suggest it truly was not consensual. After all, the older boy gave the younger one a "gift" to calm him, then started the activity. Plus, if the younger one disobeyed, the older one could intimidate by strength and size. This suggests the younger boy's testimony was incorrect and all of it is based on recollection of previous cases, where the rapist is stronger or has some advantage over the victim. Overall, it's bending the idea of statutory rape so far, its definition became falsified.

I'm not sure why it was even allowed to go through to trial because the seemed to be no evidence to disregard the younger boy's testimony as well as state the older boy was clearly the offender. It was all loosely implied.

The only thing I'm glad about is the issue is being examined before the older boy turned 21.

Whilst the younger boy had strength and size, intimidation to initiate sexual activity is rape; not statutory rape. If he was charged with rape and found guilty of it, I can understand the court's ratio. Better yet, why was the boy even charged? I would've thought the police or the prosecution would've seen the facts of this case and thought to themselves "charging a minor with statutory rape? WTF?!"

[Casey.]

And here I was thinking the statutory meant between an older person and a minor.
now, if the older boy had been 17 or 19, then I could understand that. But they are about a year apart, which is legal in most places. This sounds like it was totally blown out of the water. He was twelve! I bet he didn't even know what statutory meant.