[dr2005]

Wow. 15 months ago. I'd forgotten I even wrote a reply!

Oh well, here goes...

Originally Posted by Skittles.

But that isn't what I was asking. Minors are mature enough to make decisions relating to sex. If they can decide to kill someone, shoplift, do whatever other crime that lands them in juvie hall, then they can definitely make the decision on whether or not to have sex. And that itself would be a crime, right? So, therefore, the legal term statutory rape is only there for empowerment of children. As I said in my last sentence, they can do all sorts of crimes and get tried, then sent to juvie (or prison if they're close to 18/crime was severe enough), so why should they be considered "mentally incapable" of deciding whether or not to have sex?

I see where you're coming from; however, I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. We consider that minors are mature enough to know the difference between right and wrong, and therefore are capable of being tried in court for their crimes (although even on this there is a wide range between different jurisdictions - in some it's unheard of for children to be tried below the age of 14, 15 or even 16); however, we do treat them differently in terms of the consequences of their actions simply because they're not deemed to understand the full consequences of their actions. So, for example, in most circumstances a child who kills a person will receive a more lenient sentence than an adult who kills a person, because they're not considered mature enough to know the potential consequences of their actions. A similar rationale applies to sex and age of consent laws. They may know what is right or wrong in a given situation, but owing to age and development (let's not forget, hormones are going beserk during puberty) they may not appreciate or be fully ready for the potential consequences. As such, they cannot give informed consent - and uninformed consent is invalid consent.

Originally Posted by Skittles.

That's what I was asking! Well, partially. But that just goes to show the minor is capable of making decisions regarding sex. Maybe not as young as 7, 8, or 9. At least at the age of eleven, they're able to do so. It might be rare, but it happens in some places around the world, unfortunately. But those cases are frequent enough that they should be recognized, right?*

*to be elaborated at end of post

I disagree. The laws to do with age of consent and statutory rape are based on empirical evidence - the numbers were not just plucked out of thin air. Even though there is variety in terms of the age of consent, the majority of jurisdictions deem a child under the age of 13 incapable of consent. The fact that children younger than that may be having sex, and doing so with what they deem to be their consent, does not equate to the general rule being unsound.

Originally Posted by Skittles.

Psychological studies have shown the young adult's brain fully matures by the age of 25. This is probably based on the fact that, if you study for it, you'd have your Master's degree by the age of 25. But young adults, teenagers, and children are fully capable of comprehending and acting out long before the age of 25. Maybe the density/mass of the brain stops developing, but we sure fully mentally capable of things by the time we're around 10-12, I think. I see preteens capable of things that they shouldn't be capable of, including sex or crimes involving sex. Maybe not in America, but in other countries. In those countries, AoC is just the same as here or roughly the same: 16-19. So, that's a discrepancy of 6-9 years from the AoC if we use the age of 10 as a reference point.**

**note at end

Actually, I would argue the opposite conclusion - the tendency to "act out" is in fact a sign of a lack of maturity and mental capacity. Physical capability to do something is not the same as mental capability to appreciate what is being done and demonstrate understanding of it. Even from my own experience, I've noticed differences in terms of how people act in their mid-twenties versus their late teens, and the extra understanding and awareness they have. That's not to say they weren't capable of things before then - far from it - but there is a difference nonetheless. It's even more noticeable in the teenage years, an 18 year old is more capable of informed decision than a 14 year old for example. So personally I wouldn't put much stock in when they can start to "act out" and would instead look at when they start to understand what they're doing and why they do it.

Originally Posted by Skittles.

It was a lot more commonplace in the 16th and 17th centuries. Girls (especially from upper class families) were expected to get married and begin working by the time they were 14... even though there were statutory rape laws enforced by 1300 in Medieval England.

In upper class families perhaps, but in the remainder of society it was more commonly late teens or even early twenties. With the inherent risks of first-time pregnancies, they were reluctant to take chances when a woman had not finished developing. Even with arranged marriages, consummation tended to happen much later on, usually in the late teenage years.

Originally Posted by Skittles.

My state does have a Romeo and Juliet law as well, 16-17 is not statutory rape. However, a 12 year old is permitted to marry a 13 year old with parental consent and approval from the court. That makes no sense, why is there a law about statutory rape exemptions being 16-17 when young teens can get married? If they're old enough to get married, then the issue of being mentally incapable of decisions regarding sex gets thrown out, right?

I would say that points more to the irrationality of the law regarding 12 and 13 year olds rather than the one regarding 16 and 17 year olds. The former sounds like a carryover from the days of arranged marriages and probably points more to betrothals rather than consummated marriages. In practice it is very unlikely a court would authorise such a union, assuming it is not overriden by federal law (which I would have to concede I have no knowledge of).

Originally Posted by Skittles.

Would the punishment be different, though? Would they get a more severe sentence, eventually leading them to the prison system after they've aged out of juvie? Has any legitimate cases of this happened in the United States or Canada?

If such a case has happened then it's passed under the radar as far as I know. However, based on general criminal law principles the age and understanding of the defendant would play a part in the sentence handed down, so in the case of a 13 year old offender he would receive a more lenient sentence than if he were an 18 year old offender. Obviously the precise circumstances of the assault may result in a tougher sentence being handed down, but by and large that is the presumption the courts use. Penalising a child more than an adult does not make sense in light of my previous comments.