Statutory Rape in CA
Emily Centeno | Feb 14, 2012 | Comments 5
Imagine that you are an 18-year-old boy, and have decided to start dating the 16-year-old girl you really like. As your relationship gets serious you both decide to take your relationship to the next level and become sexually active.
After a year of dating, like most teenage relationships, the relationship begins to die. You decide to break up with her, and she is devastated. The heartbroken teenage girl decides to press charges against you for statutory rape, in spite of the break up. California law states that it is illegal to have sexual relations with anyone under the age of 18; any violation would make you guilty of statutory rape. You are found guilty in court for this crime and now are sentenced to registering as a sex offender for the rest of your life. You must report your address to the police station anytime you decide to move, you cannot live within 500 feet of a park, school or any other public place with children present. You must shop at stores in the hours where there will not be any children present; you cannot be in the same room with anyone under the age of 18 (that includes family members). People now classify you in the same category as rapists and child molesters just because your ex decided to abuse the power of the law. You are not a menace to society, but you must spend the rest of your life treated that way.
There are hundreds of cases similar to this where young men are convicted of statutory rape because of having a consensual sexual relationship with a minor. Even though this does not sound like a harsh punishment, it really does have a huge impact on their lives. What kind of high-paying job would want to hire someone who is a sex offender? What kind of neighborhood is going to want to accept a sex offender moving in? When you think sex offender, your first thought is an old perverted man who wants to lure little kids off the street with candy. You do not think about what exactly was the crime that they committed, or who they really are; you just see a sex offender.
MTV’s “True Life: I’m a Sex Offender” recently aired exhibiting the hardships of two men who had to face after being charged with statutory rape. These men did not force their partner to have sex with them; it was all consensual. However, even if both girl and boy agree to have sex, the adult is still guilty of the crime. The main controversy around statutory rape laws is that there is no real defense for the accused. The victim does not even have to testify against the defendant in order to find him guilty. In one of the cases on the show, a mother testified against the boy even after the “victim” confessed that she gave her consent in the act and he was found guilty anyways.
With all of the injustice surrounding this law, why do we even have it in the first place? Statutory rape laws were enforced in order to protect youth from being victimized by sexual predators, and potentially preventing teen pregnancy. The law states that anyone under the age of 18 is incapable of giving consent to engaging in sexual activity, but the fact is most teenagers are having sex by the age of 15. So does that mean that they should all be charged with statutory rape? Whether it is a parent interfering with a teenage relationship, or a spiteful ex-girlfriend who wants to punish her older boyfriend; these young boys still face an unnecessary danger of their lives being ruined. That leaves us with two options, either lower the consent age, or to give a less extreme form of punishment to those who are found guilty of having consensual underage sex.
Seems like a simple and logical solution however, the few legislators who do take action receive no support from their fellow colleagues. Majority of legislators see teen sex as an irresponsible act and see this law as a protective blanket over young girls who do not a have a parent to guide them. They would not feel comfortable supporting any changes to be made because they think it would be more difficult to protect the youth from sex crimes and provide a window of opportunity for real rapists to find a way out of being prosecuted. With most legislators disagreeing with a change it makes sense that most bills advocating a solution die before even making it to the floor to be debated. An article published March 2010 on IdahoReporter.com described how the state of Idaho, along with 35 other states, are attempting to amend the consent age from 18 to 16. Senator Brent Hill describes how the law we have now has the potential of “destroying a boy’s life” and laws that can “destroy the lives of innocent people need to be changed.” Wife of Senator Curt McKenzie supported the change by saying “These boys’ lives are ending, even before they’ve begun. I don’t condone sexual acts between teens. But sending teen boys to prison isn’t the answer either.”
Our generation today faces numerous amounts of teens engaging in sexual activity than ever before, and as the times change the law must adapt to the change. The term “rape” applies to any sexual act that is forced upon an individual. If these boys did not rape their partner then they are innocent. These boys are not menaces to society and do not deserve to wear the title of “sex offender.” If we lowered the age of consent, we would be saving the lives of so many boys and defend the innocence of those persecuted unjustly. If the state of California recognizes that you are capable to drive a car by 16, then shouldn’t you be capable of consenting to sex?
Emily Centeno is a first-year literary journalism major. She can be reached at centenoe@uci.edu.
Filed Under: Opinion
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/19047675/north-ga-woman-accused-of-statutory-rape-speaks-out
So nobody will have a problem with this?
How can people be so in sensitive to something that destroys someones lie. My son wound up having sex he was 19 she was 15 she told him she was 18.I do not agree with pre marital sex either just like I don’t believe in destroying someones life becaused he was lied tyo. When this happens to someone you love you will see how awful it is to watch a yuoung mans life destroyed becuase a young lady got angry at him.What kind of a country are webetter yet what kind of people are we to end a young mans life before he even gets a chance to start it. Shame on anyone who doesn’t defend this awful position. Thank you Angela
There’s a difference between adapting to times and completely letting go of morals. Two hundred years ago human beings were enslaved in the United States. Now we deem this as immoral and unjust. Just because a bunch of teenagers have sex does not mean that they should do it or that they are ready for it. Then again people all have different morals; the government has the hard job of making laws that work for society as a whole. Like Alexandra said, rape is a sensitive issue and shouldn’t be taken so lightly. Slaves and rape victims are not the same, but they are both victims of degradation.
Emily,
You are incorrect that an 18 yr old convicted of sex with his 16 yr girlfriend would be required to register as a sex offender. There are provisions in the law to account for the age differences. This hypothetical man you are talking about would be convicted of a misdemeanor and not required to register as a sex offender because the age difference is less than 3 years.
Moreover, the suggestion that a woman would bring charges against an ex-boyfriend out of spite is incredibly demeaning to women who are victims of statutory or date rape. The incidence of false reports is incredibly low, and cases of statutory or date rape very rarely go so far as a conviction. It is very difficult to prove, and criminal charges are rarely made.
If a man is convicted of statutory rape, the victim of the rape is not ruining the man’s life. He made the conscious choice to violate the law and have a sexual relationship with a minor. This point of view that a woman ruins a man’s life by having him charged with rape is called victim blaming and it is not acceptable.
In future, please do some reading about the subject before you write about it, especially when it is something as sensitive as rape.
Alexandra, have you read Bernado B v Commonwealth? (I’m only talking about consensual statutory rape here) Prosecutorial discretion was applied in the form of prosecutorial gender discrimination. While the ‘law is the law’ statutory rape convictions are, in practice, only issued against boys, even when both parties consented and are the same age: this means both parties are ‘victims’ who both had equal agency over their own conduct. Convicting one party (based on gender) for consensual sex is is pretty retrograde. I’m not saying that women do this, I’m saying that antiquated law is responsible, though I haven;t heard the feminists, in their pursuit of equality suggesting women receive equal punishment in the instances of minor-on-minor statutory rape, even in instances where the female party initiated sex.
The fact girls can have underage sex with boys their own age with impunity while they face the possibility of (at least) being charged with a sexual misdemeanor (depending on their state) is not pursuant of equal rights (nor equal responsibilities, something feminists are pretty quiet about). Seeing no problem with the imposition of legal sanction based purely on gender for a mutually consensual act implies that women have less in fact none in thee instances, actually over their own conduct.