Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Former Senior High teacher gets 30 days for rape of (14 yr. old) student [View all]Xithras
(16,191 posts)Part of that stems from the idiotic ways in which the laws themselves are written and enforced. One commonly mentioned example here in California is this:
If a 30 year old man and a 16 year old girl rent a room at the Embassy Suites in South Lake Tahoe and have sex, he is a rapist and she is a victim. Why? Because the law in California says that the age of consent is 18, and that a 16 year old is incapable of offering consent. That makes the sex rape, and him a felony rapist who will spend years in prison and spend a lifetime as a registered sex offender.
However, if the same 30 year old man and same 16 year old girl rent a room at Harrah's 100 yards away and have sex, no crime or rape has occurred. Why not? Because they're in Nevada, where the age of consent is 16, and where 16 year old girls do have the capacity to offer consent to sex to anyone they choose.
Basically, according to the law, 16 year old girls ability to consent to sex is determined not by her age or mental development, but by a line painted down the middle of a roadway.
This kind of legal double standard has unfortunately led a lot of creeps to believe that "statutory rape is not real rape". They view it as more of a moral issue than a legal one, and don't consider the girls to be victims at all, but people who are simply "off limits" due to a legislative decision. I've met many men (more than I care to admit) who hold this perspective. This judge is obviously one of them.