Do you think that the statutory rape laws are a little ridiculous?

Answer 1

With regards to certain dynamics, yes. The laws are in place to protect juveniles from being taken advantage of by much older, more experienced people. That being said, an 18 or 19 year old should not have the full weight of the law come down on them for having sex with a 17 year old.

In the larger picture, I do not believe the laws to be ridiculous. They are in place to protect those that are not mature, responsible or experienced enough to protect themselves. However, the letter and the spirit of the law needs to be distinguished in many cases to avoid excessive punishment.

Answer 2

Actually, a lot of people are misinformed about statutory rape laws. The most common misconception is that the age of consent, for legal sex is 18 throughout the USA. However 42 states set the age of consent lower than 18 with the most common age being 16. There are also "close in age exceptions" which allow young people a certain leeway in this area if they are close in age(commonly 2-4 years). This is why the guy who knocked up Britney Spear's sister isn't being prosecuted. I think at 16 or 17 is a good age to have the age of consent.

Answer 3

Yes is ridiculous on some instances.

Also if a 14 kid have sex with a 17 the 17 will be a predator taking advantage of a kid. But if a 18 have sex with a 17 then the predators turn to be a kid and the 18 become the predator. If a 14 get in legal trouble he is judge as an adult because he knew what he was doing. But for sex he don't and still a child what a contradiction.

Answer 4

No. Although the violation of a person is usually considered, and prosecuted, in most states as either assault or abuse, the law (statute) considers age to be the primary factor as to whether a person is old enough to consent to sexual relations (intercourse, and etc.), and each state makes its own law regarding "legal age." The age of consent varies from state to state ranging from 14 up to 18 or even 21 years of age. However, if the parties are of legal age, the key word remains "consent." Rape, comes into play when their's an absent of consent on the part of one of the parties; so you may want to get the "consent" in written form first.

To answer your question in other-words, one must, to protect minors, have an established legal age under law, otherwise it would simply be a matter of either consent or rape, depending on who you believe. The law speaks for the minor: it says NO.

Answer 5

They definitely need some fine-tuning. For instance, if a 17 year old boy impregnates his 16 year old girlfriend (through consentual sex) he can be charged with statutory rape and be labeled as a sex-offender for the rest of his life. That is just wrong.

Answer 6

Is it ridiculous that a child could be coerced into sex with an adult? How would you feel if it were your 12 year old son or daughter? In some cases it may seem ridiculous, but where would you draw the line?

Answer 7

NO! To many men think they have some kind of right to nail anything they like, no matter the age. Rape is rape even if you are not old enough to understand the consequences. God forbid she gets pregnant then those men would be the jerks fighting Roe vs Wade.

Answer 8

Perhaps. One night, a girl 16 and a guy 17 are consensual. Then he turns 18 and its illegal.

In that sense, yes the law is rather innocuous.

Answer 9

No. Young people are not fully aware of the consequences of sexual relationships nor are they mature enough to raise a family. To protect them against being taken advantage of by older persons is socially wise.

Young people all too often catch venereal diseases when seduced by older 'predators' who put lust before compassion. That mars them for life.

Answer 10

no! There's enough sexual predators out there as it is! You really want to live in a world where there were no statutory rape laws?