About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Stats


  • Check Google Page Rank

« Wal-Mart's Shameful Record | Main | Tools for Socratic methods . . . . »

August 07, 2004

Comments

Tung Yin

That was me. I don't know why it didn't record my identifying info. . . .

I guess I would say in response to the now-21 year old's "ratification" that who can say whether this ratification is the product of a free mind? Think of this way -- eight years ago, this kid had this exciting, dangerous experience. Now he's saddled with *two* children of his own, kids that he apparently loves. With that sort of influence, it's understandable that he would think that the prior sex was consensual.

Let me ask this: if a person starts smoking at 13, of his or her own choice but no doubt influenced by the barraged of advertising and product placements, and continues smoking after age 18, do you really think that the post-age 18 smoking ratifies the earlier smoking in a way to absolve the cigarette companies of their targeting of teens?

Brian

In my view, what happened 8 years ago is now immaterial. If the boy is now a man of 21, and he wants to see her, and she wants to see him, there should be no possible way to stop them. She did her time, and unless she is trying to procure a new 13 year old, the law should not be able to stop them from seeing each other.

Federalist No. 84

Legalisms aside...My problem with statutory rape is largely linguistic. Rape is a very strong word. Can you call someone something worse than rapist (child rapist would be worst - but that is a subclass of conduct constituting rape)? Some killings might be justified and we don't punish the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family. But rape is always inexcusable. It seems like a term we should reserve for the most devious acts.

Does a 13 year old male know what he is doing? Maybe if he is Bobby Fischer he has more cognizance of his acts than a 23 year old with an IQ of 70. Also, people mature at different ages. We all remember the guy in the Jr. High lockeroom who had underarm hair before everyone else.

If the dude was a mature 13 yeard old cate when he had sex with his teacher, then it wasn't rape. Maybe the teacher's conduct was shady, maybe even downright awful. But does it deserve the label we reserve for the most heinous of crimes?

Tung Yin

I understand Mr. No. 84's concern about the use of words, but consider one specific fact about LeTourneau's case that hasn't come up in the discussion yet. She knowingly failed to use any birth control during her encounters with the boy! And the result is that she saddled him with two kids.

Now maybe some genius 13 year old kid could consent in theory, but it's a long way to explain how a 13 year old kid could have the emotional maturity, not to mention life knowledge, to assess the impact of having children. I mean, I'm in my mid-30s, and I have to say, there were times in the first month of my son's life that I found myself feeling totally overwhelmed. And I have a terrific wife. . . .

In LeTourneau's defense, we might say, hey, how was she to know that a 13 year old boy could impregnate her? But even giving her the benefit of the doubt, she did the same thing again after her first prison term!

Having a child is a wonderful thing -- if you are ready. Her selfish sexual desires led her to inflict parenthood on a boy who could not possibly have been ready to be a parent. She didn't harm him physically, but what she did to him -- knowingly -- is unconscionable.

Francis Millers

I need to ask a general question for some information about U.S. Law... hoping someone can tell me.

If someone has been convicted of sex with a minor in the U.S., would this give difficulties for this person to travel internationally? I know that for drug offences this is very true, but what about in a case of being charged and convicted with sex with a minor...

The reason I ask is to help a friend who is in love with a guy who lives in the U.S., he says that he cannot come to our country to see her, because he was convicted of having sex with his underage girl friend some years ago? Is this possible? He also says he is prohibited from having an internet account? This is where it sounds a bit fishy to me...

Hoping someone can answer these questions... Francis

I think that rape should be defined as force of a sexual act. I believe a 13yr old in this day and age and even when I was 13 is taught enough about sex ed with programs in school that they know the choices they have. If society really thought a teen couldn't mentally make that choice why teach them and really give them the proper knowlege to make the choice to have sex. If it is going to be a crime to have sex with a minor then I believe that is ok but in those sex ed classes don't teach just teach them how to put a condom on a banana but also teach them the consequences for pursuing intimate relations with an adult.

I think that rape should be defined as force of a sexual act. I believe a 13yr old in this day and age and even when I was 13 is taught enough about sex ed with programs in school that they know the choices they have. If society really thought a teen couldn't mentally make that choice why teach them and really give them the proper knowlege to make the choice to have sex. If it is going to be a crime to have sex with a minor then I believe that is ok but in those sex ed classes don't teach just teach them how to put a condom on a banana but also teach them the consequences for pursuing intimate relations with an adult.

I think that rape should be defined as force of a sexual act. I believe a 13yr old in this day and age and even when I was 13 is taught enough about sex ed with programs in school that they know the choices they have. If society really thought a teen couldn't mentally make that choice why teach them and really give them the proper knowlege to make the choice to have sex. If it is going to be a crime to have sex with a minor then I believe that is ok but in those sex ed classes don't teach just teach them how to put a condom on a banana but also teach them the consequences for pursuing intimate relations with an adult.

I think that rape should be defined as force of a sexual act. I believe a 13yr old in this day and age and even when I was 13 is taught enough about sex ed with programs in school that they know the choices they have. If society really thought a teen couldn't mentally make that choice why teach them and really give them the proper knowlege to make the choice to have sex. If it is going to be a crime to have sex with a minor then I believe that is ok but in those sex ed classes don't teach just teach them how to put a condom on a banana but also teach them the consequences for pursuing intimate relations with an adult.

I think that rape should be defined as force of a sexual act. I believe a 13yr old in this day and age and even when I was 13 is taught enough about sex ed with programs in school that they know the choices they have. If society really thought a teen couldn't mentally make that choice why teach them and really give them the proper knowlege to make the choice to have sex. If it is going to be a crime to have sex with a minor then I believe that is ok but in those sex ed classes don't teach just teach them how to put a condom on a banana but also teach them the consequences for pursuing intimate relations with an adult.

The comments to this entry are closed.