Boys sneak in, but dad is charged

Oakland Press ^ | May 01, 2002 | STEPHEN W. HUBER

[AppyPappy]

But the law says a 13 year-old cannot give consent. It doesn't say that a 13 year-old can sign a contract with another 13 year-old but not a 30 year-old. It says they are simply not old enough to make the decision. Period. The law has to draw the line somewhere so they draw it at 16. But for some reason, they find a 13 year-old rational enough to have sex. sometimes. They don't say that a 17 year-old can drink alcohol sometimes.

I see no difference between a 16 year-old seducing a 13 year-old and a 21 year-old seducing a 13 year-old. Either way, you have a 13 year-old victim who is not considered rational enough to make the decision. Either they can make the decision or they can't. The age of the other person has no bearing on whether the victim is of age.

[ArrogantBustard]

You keep telling me that "the law says" that a 13 year old can't "give consent". What law? The law I had to deal with in that jury room said quite plainly¹ that the 13 year old can consent to sexual acts with a person who meets certain criteria, but not with a person who fails to meet those criteria. And that law was quite independant of the laws regarding business contracts, driving licenses, voting booths, military recruiting stations, gun stores and liquor stores. I don't know if the law in Maryland is an abberation or not, but it is what it is. What it does is try to avoid the preposterous situation in which two 15 year olds who decide to screw each other after the prom might be both considered victims and perpetrators of statutory rape. It provides that if an act qualifies as statutory rape, there is a clear and unambiguous perpetrator and victim.

But for some reason, they find a 13 year-old rational enough to have sex. sometimes.
EXACTLY. If you don't like it, your beef is with the State Legislature.

The age of the other person has no bearing on whether the victim is of age.
That's your opinion. The Legislature and Governor of at least one State disagree with you. Within the confines of that State(s), their opinion trumps yours.

Sometimes the law is an ass. I can also see a possible "equal protection of the law" constitutional arguement agains the SR laws as they curently stand in MD, but I'm very reluctant to speculate on how that arguement might fare in court. -AB

1) Assuming, again, that two attorneys and a judge told me the truth.