The Mysterious Age of Consent

This was a very interesting article. I had to read through it a couple of times before I posted on it. This Professor is trying to start a conversation on age of consent laws. Not so that adults can pursue sexual relationships with children. He is talking about the inconsistency in the age of consent laws and the impact on teenagers.  Right now in the US the majority of states have 16 as their age of consent. There are some that are 17 and some that are 18. He isn't discussing lowering the age of consent to under the age of 16. He discusses the reality of teenagers who have consensual relationships with other teenagers. He shares the story of a 17 year old who had sex with a 15 year old who was sentenced to 10 years and is treated the same as a sexual offender who has sexually abused a child. I agree with him there is a big difference. The way he thinks it should be tackled is through a more consistent system in the US on age of consent laws. He agrees that the age of consent laws are useful:

Indeed, the age of consent serves a protective function in deterring adults from exploitation while protecting future victims.

This may be the best way to address the Romeo and Juliette situations from landing a teenager on the sexual offender registry. Now if there is rape involved that is completely different. If we address the issues of the SOR by working on universal age of consent laws then those on the SOR would only be those who have actually harmed a child. In the end this would leave only those who have sexually abused a child and/or their families to be the ones involved in the movement to abolish the SOR. IMHO this will make the argument to abolish the SOR much harder. Right now those in the movement to abolish the SOR use the Romeo and Juliette offenders on the registry as a big selling point for why the SOR needs to be abolished. Having this piece of ammunition taken out of their arsenal will make their argument harder. I for one would be very happy about that. Rosie

Kevin Noble Maillard is a professor of law at Syracuse University and the co-editor of "Loving v. Virginia in a Post-Racial World: Rethinking Race, Sex and Marriage." He is on Twitter.

May 28, 2012

The age of consent is a strange way to measure adulthood. Setting a definite minimum age for teenagers to engage in sexual activity is like a hopeless game of Battleship: sometimes the target is found, but many other times, it’s just a shot into space. Why? There is no uniformity or standard application of law. The age of consent differs from state to state. Many state laws would make high school dating — and the backseat antics that accompany it — a crime. And many physical acts that are the reliable loopholes of "abstainers" and new acquaintances are considered sex.

It would be nice if distinguishing between sexual maturity and vestal youth were measured by more than birthdays.

This does not mean that statutory rape laws serve no purpose. Quite the opposite. A May/December romance between an octogenarian and a young teenager is a little too "Harold and Maude" for most personal tastes and legal allowances. Indeed, the age of consent serves a protective function in deterring adults from exploitation while protecting future victims. 

But many times, the law backfires. Distinguishing between sexual maturity and vestal youth should be measured by more than birthdays. If a state sets a strict age of consent at 16, it would be a crime for a high school junior to have sex with a sophomore. Ask Genarlow Wilson, who was sentenced to 10 years for receiving oral sex from an underage girl. He was 17; she was 15. Under Georgia state law, it didn’t matter if Wilson were 17 or 57: the court found him guilty of child molestation. (After serving two years in prison, he was released.)
Many states have close-in-age-exceptions that would prevent unjust cases like Wilson’s. They differ by jurisdiction. Some states may allow a two-year window of consent, others may permit a five-year spread. Again, there is no uniformity. It doesn’t make sense that a trip around the Beltway can make a girl into a woman, or that a drive across the George Washington Bridge turns a man back into a boy. Yes, we have a federal system, but there is no federal common law for the age of consent. At the same time, there has to be some system to protect children and punish adults, and age is the easiest referent for maturity. But it still doesn’t solve the problem of widespread disagreement between the states about adulthood when it comes to sex. Perhaps there is no other way than age to measure consent, but when the system categorically turns teen peers into teen predators, no one wins.

Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/28/do-we-need-to-redefine-adulthood/the-mysterious-age-of-consent-in-establishing-who-is-an-adult