If a minor rapes someone over 21 who is the victim in the eyes of the law?

If a minor rapes someone over 21 who is the victim in the eyes of the law?

Other urls found in this thread:

codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-261-5.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

victimless "crime"

legally, no rape was committed, except the statutory rape if the minor's parents press charges. they'd most likely get dropped though considering the circumstances.

I think rape is illegal regardless of age.

Both parties could potentially be charged.

Attempting to apply higher reasoning to morality laws.

it's not rape if an adult didn't do it tho. unless it was done to another minor, in which case both parties are guilty of statutory

Do a google search for a case from Alabama or TN where the local DA charged a minor with creating CP for taking pics of himself and having them on his phone.

>implying anyone would turn down sex with a minor

This is retarded. You are retarded.

it is retarded, but i am not. i live in california, it's the law here

...

Don't use Charles Montgomery Burns for your gay memes

Not even close. You have that reversed. You are retarded and that's not law, so there's that.

>so there's that
so there's what? you've provided no claim other than that mine is false, let alone evidence for one. i've done my research, have you?

>2 15 year olds having sex together in California is illegal
Please stop being retarded

...

>Wikipedia
It's just embarrassing at this point

>666

sorry, is this better, professor?
codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-261-5.html

No, but did you bother to read that it proves my point and not yours?

Not him, but PEN ยง 261.5(B) seemingly stipulates that any individual who has sex with a minor either three years younger or three years older than the perpetrator is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Considering that subsection doesn't specify that the perpetrator must be an adult, it likely applies to perpetrators who are minors, too. In other words, it would be misdemeanor for a 15-year old to have sex with another 15-year old, or for a 15-year old to have sex with a 17-year old or 12-year old.

However, were the 15-year old to have sex with an 18-year old, I believe the fault would then lie only with the recently-legal adult.

This is something I've always wondered. If they can't consent to sex then how can they have raped someone? By the same token how can a drunk person be guilty of rape if alcohol supposedly makes you unable to consent?

that's pretty fucked imagine getting violently raped by lolis

A minor is incapable of consenting to sex because the law's assumption is that they are not in possession of the mental faculties to willingly engage in sex. Most states and jurisdictions have certain provisions for minors having consensual sex with other minors -- oftentimes, such relations are other decriminalized or subject to less-stringent punishment than if the perpetrator were an adult.

However, those same jurisdictions with tiered penalties tend to introduce provisions criminalizing relations between minors above a certain age and adults who hold authority positions.

As such, the law usually recognizes that minors are capable of making sexual decisions. Even for those who fall below the age of consent, the law contains protections to punish sexual exploitation -- just because somebody is not legally possessing the faculties to engage in consensual intercourse does not mean they cannot be coerced or forced into the same.

I think you are misunderstanding the question. The minor in this scenario is the rapist, the adult is the victim. So the question is can a minor who rapes an adult be held legally responsible even though the minor cannot legally consent?

yes i did read it. so didplease just admit you were wrong

Oh, my bad. I misread what you wrote.

Normally minors above a certain age can still be tried for crimes. Particularly violent offenses, such as murder, rape, kidnapping, or torture, can be prosecuted in adult criminal courts rather than family courts.

In most states, a 16-year old guilty of criminal sexual assault could be tried as an adult and handed a criminal conviction rather than an adjudication. That's the court's way of recognizing that the crime was thoroughly planned and sufficiently brutal to render the perpetrator responsible to the same extent as an adult. In such cases, the convicted will serve part of their sentence in a juvenile detention facility and then transfer to a regular prison upon reaching the age of majority.

Thus the judicial system acknowledges that minors can act with criminal intent, even though the system is geared toward their protection rather than prosecution.

It makes sense, if you think about the purpose of such laws. On the one hand, we have laws made to protect minors from exploitation -- those can be applicable regardless of the perpetrator's age, because the "victim" is a minor regardless.

And on the other, a minor who commits a violent crime can still be prosecuted, because they intended to cause physical and/or emotional harm to another through commission of a sexual assault. Even if they aren't viewed as being capable of consenting to sexual intercourse, they're not stripped of an ability to cause harm.

Good explanation, that actually makes a lot of sense.