Age of Consent

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:59 pm

From tomorrow's 20/20 episode:

Frank and Nikki were high school sweethearts. He was a senior and she was his freshman girlfriend. This relationship caused him to end up on the Texas state sex registry list.

It happened because Nikki's mom, like most mothers, was not pleased when she found out her daughter was having sex. One night during a fight, Nikki's mother took Nikki down to the police station and filed charges against Frank. He was 19; she was 15. In Texas the legal age of consent is 16¦ And so began Frank's endless entanglement with the U.S. legal system.

The next morning, after tempers simmered, Nikki's mom tried to drop the charges, but the police said it was too late. Even though Nikki said that the sex "was her idea," that Frank was her boyfriend, and that everything was consensual, none of that mattered: the law was the law. Rather than face a possible 20 year prison sentence, Frank took a plea deal that gave him 7 years probation. The plea bargain kept him out of prison but it gave him a different kind of life sentence — life as a registered sex offender. Frank had to move away from his family into mobile home, because his 12 year old sister lived in the family home and he was not permitted to be near her. He had to get special permission from a judge to watch his brother play high school football because there were kids at the game.

Today, Frank and Nikki are married. They have four daughters together, but that doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. On the Texas state registry, Frank will be branded for life as a sex offender. How is that just?

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:48 am

I agree its ludicrous..Im sure they could look at each case individually and use their discretion in cases like above.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:37 pm

I can certainly see how stupid it is, especially since this particular couple, Frank and Nikki, ended up getting married and having a family. Yet, he's still branded as sex offender. It is unjust.

But, on the other side of the coin, young teenagers, although they have started to physically sexually mature, many are still very immature mentally/emotionally. They tend to make bad decisions. So, I think that particular law is a good thing, since it's purpose is to protect young people when they're bodies are ready for choices that they emotionally are not. But, I still agree each case should be individually looked at.

The case with Frank and Nikki is really regretful. But, I don't know if that's really the norm. A man who goes out with an underage girl may just continue that behavior even as he gets older, becoming a predator and a pedophile. That, I think, is what the court system usually sees.

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Our legal system is one to protect us and sadly sometimes it does go to far... the mother should have kept her cool.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:35 am

Omni_Skittles;799112 wrote: Our legal system is one to protect us and sadly sometimes it does go to far... the mother should have kept her cool.
I disagree about mom. She did right for her minor daughter. Some judge should be able to make obvious exceptions to the list law.

I don't like that law anyway. If a person is a danger to society we shouldn't be letting them out. If they're not dangerous, then the list is pointless.

PurpleChicken · Post by **PurpleChicken** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:20 am

Those laws are there to protect those who are generally unable to protect themselves. Like anything though it is always difficult on the boundaries. Surely though, there should be some common sense that indicates that if the mother and the child do not want to proceed, then the charges could have been dropped.

Is a sign of a very strong relationship when they have stayed together after going through hell and back.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:57 pm

PurpleChicken;799313 wrote: Those laws are there to protect those who are generally unable to protect themselves. Nah, those laws are there because lawmakers can't justify life sentences for sexual predators, and this is an easy substitute.

PurpleChicken wrote: Like anything though it is always difficult on the boundaries. Surely though, there should be some common sense that indicates that if the mother and the child do not want to proceed, then the charges could have been dropped.

Is a sign of a very strong relationship when they have stayed together after going through hell and back.Yup! I agree. Somebody needs to get this guy off that list.

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:59 pm

Accountable;799250 wrote: I disagree about mom. She did right for her minor daughter. Some judge should be able to make obvious exceptions to the list law.

I don't like that law anyway. If a person is a danger to society we shouldn't be letting them out. If they're not dangerous, then the list is pointless.How do we decide? I think the mom over reacted.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:01 am

Omni_Skittles;800240 wrote: How do we decide? I think the mom over reacted.
Okay, let's see. Their ages were 15 and 19, right? So that's okay? It's a pretty fair bet that they might've started having sex well before they were caught. Is 14 and 18 okay?

What if the man were a bit older - say, 20. That's only a five-year difference, and lots of couples have that kind of age gap. Is it okay for a 20-year-old guy to hang around the high school talking to a freshman?

You're 18. What would your mom have done with you in the same situation, three years ago?

I'll make my point if I need to, but first I'll wait for your response.

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:28 am

Accountable;800284 wrote: Okay, let's see. Their ages were 15 and 19, right? So that's okay? It's a pretty fair bet that they might've started having sex well before they were caught. Is 14 and 18 okay?

What if the man were a bit older - say, 20. That's only a five-year difference, and lots of couples have that kind of age gap. Is it okay for a 20-year-old guy to hang around the high school talking to a freshman?

You're 18. What would your mom have done with you in the same situation, three years ago?

I'll make my point if I need to, but first I'll wait for your response.First, she wouldn't have let it happened. She probably would of been on her knees praying... my brothers might have beat him up... oh dad... dad would of gone crazy... she wouldn't call the cops, she might of just killed him, then me. But uh your asking someone who refuses to date, even now... But i know for sure she wouldn't press charges on the guy. Shotgun wedding maybe?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:55 pm

Omni_Skittles;800405 wrote: First, she wouldn't have let it happened. She probably would of been on her knees praying... my brothers might have beat him up... oh dad... dad would of gone crazy... she wouldn't call the cops, she might of just killed him, then me. But uh your asking someone who refuses to date, even now... But i know for sure she wouldn't press charges on the guy. Shotgun wedding maybe?
So similar reaction with different choices of weapon.

What about the first two questions?

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:04 pm

Accountable;800284 wrote: Okay, let's see. Their ages were 15 and 19, right? So that's okay? It's a pretty fair bet that they might've started having sex well before they were caught. Is 14 and 18 okay?

What if the man were a bit older - say, 20. That's only a five-year difference, and lots of couples have that kind of age gap. Is it okay for a 20-year-old guy to hang around the high school talking to a freshman?

1st question- Fifteen and nineteen year olds having sex is common... awkward I know. But when i was in high school it was common for the freshmen to date seniors or guys in college. (poor high school guys) Does that make it okay? No i don't think so...

2nd question- 20 year old guys should not be in high school!! No, it's not okay! But sadly it's common. This really is not that much of a shock anymore.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:13 pm

Omni_Skittles;801526 wrote: 1st question- Fifteen and nineteen year olds having sex is common... awkward I know. But when i was in high school it was common for the freshmen to date seniors or guys in college. (poor high school guys) Does that make it okay? No i don't think so...

2nd question- 20 year old guys should not be in high school!! No, it's not okay! But sadly it's common. This really is not that much of a shock anymore.

Girls at early to mid teens are far more mature than boys of the same age and therefore tend to be attracted to older boys to be with people of their own maturity level.

Given that many girls of that age, regardless of the legal situation, chose to experiment with sex, it is not un-natural for relationships to start that are, technically, outside the law.

Accepting that this is real life, is the current legal position reasonable or supportable?

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:18 pm

Bryn Mawr;801531 wrote: Girls at early to mid teens are far more mature than boys of the same age and therefore tend to be attracted to older boys to be with people of their own maturity level.

Given that many girls of that age, regardless of the legal situation, chose to experiment with sex, it is not un-natural for relationships to start that are, technically, outside the law.

Accepting that this is real life, is the current legal position reasonable or supportable?who decided the age of consent anyway and what supported it?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:25 pm

Omni_Skittles;801534 wrote: who decided the age of consent anyway and what supported it?

It has varied throughout history from about ten to somewhere around twenty five.

Generally set by public opinion which lags reality by a good twenty years

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:29 pm

Bryn Mawr;801535 wrote: It has varied throughout history from about ten to somewhere around twenty five.

Generally set by public opinion which lags reality by a good twenty years :-)Our culture has changed... and rules should be changed... but deep inside i don't want them to change. I don't think girls that young should be having sex because doesn't it emotionally screw up there mind? it would of mine. Most girls sleep with guys who are older to "keep" them, not because of love and junk... but then again that's our culture as well... sad.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:34 pm

PurpleChicken;799313 wrote: Surely though, there should be some common sense that indicates that if the mother and the child do not want to proceed, then the charges could have been dropped.

I just wanted to comment on the above quote....

Why should the charges have been dropped? Many rape victims go to the police (or domestic abuse victims), and then decide they'd rather drop the charges so they don't have to face their assailant in court. If the court just dropped the charges a guilty man would be allowed to go free. Doesn't seem right.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:37 pm

Omni_Skittles;801538 wrote: Our culture has changed... and rules should be changed... but deep inside i don't want them to change. I don't think girls that young should be having sex because doesn't it emotionally screw up there mind? it would of mine. Most girls sleep with guys who are older to "keep" them, not because of love and junk... but then again that's our culture as well... sad.

That might apply to men twenty years older but surely not to those five years older?

I would personally agree that early / mid teens is too young - but hormones appear to disagree.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:41 pm

laneybug;801539 wrote: I just wanted to comment on the above quote....

Why should the charges have been dropped? Many rape victims go to the police (or domestic abuse victims), and then decide they'd rather drop the charges so they don't have to face their assailant in court. If the court just dropped the charges a guilty man would be allowed to go free. Doesn't seem right.

Then more discretion should be used in choosing who is guilty of a crime rather than technically in breach of the law.

There are many cases where a law brought in for good reason makes criminals of those who are guilty of no crime purely because of the fallibility of the lawmakers.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:48 pm

Bryn Mawr;801541 wrote:

I would personally agree that early / mid teens is too young - but hormones appear to disagree.

Yes, the hormones. But sexual hormones don't give us the ability to make the proper decision at the proper time.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:54 pm

laneybug;801547 wrote: Yes, the hormones. But sexual hormones don't give us the ability to make the proper decision at the proper time.

I believe I suggested that the opposite applied.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:16 am

regardless of the law you think a measure of common sense could have been applied. This was hardly a paedophile stalking children. It sounds more like some determination to impose punishment regardless of circumstance or intent because of some outraged morality. It's not justice it's stupidity.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:30 am

gmc;801707 wrote: regardless of the law you think a measure of common sense could have been applied. This was hardly a paedophile stalking children. It sounds more like some determination to impose punishment regardless of circumstance or intent because of some outraged morality. It's not justice it's stupidity.
Agreed.