Talk:Statutory rape

Peter has added a lot of detailed and interesting information to this article. I have a few questions about some details:

Could someone explain "[3 Edw, c.13, 1275]"? It looks like a reference. Also, which book is "Cocca"? It was mentioned in a hidden comment under "Age limit".

I would like to second that request. What is Cocca?

--Jimf3 20:00, 12 August 2006 (EST)

I assumed that

"(evidently) white girls of previously chaste character" (ibid.)

was a quote from somewhere and added quotation marks. Am I correct? What is the source?

Kes's summary of criticism of statutory rape laws ("Criticism") is important, but I would like the point of the argument a bit clearer. It sounds a bit like accusation is sufficient to presume a suspect guilty of rape. I believe the main point rather is that the defendant is not allowed to prove consent; consent is presumed impossible. Am I correct? I'll try to formulate something later.
— Asch ^{talk to me} 17:39, 7 August 2006 (EST)

Yes, the defendant is not assumed guilty (against "innocent until proved guilty") and is not allowed to prove consent or that what happened occured within an ongoing relationship, etc. Kes 09:38, 8 August 2006 (EST)

I happened to be interrupted while editing, so the references are missing. Cocca was in fact cited in the AoC article, so if you were in a hurry . . .

»3 Edw, c.13, 1275« that's how the British laws are cited: by reign (King Edward), volume, year of enactment (1275) and chapter (13).

I wrote the introduction because I definitely didn't like the old one, which you reinstated. I feel its wording odd and the references to consent of dubious value (in particular is ‘informed consent’ so recent a concept that it is out of place w.r.t. such an old law). I postpone further comments. Peter 07:46, 9 August 2006 (EST)

Though it confused me a bit, I'm glad you saved your work when interrupted! Thank you for the explanation of British law citation. Perhaps we should add an explanatory note about this, maybe on a separate page if we go citing British law a lot.

I didn't realize you hid the introduction on purpose; I thought perhaps it was hidden as a temporary measure and then forgotten. We really should start the article with a short definition that refers to today's law. (History is important, of course, but a little later in the article.)

I believe it would be appropriate to mention "informed consent" if the concept is an important part of today's law, even though the law itself is old.
— Asch ^{talk to me} 16:55, 9 August 2006 (EST)

---

1. If I read Cocca correctly, there is nowadays no such thing as a fixed definition of statutory rape, or indeed any other sexual crime, but a bewildering array of offences and their elements. So what is the purpose of starting with the historical content? (i) it is the common ground of shared by all recent legislation and (ii) it still structures the way sexual crimes are understood. To take it as starting point makes everything simpler.
2. The question of consent is vastly overrated in the community. As a rule, ‘consent is no excuse’, i.e. it simply doesn't matter. To put it into perspective: AoC is like a speed limit: even if all drivers would formally consent to voiding a speed limit, it would stay in force.—
3. In German law, as an aside, consent is almost exclusively a problem with battery, as (i) many medical procedures are construed as battery and (2) a (Nazi) law made consent void if ‘contrary to public morals’, the target then was sterilisation, at the time contrary to the pronatalistic policy. In a related area, in sports you cannot consent to be bodily harmed by foul-play, so you can get damages; but this is really more a question of interpreting the terms of the contract you enter by playing, isn't it? – There is no question that children can consent to most medical procedures (as they can say consent to having their hair cut). Note that if a child can consent and exercises this right, in German law the parents etc, have no more say in that respect, they cannot override the child's decision, in theory at least.
4. Another point that is not usually taken into account is to ask why a consent is necessary. Fondling, kissing, fucking do not constitute bodily harm per se (more to the contrary)—so why should there be any question of consent at all?
5. The notion of ‘informed consent’ is fully out of place her, I'm afraid. Logically, the question of ‘informed’ consent presupposes that consent be relevant. The notion but serves Finkelhor and the like to pose as liberals while conforming themselves to the ‘right circles‘. Consent really isn't the question: The intention of the law(-makers) is to control juvenile sexuality, it just doesn't make sense to ask them whether they want to be controlled.

Peter 17:33, 12 August 2006 (EST)