Underage Gay Sex Worse than Underage Straight Sex in Kansas - Until Now

Remove all ads!

One thing about lawyers you need to know: whatever they write should be read twice. And then again.

Yeah, especially if we're partly protecting people from themselves. After all, it's consensual. I wonder how many people sentenced for sex with someone below the age of consent are in fact people who forgot to card their mate. IMHO there should never be any such charge if the initiative came from the minor, who also looked older than he or she was or if the minor was in a place and/or situation where minors shouldn't be expected and looked older than the real age.

 

If 15 months for having sex with an underaged girl versus 17 years for having sex with an underage boy is not kay, then raise the penalty for having sex with an underage girl.

Secondly, the arguement I was trying to make was that the boy's mental state may have been ruled to nullify consent, therefore making th crime Rape, and the victim a mentally challenged 14 year old boy. Even if the victim was a mentally challenged 14 year old girl, the man would have gotten more than some 20 months. It would be a lot closer to the 17 years that was handed down in the original case.

 

Gnarff,

I get where you're coming from. Indeed, that is the other solution - you either raise the punishment for different sexes, or reduce the penalty for same sex. Although technically, I don't think it can be called rape, as no penetration was involved. According to the article it was oral sex, and AFAIK, you can't get a rape charge for that.

 

It isn't clear in criminal codes if coerced oral is rape or coerced sexual activity of a different kind. We can't take the penetration criterion too far or anal rape won't be rape.

 

Yeah, anal rape is definitely rape, but I don't think oral is considered rape. Specifically because if it was, he would have been charged with (at least) statutory rape. If it fell under the rape definition, why wouldn't that be the charge?

 

Courts differ. If you have "intercourse" in one paragraph and "sexual activity" in another, it depends on what the judge considers intercourse or sexual activity. You could find a judge for whom only full vaginal penetration is intercourse, so by definition, a male can't rape a male, plus everything like oral or anal is a lesser charge. Or you could find a judge for whom oral sex is always intercourse, even on par with vaginal penetration. In cases of molestation, one judge will dismiss everything short of nudity and outright nagging, another will believe a plain hug or cheek peck to be sexual. And so on and so forth. This is why I wouldn't rely too much on the charge, especially in a common law system where plea bargain is a reality.