What do you all think of this story? Personally, I think the parents of that girl are even more to blame. They should never have let her get married at that age. 13 year olds are just not old enough to commit to a relationship to the rest of their life. If I were her parents, I would have been trying to get the guy charged with a crime not get my daughter married to him.
Despite that, I don't know that now Nebraska should be prosecuting him. He seems to have a reasonable belief that having sex with his wife was legal. It seems wrong to send someone to jail for that. Messed up situation all around. I sure wish the parents could be held responsible if they had willingly permitted their 13 year old daughter to date a 22 year old man.
posted
Sure, I guess a few 13 year olds might be able to make that sort of commitment but I really don't think the vast majority of them have the experiences with life to make such an important decision. I think it works better in other cultures and in former times because 13 year olds have so many other responsibilities at that age. 13 year olds today really have little experience with large responsibilities with jobs, bills, and raising children.
Dkw, I don't know if it erases the previous crime. I guess it just doesn't make sense to me that she is old enough to get married but not old enough to consent to sex.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that I agree with the parents consenting to the marriage. However, given the fact that they are married, what is the point of prosecuting him? Clearly, neither the parents nor the girl want to do so.
So the poor girl could end up with a baby to raise alone, and her husband in jail. Wonderful.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn’t want to see him in jail either. However, probation with someone checking up on how the wife and the baby are being treated would seem to me to be a good thing.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. Is that within the bounds of what can be done legally in that state? Would it have to be a plea bargain, or can the state demand those terms?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:13 year olds are just not old enough to commit to a relationship to the rest of their life.
They were able to for quite a long time.
People's lives were significantly shorter in those days, though.
I'm sure I am not seeing what your point really is. Not dying in your forties does not retroactively make you less responsible in your teens.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't know that I would be so quick to assume that, Porter. Haven't people been saying for years that we protract childhood in our society? If you know you only have thirty or forty years to live, as does everyone around you, and economic realities force you to assume the mantle of adulthood--in terms of working for a living, soldiering, etc., at a younger age, wouldn't you be an adult in spirit at that younger age as well?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he should be prosecuted, because his crime occurred before he was married, and because it is important--because of the realities of OUR society, not necessarily intrinsically--that we as a society condemn sexual liasons between adults and children. I haven't seen a photograph of the girl, but when a 22-year-old has sex with a 13-year-old, I assume pedophilia is at root.
I would agree that some sort of probation that allows him to support his new family would be a reasonably outcome, though.
I think Kansas's marriage laws are pretty screwed up, though.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're not charging her? The news tonight said she faced fifty years in prison or some such.
[Which prompted some outrage from me, not that I don't think she deserves jail time, but the previous story was about a man who shot a bully who had beaten up his son when the bully came around the house to threaten him some more, who was sentenced to twenty-five years. And again, I'm not entirely opposed to jail time for him, but the guy who beat his three-year-old to death (and routinely beat him long before the beating that led to his death) because he was afraid he would turn out to be gay only got about five years. And so I juxtapose a five-year-sentence for someone I regard as human refuse with a 25-year sentence for someone, misguidedly, perhaps, defending his family on his own property, and a threat of fifty years for having sex with freaking teenagers, and think something is seriously screwy about out sentencing.][/ramble]
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Despite that, I don't know that now Nebraska should be prosecuting him."
Nebraska is prosecuting him for a crime that took place in Nebraska. They got married in Kansas, because Nebraska doesn't allow marriage below 17. Nebraska is being consistent.
It would be hypocritical if Kansas prosecuted him though.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is I am not sure what he did in Nebraska should be considered a crime. He had sex with someone legally considered to be his wife however misguided the Kansas law was on the matter. Nebraska has to recognize the marriage due to the full faith and credit clause. I think that it would make more sense for Kansas to charge him for the sex that occurred before they were married. I agree with everyone else however that putting him in jail probably just makes thing harder on the girl.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: They're not charging her? The news tonight said she faced fifty years in prison or some such.
[Which prompted some outrage from me, not that I don't think she deserves jail time, but the previous story was about a man who shot a bully who had beaten up his son when the bully came around the house to threaten him some more, who was sentenced to twenty-five years. And again, I'm not entirely opposed to jail time for him, but the guy who beat his three-year-old to death (and routinely beat him long before the beating that led to his death) because he was afraid he would turn out to be gay only got about five years. And so I juxtapose a five-year-sentence for someone I regard as human refuse with a 25-year sentence for someone, misguidedly, perhaps, defending his family on his own property, and a threat of fifty years for having sex with freaking teenagers, and think something is seriously screwy about out sentencing.][/ramble]
It's like Icarus read my mind... amazing!
Quoted for truth.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't really say if they are prosecuting for the sex that happened before or after the marriage. Since the girl and her family aren't pressing charges, and she can't be made to testify against him, her pregnancy is the only proof they had that a crime occured, which would make me think they're probably prosecuting for what happened before the marriage.
But even if they're not. . . yes, Nebraska has to recognize that they're legally married, and provide them with all the rights and benefits they're entitled to. Having sex with someone under the age of 17 is still illegal in NE, regardless of if you're married to them. Just because they have to recognize that they're married doesn't trump the fact that a law is being broken.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I agree in general, but I think underlying that is that thirteen/fourteen-year-olds should not be able to marry 22-year-olds. And in Nebraska, apparently, they cannot, but in Kansas they can. Maybe this is just Nebraska's way of getting around "full faith and credit"?
In any case, though, I think we are missing the point here. If I understand this correctly, he is not being prosecuted for having sex with his spouse. He is being prosecuted for having had sex with a thirteen-year-old girl to whom he was not married.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I cannot imagine it ever being a good idea for a 13-year-old to get married in America today, for some reason I feel the need to defend the laws that make it legal. I have no idea why.
*has idea*
Maybe it's because my culture once upon a time ran afowl of American society because of our unconventional marriages.
posted
I don't see why marriage should change the laws on statutory rape...marriage doesn't change the laws on any sort of rape (at least in the USA). The point in the law is that under a certain age, there is not consent...and without consent, you cannot have sex whether you are married or not. Besides, as several people pointed out he had sex before he was married to her. The parents did not consent to the marriage until AFTER the 13 year old was pregnant.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: The parents did not consent to the marriage until AFTER the 13 year old was pregnant.
This line really resonated with me. And look at some of the other ways we've been talking about this -- her parents shouldn't have let her get married, since her parents are supporting the marriage they shouldn't prosecute, If I were her parents, I would have been trying to get him charged with a crime, not get her married to him. . .
So it's clear that we think most of the decision making responsibility (on her side) lies with her parents. Because, you know, she's too young to make that kind of decision, which is going to affect the rest of her life.
If that's the case, then she was also too young to be reasonably supposed to be able to give consent to have sex, and her husband should be prosecuted.
But my real problem is this: Until the marriage her parents were responsible for making her decisions for her. She's now married to a 22 year old man. Do you suppose they can have an equal partnership in their relationship, discussing important matters and coming to an agreement together, with both of their opinions having equal weight? When they disagree, can they fairly compromise? Or was a child just handed off from her parent's household into her husband's, where she will soon have a child to take care of and he will make all the decisions? If this is how their relationship starts out, does it have any hope of changing as she grows and matures?
And what about her education? Does getting married trump that? I can't imagine truancy officers showing up at her door. . .
It's a bad situation all around. I don't have any answers, any more than anyone else. . . but I'd like to see that Kansas law changed. I'm having a hard time coming up with any situation in our current society where I think a 13 year old should be getting married.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This girl is being talked about like she's still a little girl. Minor yes, but is she responsible for her actions or not? I'm really asking here, so don't think I'm trying to push an agenda. This is something I would like to hear discussed, though...
12 years old seems to be the traditional age of accountability regarding sin and salvation for people of many faiths. Isn't that true? Since rape has not been mentioned in this case, can she morally, if not legally, be said to have consented to sex with this man?
Is it possible for a 13 or 14 year old to make these sorts of decisions? Is it reasonable to assume that she won't have any decision making power in her marriage? Why would we think that? Simply because of her age?
I don't agree that they should have had sex. I hesitate to call him a pedophile, though, since I don't know all the circumstances beyond her age, although I know that technically he is. So even though I think the sex initially was wrong, now that they are married, I don't see this as something that should be overturned or ignored. I hope that she grows to be an equal partner in her marriage and that the couple is able to raise their baby together. In a few years, she will be 18 and the difference in their ages will not seem nearly so drastic. It is not an ideal situation for her, but it doesn't have to be the end of life for her.
I understand prosecuting people who have sex with underage people. It is important to protect other children from a predator. But nothing in this case gives me reason to believe that he is a threat to other underage girls. He seems to have made a committment to this girl when he could have run--even under the very real threat of prosecution.
Is it so far out of the realm of possibility that a 22 year old and a 13 year old could actually fall in love?
Okay... these are mostly questions... I'm not sure how I feel about it.. but I want to hear thoughts...
quote:I don't see why marriage should change the laws on statutory rape...marriage doesn't change the laws on any sort of rape (at least in the USA). The point in the law is that under a certain age, there is not consent...and without consent, you cannot have sex whether you are married or not.
Are you really saying that people could be adult enough not marry but not adult to consemate that marriage?
Or are you saying that if the marriage laws are so messed up, let's try to "fix" it by proposing something you don't believe (that they are mature enough to marry but not to copulate)?
posted
WTFIWWYP? she's THIRTEEN. What is so hard about this, It's sick and wrong. When you fall in love at 13 you get a boyfriend, not a husband. If you're 22 and you have sex with a 13 yr old, you go to prison and the inmates kill you. That's the American way!
Posts: 128 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Or are you saying that if the marriage laws are so messed up, let's try to "fix" it by proposing something you don't believe (that they are mature enough to marry but not to copulate)?
Unless the law is worded in a way that makes an exception for married couples, it WOULD still be illegal to sleep with an underage spouse -- unless (and I don't know whether this is the case; I suspect that it is not, since I've seen successful prosecutions for rape against husbands) sexual relations are an assumed marital right. Right, Dag?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what would be a totally radical idea, so crazy that it just might work? How about we limit marriage to a union between two consenting adults?
<I am now preparing to be pilloried for my radical espousals>
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
1.) The common law definition of rape - one enacted into statute in most states until sometime in the last century - had a "with a woman other than his wife" clause built in. By definition, a man could not rape his wife.
2.) This is not the case any more, although some states consider rape of a spouse a lesser crime (something I disagree with), some states create something like a presumption of consent (which seems reasonable, but I haven't thought it through), and some states do not take marital status into account at all (although I'm sure juries do).
3.) Many statutory rape laws contained exceptions for spouses. Under English common law, the age of consent was 10, and once that age was reached, proving rape was almost impossible due to the evidentiary standards. At least some states still make an exception for spouses. Nebraska does not (as best I can tell).
4.) "Marital relations" are a recognized (indeed, essential) part of marriage law. I know of no case that would require a state to honor another state's marriage in this regard, though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I asked questions. For that, I am not ashamed. The issue is not nearly as clear cut as you think it is, especially with laws being influenced by culture, religion, and society--all of which change. Look at other countries and time periods and you'll find vast differences in law and customs regarding marriage and the age of consent.
As I said, I am in favor of the age of consent being 18--however, I am able to at least conceive that there might be situations, few though they be, that allow for other outcomes. I do think it is possible for someone under 18 and someone over 18 to be genuinely in love, even with a large age difference. However, I still think they need to obey the laws for the sake of those under 18 who are not mature enough and mentally old enough for such decisions--and because it is difficult, if not impossible, to make the distinction between the two types. So for the good of the majority, the minority must wait until 18.
My gut tells me that 13 is ALWAYS too young, however, and this situation is really messed up. 16 and older is where more "gray" area comes in, for me, at least. But in other cultures, that age is even lower.
I still would like more reactions to my original post. I'm interested in what hatrackers think. I made it clear that these are my questions--I don't have firm answers in mind.
I am not in favor of people under 18 getting married, and certainly not to someone much older.
But, this couple is already married (under a law that while we might not agree still is a law), with a child on the way. Without knowing full details, I think it is in the best interest of the child on the way and the young mother that this family be allowed to stay together. As I said, in a few years, their age difference won't matter quite as much.
-Katarain
Edit: to clarify a line that looked contradictory, but wasn't as I intended.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it so far out of the realm of possibility that a 22 year old and a 13 year old could actually fall in love?
No, but I do think it is far out of the realm of possibility that said 13 year old could give valid consent to sex, and I have no hesitation in naming any sexual relations between the two of them rape.
Does love have to lead instantly to pre-marital sex? Even as a devout atheist and social liberal, I'd have to say a resounding no.
I used to date a man twelve years older than myself, and I used to spend significant amounts of time at an on-line community for age gap couples. We were regularly visited by teenage girls in love with older men, and the inevitable answer, regardless of who first responded to their posts, was a caution that love alone wasn't enough to build a relationship on and a suggestion that one of the best ways to test whether the connection between the two of them was real was to wait until they were 18 before pursuing anything sexual. That's advice I stand by, and also, incidently, advice I don't regret having followed in my own relationship.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for your reasoned response, ambyr.
I actually agree with everything you said. I have said the same thing to other teenage girls who were so "in love" with older men and meant it.
As I've mentioned plenty of times on this board, I don't believe in or condone premarital sex. I'm pretty conservative about it.
In the past, I have spoken out vehemently about ANY low-down dirty rotten man that would even think about being with a girl under 18. I have serious doubts that he's interested in anything but the fact that she's young and he's the corrupter. I still feel that way. Since then, though, the possibility that the relationship could be genuine has been introduced to me. Still, I would say, as you have, that waiting is the real test of love. Even that possibility is a real slight one, in my opinion.
I'm not condoning what they did--but I see no good result from prosecuting this man.
And for those who are religious...if a teenager can be held accountable by God for sexual sin, how does that relate in your mind to the age of consent? Did we choose 18 as the age of consent to protect the immature ones? Is it an arbitrary age? Is it possible that younger ones could be ready earlier? What sort of society do we live in that hyper-sexualizes our youth, but has a higher age of consent than many other countries?
-Katarain
Edit: I wrote age of accountability instead of age of consent.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What sort of society do we live in that hyper-sexualizes our youth, but has a higher age of consent than many other countries?
An inconsistent one, but that happens because we don't agree on which direction to go to fix it.
The same thing happens whenever anybody points out that marijuana, which some argue is less dangerous thatn tobacco and alchohol, is illegal while the other two don't. Some people want to legalize marijuana while others want to outlaw tobacco and/or alchohol.
There is a lot of disagreement in our country. Different people push different agendas. It's not surprising that we send out inconsistent messages -- we are inconsistent.
posted
I find it interesting that some people, and evidently the law, believe that someone has the power to consent to marriage before they are capable of consenting to sex. I'm not sure the laws on these matters reflect the reality of what people are and are not capable of doing. At the very least, I'd say anyone capable of consenting to marriage should be capable of consenting to sex, since the former implies the latter, in my view. Laws should reflect this, or contradictions like this case will arise.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think what's happening here for me is that my respect for marriage is trumping my disgust of relationships between older men and girls under 18. It's a weird position to be in. What really influences me in this is the faith, perhaps undeserved, that the parents know this man and really thought that marriage to him would do less harm to their daughter than being an unwed mother and actually trusted him to do right by her and to love her. If they think it is the best thing for their daughter in this horrible situation, I am inclined to believe them--even though I know that there are parents who suck. (I just remembered that the father is absent--so replace parents with mother.)
quote:the law, believe that someone has the power to consent to marriage before they are capable of consenting to sex.
I don't think "the law" believes this. In states where one can marry young, one can have sex with the wife young.
But we have 50 sets of laws in this country. It would be more accurate to say "Two different jurisdictions disagree on how old someone can be to consent to marriage."
Now, some states do say that a married person of a certain age can consent to sex with her spouse, but a person of a certain age cannot consent to sex with someone not her spouse. But then, adultery is still technically illegal in many states.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case, I think the marriage was a bad idea.
I do believe that 13 is too young to give informed consent to having sex. I also believe it's too young to give informed consent to being married.
Most laws regarding both sex and marriage recognise this.
If in this case, they are truly in love - I think it would have been better to let them wait. But wait without the legal binds of marriage on a THIRTEEN year old.
As to whether he should be prosecuted - I don't know.
I do know that the fact that the victim and her family don't want the charges to go ahead is not reason enough. That's up to the police and the DA (I presume - here it's the DPP) to decide.
And what if, it's not a case of true love? What if in a few years, he sleeps with (assaults) another teenage girl? Marriage doesn't mean someone who has shown deviant sexual behavior will stop that behavior.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
