Legal Question

[Jack Scribe]

I'm not going to make much comment about the trashiness of the Spears sisters except they're part of a national embarrassment. My question is this: The younger sister, Jamie Lynn Spears - age 16, is pregnant and the man (irresponsible twerp) involved is her boyfriend - age 19. In California, she is a minor but they are only three years apart: http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm.

 

Still, he is an adult and she is a minor, three years younger. None of the gossip mongers have mentioned the guy's liability in committing "unlawful sexual intercourse". Will this guy get nailed for the law violation? :wacko: Or is this just something where you turn your back and think, 'Oh, well.'

[Trebs]

I read one news article about the very subject - and a lot of it involves which state they did the deed in...

[Conner]

I guess I have a more liberal outlook on this incident. Providing there was full consent on the part of the minor. I really don't see this as criminal behaviour. Were they stupid and careless? For sure.

 

Amazingly enough, the age of consent across Canada is 14. There's an important exception for adults who are in a position of authority or trust in relation to the minor in the age range 14 to 17, e.g. police, bosses, teachers, etc.

 

In practice, there's a double standard around gender that often comes into play when the minor is male and the adult is a woman.

 

Conner

[FrenchCanadian]

It seems like I'm liberal also on that point of view. The girl is 16, I'm not talking about her maturity, she's old enough to consent.

 

Also, she did the stuff with her, I'd assume, boyfriend. It would be stupid to think that, at those age, people don't have sex at all.

 

Therefore it would be a little stupid to prosecute the boyfriend for that.

 

It is also interesting the double standard when it's boy sex; for some reason, the age of consent for boys is older, I think.

[CarlHoliday]

I don't think the guy has much to worry about. The statute seems fairly clear about the three year age difference. The most he could expect would be a civil penalty, but even that isn't assured. 261.5(e)(2) says the district attorny "may" bring action. That's just as good as saying he doesn't have to. If the girl's parent had insisted on punishment, then he might expect that course of action, but it's quite obvious from the media accounts the focus is on the celebrity in this instance.

[rknapp]

Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual

intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years

older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is

guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

Unlawful is essentially asking whether or not both (or all) parties consented to sexual intercourse with each other. If this is true (lawful), then he is guilty only of dipping his pen into her ink jar and adding his own solution.

[Demetz]

Age of Consent varies from state to state, but many have "buffers" where a minor and a legal adult can have sex if they're within a certain age range. In California, I think its 3, in Pennsylvanis its 4, in Florida, I think it's 16 to 24 (been a while since I checked that one so don't quote me on that).

 

There's also an issue of federal law when involving the transportation of minors across state line for the purposes of sex. Namely, under federal law its illegal to transport a minor under the age of consent in their own state to a state where they are within the age of consent to have sex with.

[Jack Scribe]

I read one news article about the very subject - and a lot of it involves which state they did the deed in...

They are from Mississippi. In that case, there is no problem if they were diddling under a willow tree down South (more romantic than a Motel 6 with a six-pack of Bud and chicken wings):

 

Any person seventeen (17) years of age or older has sexual intercourse with a child who:

 

(i) Is at least fourteen (14) but under sixteen (16) years of age

 

I agree with Connor concerning the consent issue for two people who are both 16 or above - and one is 2 or 3 years older. And consenting minors - in a variety of couplings - is quite the norm. What is utterly unacceptable is the irresponsibility of either or both not to use contraception. Neither are equiped to address parenthood.

 

Here's how the press described the expectant father (who is a cutie):

 

He's a 19-year-old pipe layer; a deer-hunting, dirt-bike-riding former high school class president who still lives in his tiny Mississippi hometown.

 

This is the same hometown that produced that other guy - another cutie - who married Britany for 56 hours in Vegas. Now there you go...poon tang and it was legal.

 

It is amusing to read that Mrs. Spears was in the process of developing a book about parenting. I understand that project has been shelved.

 

Oh, I smell a story in this...with variations. Please, God, tell me that they didn't produce a video.

 

Jack

[Jack Scribe]

Or did she have the luxury of not having the whole world focus on every little mistake she did?

I group Mrs. Spears with Mrs. Lohan and Mrs. Hilton. They seem to seek out publicity and career opportunities through their off-spring's fame/notoriety. They became public property when they took that posture. The media and blogs can be a bitch when you're famous or try to be.

 

Most mothers don't do this. When did you last read about Josh Groban's mom? Or Matt Damon's mom (except when he brought her to the Oscar Awards)? Ellen Degeneres's mom appears occasionally in some humor-inspired bit. So did David Letterman's mom when she was younger. What do you ever read about the mother of Christina Aguilera (probably the most talented singer of her generation)? I do remember reading about Celine's mom in a background article several years ago and never felt Celine's romance/marriage was a big deal.

 

In that my mom never sought fame, I didn't appreciate comments being so personal. This is the first Christmas I am observing the holiday without her.

[ashessnow]

Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual

intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years

older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is

guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

I believe that's for California.

[SRV1984]

Oh you mean Britney became famous like Paris Hilton? Did Paris Hilton sell over 80millions albums worlwide? Is Paris Hilton in the top 10 best selling American artists of all time? Does Paris Hilton bring happiness to thousands and thousands of people worldwide with her music? No. Therefore, not the same deal.

 

The reason why paparazzis and the world focus on Britney Spears is because she fascinates them. I mean when Britney goes to buy a chocolate, the whole world will read about it even though they say they don't care. You say she seeks these things out, eh? Like when she does normal things like going to a restaurant, grocery shopping, etc? That's asking to be criticized?

 

What does Matt Damon's mom along with other celebrities mothers have to do with this? They are not artists those mothers. Their children are. It's not Christina Aguilera's mom who is a singer, it's her daughter. Britney IS a mother. Have you seen the media harassing Christina Aguilera during her pregnancy? Has the media called her fat because she's pregnant?

 

So for Celine being underage and being with Rene, her manager, who's old enough to be her Dad, that's not a big deal? Nice. Good to know only some people are judged for their actions while others can do as they please because "it's not a big deal" or because "they're famous. We can insult them as much as we want!"

[C James]

As others have said, it depends on which state "the deed" occured in. Also, the fact that it could have been different states gives near automatic reasonable doubt, unless there is some form of proof. (in other words, they could claim there were in one state where it was legal, such as Mississippi)

 

Personally, I've often found some of these laws to be absurd. I'll gladly condemn any adult who goes after minors, BUT, when we're talking two kids in their late teens and very close in age, that's just nuts and no place for the law.

 

In Arizona, it's even crazier. For example, if two seventeen year olds are having sex, that's basically legal. But let's assume one is five days older than the other. If they are in a long-term relationship, the one who turns 18 first can get in real hot water, along with the added prize of lifetime membership in the registered sex offenders club.

 

Worse, there is an exception for both still being in high school, but it's a proactive defense, NOT an automatic out. In other words, they can still be charged, and its then up to the jury to consider the defense.

 

This has occurred to teens just days apart in age when in a long-term relationship. One of the nastier bits of this law is that an ongoing sexual relationship prior to the 18th birthday of the eldest is considered presumptive evidence of said relationship occurring once the eldest turns 18.

 

There have been prosecutions over this. It's rare when they are within a year's age, but it has happened at paren'ts urging, usually whn its the girl who is younger and the parents don't like the guy. I shudder to think was could happen to a gay couple under these circumstances, as the jury might not be so inclined to consider the proactive defenses.

 

Jack, my sincere coldolences on the loss of your mother.

 

BTW, you said you see a story in this somewhere. Well, there is one story that I know of here on GA that had exactly this Arizona law as a major plot point. Been as it's relevant, and I did research the law for it, I'll link it. It's called "For the Love".

[JamesSavik]

Just be safe and wait till they are thirty.

 

What they lose in cuteness & hotness, they gain in stability and knowing who they are.

[Jack Scribe]

BTW, you said you see a story in this somewhere. Well, there is one story that I know of here on GA that had exactly this Arizona law as a major plot point. Been as it's relevant, and I did research the law for it, I'll link it. It's called "For the Love".

Fair enough. And a good story, too. Steve was my hero...even his little turd of a brother came through in the end.

[FrenchCanadian]

I do remember reading about Celine's mom in a background article several years ago and never felt Celine's romance/marriage was a big deal.

 

About Celine mom,, ummm the lady did get a tv show (a cooking show), And she still get invited in talk show over here every so often.

 

Her marriage was a big deal over here.

[AFriendlyFace]

There's also an issue of federal law when involving the transportation of minors across state line for the purposes of sex. Namely, under federal law its illegal to transport a minor under the age of consent in their own state to a state where they are within the age of consent to have sex with.

So you mean they're not allowed to cross the line and THEN 'cross the line'?

 

I guess I have a more liberal outlook on this incident. Providing there was full consent on the part of the minor. I really don't see this as criminal behaviour. Were they stupid and careless? For sure.

I agree with Conner on this one.

 

As CJ pointed out, they were both in their late teens, and I think she's knew what she was doing just as much as he did.

 

What do you ever read about the mother of Christina Aguilera (probably the most talented singer of her generation)?

A man with good taste! I think Christina is an extremely talented vocalist AND a very good person (although I still think that's irrelevant in the first place when it comes to singers, actors, and other celebrities).

 

My condolences Jack

 

 

Personally, I'm very sick of people constantly criticizing celebrities, and athletes for their bad behaviour. Their behaviour is, in my opinion, only relevant in so far as it relates to their particular vocation. In other words the lip-syncing scandal a few years ago with Ashlee Simpson was perfectly acceptable, as is the more recent drama about the use of steroids in sports. Similarly I think it's fine to castigate religious figures for improper/hypocritical sexual behaviour.

 

However as a general rule and unless it does relate to their vocational performance, who these people are sleeping with, how much they're drinking, what they're wearing (or aren't), and how well they're taking care of their kids shouldn't be especially relevant to mainstream America. That should remain the concern of their family, friends, the authorities, and child protective services.

 

Whether or not we approve of their behaviour is irrelevant. This may sound a bit harsh, but anyone who tries to model their personal/moral life on the actions of someone famous deserves to be disappointed. I have much more patience for kids doing this, but I still think it's primarily a parent's responsibility to explain that "X may be a good singer/ballplayer/actor but that doesn't necessarily mean he/she is also a good person" than it is for X to be held under a microscope, or even be expect to behave any better than anyone else in similar circumstances (they may have a personal moral responsibility to do so, but IMO it's ludicrous to assign them a societal responsibility).

 

Anyway, with regards to age of consent, as I said, I think in this case the age of the participants doesn't matter. I also think the double standard with regards to boys is particularly ridiculous. Obviously I'm against any double standard or any difference in expectations for the two genders, at all stages of life (in fact this is a major bone of contention for me). However, if there is going to be a double standard with this matter, I think it's exactly wrong. I remember being a teenage boy, and I remember what other teenage boys were like. I also remember what teenage girls were like.

 

I remember reading a quote awhile back in which someone said something to the effect of "Nowadays we call 16 and 17 year old boys who have sex with 25 year old women victims. We used to call them lucky."

 

I'm not saying I approve, in fact I quite thoroughly don't, but I think there is some truth to that statement.

 

-Kevin

Edited December 23, 2007 by AFriendlyFace

[Graeme]

On the subject of consent and the age of the minor, there was an uproar in Australia recently because a judge gave NINE males (aged from teenager up to mid twenties) very light sentences (practically just slaps on the wrist) after the gang rape of an eleven-year-old girl, on the basis that the victim "probably consented".

 

Part of the age of consent is supposed to be the age at which the person is able to consent. Yes, an eleven-year-old is capable of saying "yes" to sex (I know I was, though I wasn't asked...) but do they have the maturity required to provide a "real" consent?

 

In the situation that started this thread, I agree that both parties probably came to a mutual consent and that both are (hopefully) mature enough to deal with the consequences, but I don't think an eleven-year-old would be. This means you've got two ages -- one where they can give consent and one where they can't. To make it a law, you have to be able to draw a line between the two, and that's an arbitrary line (especially since people mature at different rates). The best that can be done is to set the line high enough that the majority of people of that age are able to give informed consent. This means that there are some people who will be mature enough before that age, but age is a pretty blunt instrument in these things. Unfortunately, it's the best we've got.

[AFriendlyFace]

On the subject of consent and the age of the minor, there was an uproar in Australia recently because a judge gave NINE males (aged from teenager up to mid twenties) very light sentences (practically just slaps on the wrist) after the gang rape of an eleven-year-old girl, on the basis that the victim "probably consented".

 

Part of the age of consent is supposed to be the age at which the person is able to consent. Yes, an eleven-year-old is capable of saying "yes" to sex (I know I was, though I wasn't asked...) but do they have the maturity required to provide a "real" consent?

 

In the situation that started this thread, I agree that both parties probably came to a mutual consent and that both are (hopefully) mature enough to deal with the consequences, but I don't think an eleven-year-old would be. This means you've got two ages -- one where they can give consent and one where they can't. To make it a law, you have to be able to draw a line between the two, and that's an arbitrary line (especially since people mature at different rates). The best that can be done is to set the line high enough that the majority of people of that age are able to give informed consent. This means that there are some people who will be mature enough before that age, but age is a pretty blunt instrument in these things. Unfortunately, it's the best we've got.

Excellent point, there's clearly a big difference between these two scenarios.

 

I think it's very unfortunate that these things are expected to be black and white. There's absolutely no reason to assume that these two situations are the same, so why treat them that way? IMO, the best solution would be to leave the judges and police with enough leeway to make rational judgments, and then to carefully appoint officials to these positions who will make sensible, rational judgments.

 

However, while I personally think all such matters should carefully take context and individual situations strongly into consideration, I concede that this probably isn't feasible on such a grand scale. So you're probably right, Graeme, drawing an arbitrary line probably is the best we can do

Edited December 23, 2007 by AFriendlyFace

[rec]

Wikipedia has a long article on the age of consent around he U.S. and the world. The South of the U.S. shows 16 or lower.

 

Just use 'age of consent' a the topic.

 

rec

[Jack Frost]

This just shows that no one really cares about the age of consent when it involves teenagers with their ages close to each other.

 

If they have to start getting people seriously, they just might have to arrest over an half of the teenagers in California.

 

It's like fighting a losing battle trying to stop teenagers from having sex. Those laws should be reformed with 15 or 16 as the setting age and draw a line somewhere in the sand to prevent adults from taking advantage of minors under 18, which is called "close in age exceptions". An example: we can make a range of two or three years (hence making it legal for a 18 year old to have sex with a 15 year old, but illegal for a 19 year to do so with someone at 15). It would be easier to enforce, according to the police.

 

And I think the US federal government should make the law. It would be easier to have an universal law than having a confusing patchwork of 50 different state laws.

[AFriendlyFace]

And I think the US federal government should make the law. It would be easier to have an universal law than having a confusing patchwork of 50 different state laws.

I agree

[Graeme]

And I think the US federal government should make the law. It would be easier to have an universal law than having a confusing patchwork of 50 different state laws.

I agree

I don't know how it is in the USA, but in Australia, the constitution defines which powers are at the federal level and which are at the state. At the time, the various states had not all decided to federate, so there are some strange quirks in there to keep certain parties happy.

 

Today, Australia has three levels of government (Federal, State, Local) and it's incredibly inefficient as a consequence. It would be nice if everything could be decided federally (so we'd get consistency across the country), but that would tend to mean that the main population centres would get the majority of attention, and it is the rural areas that need the most help. A lot of people think one level should be removed, but should it be State or Local?

 

I could make a case for Age of Consent being state based, to take into account native culture (eg. Alaska, Hawaii and the various Indian reservations), but it certainly would be simpler if it was federal. Of course, at the federal level you would have the issue of trying to get equal age of consents for homosexual vs hetereosexual couples (I believe some places have different ages for the two), and that sort of thing can be easier to put in at the state level for liberal states.... gee, it gets complicated awfully quickly, doesn't it?

[Conner]

For Christmas, Graeme, I've asked Santa to uncomplicate you!!

 

Conner

[Graeme]

For Christmas, Graeme, I've asked Santa to uncomplicate you!!

I don't that's possible. I have two young boys -- that complicates a person beyond any ability to uncomplicate them....

[rknapp]

You say she seeks these things out, eh? Like when she does normal things like going to a restaurant, grocery shopping, etc? That's asking to be criticized?

Those things? No.

Showing the world her vagina? Yes.

Operating a motor vehicle without a seatbelt while cradling a child in her lap? Yes.

Making a fool of herself at parties? Yes.

 

I don't read the tabloids. Two years ago I had to write a paper on American tabloids... by the time I handed that paper in I was so with the American public that I became physically ill and nearly vomited. That said, the only news I hear of Spears is of the same kind as young Paris Hilton. Fortunately for Britany, her shenanigan's (sp?) haven't earned her a neat little ankle bracelet. Good for her. As for her little sister, she should have known better. I don't think even Britany would have been so careless.