Can someone with more legal knowledge explain this....

[Ping898]

Ok, so I don't understand this....

Florida law states that a 15-year-old cannot give consent to sex. And though Crystal was 15 at the time of the alleged forced encounter, the prosecutor wrote that the case would not be prosecuted because Crystal was "a mere 1 month away" from turning 16, when it would be "legal to give consent," according to documents.

See now I was always taught that almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades....so how can you not prosecute cause 1 month after the act she would have been of age to give consent?

This comes from an article about how girls are turning to the net and places like youtube and facebook to tell their stories....
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/15/rape.online/index.html

 

[morph4me]

My question is, if it was allegedly a forced encounter, what does consent have to do with it?

 

[CoryKS]

It's a bad precedent, because eventually they're going to run across a case that makes them draw a new, second line. If "one month away" is okay, what about a month in a half? Two months? Six? It'll be like highway speeds - sign says 60 max, but really the speed is whatever is sufficiently over the limit to incur the wrath of the officer you just passed. Better to have a clearly delineated cutoff age and adhere to it.

 

[CoryKS]

My question is, if it was allegedly a forced encounter, what does consent have to do with it?

It's considered forced because she is legally unable to consent.

 

[jks9199]

I can't address specifics of Florida law, nor can I provide legal advice since I'm not a lawyer. (Just gotta throw the caveat out...)

Let me start by copying the entire relevant portion of the article:

Orange County authorities charged the 23-year-old man Crystal accused of assaulting her with lewd or lascivious battery. According to court documents, Crystal and the man both said they had an ongoing sexual relationship.

The prosecutor, who declined to comment to CNN, concluded that the teen and the 23-year-old had consensual sex, according to the case file.

Florida law states that a 15-year-old cannot give consent to sex. And though Crystal was 15 at the time of the alleged forced encounter, the prosecutor wrote that the case would not be prosecuted because Crystal was "a mere 1 month away" from turning 16, when it would be "legal to give consent," according to documents.

The charge in question is "statutory rape", or rape as defined by law, instead of forcible rape. While the exact age varies, most states have a law that says a person below a certain age (usually around 16) is automatically presumed to be unable to consent to sex because they are too mentally and emotionally immature. It gets very complicated because many states will take into account the relative age of the parties (if they're within a year or two it's different than if a 50 year old man or women had sex with a 15 year old). And, based on the information above, this looks to be a very hard to prove case. The article seems to imply that there was a history of sexual relations between the girl and her alleged rapist. It's unclear whether the entire relationship or a particular encounter is the alleged rape; either way, the fact that there was an on-going relationship makes it difficult to prove. There's also probably very little physical evidence. On top of that -- there's apparently accounts floating on the web, which may differ from the girl's statement to the police. It simply appears that while there are allegations, there wasn't sufficient evidence for the prosecutor to go forward, especially because the girl was close to the age of consent.

Also -- one thing that's not mentioned is that the alleged rapist may have been charged with a lesser offense than rape, such as contributing to the delinquency of a minor or unlawful carnal knowledge.

 

[MA-Caver]

Way I see it a 23 yr. old guy shouldn't be having any type of relationship with a 15 yr. old beyond that of platonic friendship.

Question really begs to be asked is how long has they been at it together? Was she 13 or 14 when they started? What do her parents who by law until 18 have legal rights over her as long as she resides in their household, have to say about it?
If she's one month or even one day from being legal consent it's still against the law as written in the books... PERIOD!
As Javert loves to say: The law is the law, good bad or indifferent.
There are a lot of laws that need revision or tweaking as it were to make things crystal clear to the wants/needs/feelings/values/morals of society where-ever they may be.

 

[punisher73]

Also -- one thing that's not mentioned is that the alleged rapist may have been charged with a lesser offense than rape, such as contributing to the delinquency of a minor or unlawful carnal knowledge.

The article did mention near the bottom that he was charged with lewd and laviscious behavior. Not sure under FLA law what that is penalty wise.

It would be a tough case to prove if they had on going relations and they both admitted to it, or if the guy had been led to believe (not mentioned at all, just speculation on my part) she was an age of consent. Also, I think they are reluctant to prosecute if it seems like a "scorned lover" case, in which the only reason for coming forward was because the victim got mad and made the accusation (again, not saying that this is the case here, just what I have seen happen before many times)

 

[kwaichang]

Hey, I watch enough "Law & Order-SUV" to be able to comment on this.
It's the D.A.'s perogative to do or not to do.

 

[morph4me]

It's considered forced because she is legally unable to consent.

I thought if she was legally unable to consent, but did anyway, it was statutory, and forcible meant against her will.

 

[CoryKS]

I thought if she was legally unable to consent, but did anyway, it was statutory, and forcible meant against her will.

You're right, my bad. The paragraph above the one quoted by Ping states that the prosecutor had already ruled out force:

The prosecutor, who declined to comment to CNN, concluded that the teen and the 23-year-old had consensual sex, according to the case file.

... so the only thing left after that is to determine if the man could be charged for statutory. Which is how we ended up with the question of how much flexibility to allow in determining that.

 

[Ping898]

... so the only thing left after that is to determine if the man could be charged for statutory. Which is how we ended up with the question of how much flexibility to allow in determining that.

I guess that is what I was trying to understand. I admit to never having had need of the legal system besides traffic court, and I only believe so much of what I see on TV so I just wonder about how much flexibility there is and why is it even there in a case where the "victim" wants prosecution. As you mention above Cory, it is a month now, when will it become two months? And I wonder even if the 15 year old is a scorned lover, since by the definition of the law she wasn't able to consent in the first place, wouldn't it be right to charge his with something more than lewd behavior?
I guess I just recall stories (and I have no references, just an article I remember from growing up) of a 15 and 18 y.o. having sex, the parents finding out and demanding the cops charge the 18 y.o. with statutory rape even though th 15 y.o. is declaring her undying love to the boy and saying she agreed to the sex...if I recall the state law at the time, under 16, you couldn't have sex with anyone more than 2 years your senior....so the guy was charged, no clue what the final outcome of that case was, but he was initially charged....

 

[Empty Hands]

...so how can you not prosecute cause 1 month after the act she would have been of age to give consent?

It is not at all unusual for young kids who commit heinous crimes to be treated and charged like 18 year olds, usually to massive popular approval. Suddenly, the rules are different when sex is involved and no one is being hurt. Color me unsurprised.

If the courts have the discretion to determine that an 11 year old has an 18 year old's understanding of murder, then they should be able to determine that a 15 and 11/12ths year old has the understanding of sex that a 16 year old is presumed to have.

 

[CoryKS]

It's also interesting that there seems to be two separate uses for the term "consensual". In one sense, the court views the act as consensual in that the girl was not forced; in another, the act was not consensual because the girl is not legally able to give consent. What we have here is Schrodinger's Rape.

 

[Empty Hands]

What we have here is Schrodinger's Rape.

I don't know whether to laugh my *** off or be completely appalled.

 

[arnisador]

It's the D.A.'s perogative to do or not to do.

Yes, perhaps he knows something but can't say it. If he doesn't feel a crime (that warrants punishment) has been committeed, he need not prosecute.

But with a 23 y.o. and a 15 y.o., I doubt that's it. I'd wager that te concern is jury nullification. He was probably concerned that after the expense and trouble of a trial that someone on the jury--it only takes one--would say "Well, it would have been legal in a month anyway--I'm not going to send him to jail for 10 years for that." While that does lend itself to a slippery slope problem as indicated above, I can't blame him for saying that he wouldn't try bringing it there, including not wanting to see it fail and hence giving ammunition to the next defendant who was two months in the wrong, etc.. What if it was one day? One hour? Would you still risk bringing it to a jury? A jury is always a gamble for the prosecutor. Remember, O.J. was going to be a sure conviction.

 

[MJS]

My question is, if it was allegedly a forced encounter, what does consent have to do with it?

Yes, this was my thought as well. Who in their right mind consents to a rape???

 

[terryl965]

Yes, this was my thought as well. Who in their right mind consents to a rape???

Absolutey nobody but in this case it was consider rape because of her age, not actually a force rape. I still wonder if the law says one thing why does it matter a month or a day, what diference does that make?

 

[MJS]

Absolutey nobody but in this case it was consider rape because of her age, not actually a force rape.

Agreed. I mentioned consent, because the prosecutor said she was a month away from being 16, when it would be legal to consent to sex. I think its crazy, because a rape is a rape. Just because she was a month away, shouldnt matter and he should prosecute.

I still wonder if the law says one thing why does it matter a month or a day, what diference does that make?

Exactly. It shouldn't matter at all.

 

[jks9199]

Hey, I watch enough "Law & Order-SUV" to be able to comment on this.
It's the D.A.'s perogative to do or not to do.

AAAHG!

That mindset is one of the biggest headaches we're running into in police work today. We have the CSI Effect, where people and juries both expect tv-level forensic magic in the real world. We don't get answers back in a day; often we don't get answers back in a month, and in many cases, it's never.

And extrapolating Florida practice from TV... Well, do you think someone who's watched hundreds of hours of boxing is ready to step in the ring with Evander Holyfield?

 

[kwaichang]

AAAHG!

That mindset is one of the biggest headaches we're running into in police work today.

NO IT ISN'T. The Distric Attorney decides what cases to take to trial NOT the police. The CSI affect is that people expect results pronto and you're right, it's never pronto and lots of times never.
......did my 20 and out....