Statutory

Gidget · Post by **Gidget** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:34 pm

I think this is a touchy issue all around: age differences, mental states of mind, possible manipulation on both ends.

I just wanted to point out that it was a very gray area legally and morally.

I really think (and hope) that it will turn out that Jonas was just bragging and showing off (kind of like Daniel in the "Bree and I hooked up" video).

Aerrow · Post by **Aerrow** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:11 pm

It's only a two year difference, legally here there is a 2yr rule at 18+ like if you turn 18 and your g/f or b/f is 16 it's still okay for you two to do wtv you want.. so 19 and 17 isnt bad at all..

Killthesmiley · Post by **Killthesmiley** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:38 pm

Languorous Lass wrote:
Killthesmiley wrote:well they just released someone from jail that is under the same circumstances stating habious corpus (did i spell that right Lass??????)
It's "habeus corpus," actually. But I'm impressed you even knew the term.

And I'm not sure what you're saying, Kelly. Somebody just got let out of jail? What state was that in?

I believe it was in georgia...lemme dig out the CNN article.

There is an Appeal right now blocking it

ps: thanks for the surprised in my legal jargon. lol. I watch a lot of legally blond. I've surprisingly learned a lot from those movies. Plus having a lawyer helps.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/11/teen.s ... index.html

hella · Post by **hella** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:54 pm

oh dang! im sorry, i didnt mean to make any accusations! im still under the impression that they didnt have sex and for some reason i always feel like everyone is on the same page as me (lol) but yeah, i didnt mean to make accusations i was just pointing something out. also here im about to point something else out, i think in california youre not allowed to even have sex as a minor which is what bree is, being 17

Spades · Post by **Spades** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:15 pm

Goddamnit, Lurker beat me to the punch again...

Wait, why is he not allowed to hate a character now? Sometimes it sounds like it would be more acceptable if he hated an actual person.

Anyway, I was a random jackass talking about statutory rape.

But I do not think that this will take any precedence in the story. It would be very lame. Plus, Bree, being a kidnapper and all would most likely be wrestled to the ground before she could talk. Which would also be kinda dumb.

But, maybe if TAAG was on the run from the cops, it would add some sense of urgency.

rupaZer0 · Post by **rupaZer0** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:41 am

I would like to express my thanks to Susan for posting the actual law clause. I think that makes this issue pretty clear.

Times like this I feel really bad for guys. Seems like we automatically place a lot of responsibility on their shoulders to make sure women are completely, 100% okay with a sexual encounter.

TheAnie · Post by **TheAnie** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:16 pm

I don't think they had sex. He's blinded by love but not nearly that stupid I hope.

Also, Bree herself wouldn't prosecute him. And I don't see any parents anywhere. *looks around* So how much trouble could they really get in? I agree that if they did the deed then Jonas needs to be slapped pretty freakin hard. If it wasn't obvious before it's obvious now that Bree is in NO state to be making such decisions.

So maybe we should be less worried about the legal ramifications of it(I doubt the creators want Jonas arrested) and more about what that could have done to Bree emotionally. Whatever interaction they shared obviouslly has Jonas torn up.

JustAnotherLonelyGirl. · Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:47 pm

I don't care enough to read through this thread, but in New York I know that if the age difference is within a reasonably close range, it isn't considered statutory rape.

deagol · Post by **deagol** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:55 am

rupaZer0 wrote:...
Times like this I feel really bad for guys. Seems like we automatically place a lot of responsibility on their shoulders to make sure women are completely, 100% okay with a sexual encounter.

But it would be the same if it was a 17 year-old guy and an 18 year-old woman. So why is this bad just for guys?

TheAnie wrote:...
Also, Bree herself wouldn't prosecute him. And I don't see any parents anywhere. *looks around* So how much trouble could they really get in?
...

The Order/HoO could press charges, maybe because breaking the purity bond messed up their plans for the ceremony with Bree.

RoseCrowley · Post by **RoseCrowley** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:49 am

I think it'll be overlooked just like the underage drinking (not promotiing any of the following, but it does occur).

RoseCrowley · Post by **RoseCrowley** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:52 am

Plus could Sarah just be assuming they had sex, just like we all have? I know probably not but it was worth a thought. lol.

aboriginalgangster · Post by **aboriginalgangster** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:10 am

Statutory rape laws vary wildly from state to state. Some places still state that anyone 18 or older having sex with anyone under 18 is illegal, which leads to 18 year olds being arrested for having sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend who is a month away from turning legal age.

Most states have made it so it is still legal if the younger person is of legal consenting age and the older person is no more than a certain number of months older, as was mentioned by someone else. How much older varies so much in different states, though, that we can't know if this would be considered statutory rape until we know where they're hiding out. Most states let the age range be at least 2 years, though, so they're probably in the clear.

This is a very gray territory for lawmakers. I think it was only a few years ago that Texas finally legalized sodomy, which effectively made it illegal to be have sex and be gay. And let's also not forget that in some places the purchase of certain sex toys is still illegal. Just because something is illegal doesn't automatically make it wrong.

RoseCrowley · Post by **RoseCrowley** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:19 am

Very true abo

TOSG · Post by **TOSG** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:38 am

deagol wrote:
rupaZer0 wrote:...
Times like this I feel really bad for guys. Seems like we automatically place a lot of responsibility on their shoulders to make sure women are completely, 100% okay with a sexual encounter.
But it would be the same if it was a 17 year-old guy and an 18 year-old woman. So why is this bad just for guys?

Because what you described would never ever be prosecuted, while the reverse sometimes is.

I think that all of this statutory rape discussion is silly, though. I'll eat my shoe if the matter ever becomes relevant to the plot - the law has been absent from the story in cases of murder, kidnapping, breaking and entering, etc... - it'd be pretty preposterous to assume that it suddenly beocmes involved here.

I think that a more important issue here is whether Bree was in the right state of mind to give consent, not whether what they did is illegal according to some pretty silly laws.

Misty · Post by **Misty** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:30 am

Statutory rape is one of those paper laws in California. Technically it's illegal, but it's almost never enforced on it's own, mostly it's used to jail people who did something else but there isn't enough evidence to convict them.

In any case, there isn't a chance in hell that Jonas needs to worry about it.