Statutory Rape Laws Should Be Changed

The term statutory rape "generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty" if before the age of puberty that is considered child molestation and is much more serious. (2) As my opponent has the BOP to prove why the resolution should be upheld, I will begin at once in refuting my opponent's contentions. 1. "Maybe we could do a 5 year span. So a 16YO can date a 21YO, but any more than five years, the law can get them. Of course, I don't see why an 18YO would date a 13YO, but if it floats their boat, the law shouldn't have a say, if both consent. " I do not see how this is relevant. A 16 year old can DATE a 21 year old they just cannot engage in sexual activity. If your intent, a 16 year old is at the age of consent in most jurisdictions (1) therefore, this really does not apply to him or her. The 13 year old, on the other hand, is below this age of consent. My opponent has not really given any compelling reason to change the age of consent. Legally, they are unable to consent, and until given a compelling reason to accept why they should be able, it should stay that way. 2. "Change the rules to where if they were in a relationship and broke up, the underage person can't file for rape. " The problem, in this case, is proof there is no way to prove they were in a relationship. Relationships are not legally recognized by the state. There is no legal documentation as to them being in a relationship, so legally, they are not in a relationship. 3. "14, 15, 16 year olds know right from wrong. They know what they are doing whenever they agree to sex. However, legally, they are not old enough to "consent". If they are old enough to put themselves in that position, they are old enough to consent! " Simply knowing "right from wrong" does not equate to anything. Under my opponent's logic, an 8 year old knows right from wrong, should they be able to legally consent to sex, should child molestation not be a crime? Furthermore, my opponent has provided no reason for us to believe "14, 15, 16 year olds know right from wrong. " Should we just take their word on the matter? My opponent has not proven they know right from wrong. "They know what they are doing whenever they agree to sex. " This is another unsubstantiated claim by my opponent. How can they know this? "If they are old enough to put themselves in that position, they are old enough to consent! " A five year old is old enough to put him or herself in this position. Does that mean the 5 year old is old enough to consent? Simply because one is old enough to do something does not mean legally they should be allowed to do it. A 15 year old is old enough to be able to carry a gun, should they be allowed to join the military? "They know what they are doing just as well as the one who isn't a "minor", so why isn't the minor getting charged too? I mean, they are helping assist in a "crime" The minor legally had never consented to having sex, thus there is no consent. Therefore, it is rape which is defined as "sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. " (3) The adult, in this case, had no legal consent. To conclude, almost all of my opponent's case revolves around the revision of the Age of Consent yet; they have provided absolutely no compelling reason to change the Age of Consent. Therefore, my opponent has not upheld their BOP. Source: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...