Category talk:People convicted of statutory rape offenses

message: My opinion: It depends...
I would have to disagree with placing those convicted of statutory rape with child molestors indiscriminately.  Statutory rape laws are always clearly defined so legally there's nothing fuzzy about the distinction.  Plus states vary widely in their ages of consent as well as how they treat the "major" in the case.  The age of consent varies from 14 to 18 in this country.  (In other First World countries, it's lower; in Spain it is 13, changed only a couple of years ago from 12.  For the age of consent laws for all 50 states and dozens of countries, see World Wide Ages of Consent)
I think each case would have to be considered individually.  If an 18 is convicted of having intercourse with a 17 year old in a state where the age of consent is 18 (e.g. California), is that in anyway similar to sexual acts with an 8 year old?  Of course it isn't.
Many of us are descended from teenaged marriages.  Take a look in your family Bible (or where-ever the family record of births, deaths, marriages, et al, are kept) and I'll be you'll almost certainly find that one, or more, of your great grandparents was a teenager.  My mother's maternal grandmother was 15 when she married my great-grandfather.  They were married until she died in the 60s of Alzheimer's.  
Until about 150 years ago, it was routine for girls of 13, 14, 15 to marry and start having children.  (This may have also had something to do with the much higher rates of maternal mortality in those days.)
In the 15th century, around the War of the Roses, the first non-Royal English duke, Humphrey of Lancaster, married a 12 year old girl.  Many much less exalted and much more recent examples can be found.
The distinction, which the law makes by differentiating between child molestation (under whatever name) and statutory rape, is clear.  A child (and again the ages differ widely) usually cannot understand "the nature of" sexual acts.  This cannot be said of the overwhelming majority of 14-17 yr olds.  It's a question of judgement.  The state interposes its judgement for giving consent for sex because, it is felt, that under a certain age a teenager is not ready for the burdens of possible parenthood.
Finally, few older persons who marry their underaged partner are ever prosecuted the Matthew Korso case is a rare example.  And almost certainly an example of an ambitious prosecutor (Jon Brunning of Nebraska) using a case to get his face on TV and keep it there so he can piously proclaim, "I protect the children, I will always be the guardian and the sentinel to protect the innocense of the most vulnerable members of our society."  Blahblahblahblah.  If there's been zero media interest in this case, Koso would be out earning a living, paying taxes and taking care of his wife and child.  Instead, by putting him in the joint, and almost certainly putting his wife and child on welfare, this Attorney General is going to cost the state of Nebraska as much as $50,000.  That's free publicity for his gubenatorial or senatorial campaign.  Paid for by the taxpayers of Nebraska.  I hope Nebraska voters think about that the next time this guy's before them. PainMan 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should statutory rapists be classified with child molestors? 

message: "Statutory rape" is not a legal term. By definition, "statutory rapists" are rapists and could be categorized in Category:Rapists instead. This is a very small category with only 8 articles. I suggest we delete it and replace it with Category:Rapists. Urban XII (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we really need this category?

message: 'Rape' as defined by law is forcible intercourse only. Someone who sleeps with his underaged girl or boyfriend, or one-night stand, is NOT a 'rapist'. That's why it's called unlawful sex with a minor, since the minor consented, though is not legally allowed to. Also, statutory rape is not a legal term, correct - it's unlawful sexual intercourse - hence, there's no such thing as 'statutory rapist', which is an oxymoron in itself. This 'category' [here] should NOT be merged with any genuine rapists, or child molesters, category either since they're not the same either way. In fact, this category is utterly pointless, unless it is populated with ALL those 'public figures' who EVER slept with a minor, like Schwarzenegger, Kelsey Grammar, Rob Low & then some, not just a handful of choice 'celebrities' currently in the news only 'choice editors' can add/remove. So no, we do not 'really need' this category.109.153.105.18 (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We really do need this cat, stat rape is a clearly defined thing and fills a need on the articles it is on. 12:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Then populate it - & not just put in a few 'celebrities' who night be in the news. As I said, 'statutory rapist' doesn't exist as legal term. Sex offender is the correct term. So you might want to change the term/title of this category. 'Unlawful sex with a minor' [cases] is more apt. 109.153.105.18 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlawful sex with a minor, is a bit tight imo , the cat seems to cover the cases it is used on very well imo. From a global position stat rape is clearly defined in some countries.  The article Statutory rape imo clearly defines the cat. - Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is, that the term statutory rape is exclusively US, & is in fact not a legal term to start with, it's unlawful sexual intercourse [with a minor, as it implies]. So in that sense the cat is doubly incorrect, or should only list US citizens convicted of it. Polanski e.g. doesn't belong here, he's not American & he pleaded to unlawful sexual intercourse, NOT statutory rape. 109.153.105.18 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed all this in length, I am in the UK and stat rape is widely understood here as well, it is basically, having consensual sex with a minor although the minor is not actually old enough to say yes, this was the compromise situation as there was strong support to put him in the rapist cat and the child molester cat. I am only one editor and this is not a busy place for this discussion, the Polanski article talkpage might be better or if you want to nominate this cat for deletion I can help you with that but I don't see that as having much chance but as I say if you want .... I don't think we have a People guilty of Unlawful sexual intercourse category...sounds a bit silly also. ..  Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Though ST is what you say, & the wider English speaking public recognise the phrase, ST is not a legal term, nor is statutory rapist. What's more, to put Polanski in the 'rapists' cat is even more incorrect since a rapist forcibly raped another. Child molestation is equally incorrect since a teenager is not legally considered a 'child'. 'Child molestation' is not what he pleaded to, nor 'rape', no matter what people want. Then call it Unlawful Sex Convictions, or Convicts, but ST in not a globally applicable cat. Furthermore, to give this cat serious meaning, it should be populated with ALL ever [globally] convicted men & women, then sub-categorised by country - not people who only 'pleaded' to unlawful sex like Polanski. I talked to several people, & they all say this is just another 'cat', like 'French sex offenders' solely created for him, or 'Polish sex offenders' with '3 people', he can arbitrarily be added to for public amusement not worthy of Wiki standards. (And to put him into the '20th-century criminals' cat is a bad joke). I call for deletion of this cat, or to take him out of either mentioned cat, unless someone adds every man & woman ever globally convicted of unlawful sex & those who are recognised '20th-century criminals' - not men who slept with teens. Fair enough? 109.153.105.18 (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I think I will open a discussion on Polanski talk about this. I have removed 20 century criminals, he doesn't warrant a place in that elite group, perhaps its better if you open a discussion and state your issues on the Talk:Roman_Polanski page. Regards.Off2riorob (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do - & thanks for looking into this. 109.153.105.18 (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Statutory rape is NOT 'rape'

message: Statutory rape no longer exists in the states. Maybe not the UK either. Can you quote an existing statute (that hasn't been overruled by the courts)? It is rape. A minor cannot consent; that is the whole point. "non-violent" rape is what the journalists may mean. But non-violent sex is not "consensual." Under age children cannot make contracts. That is the basis of all of this. 
Yes, it used to be a euphemism and the law often winked at it. No longer in the States and maybe not the UK either. Student7 (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of reliable sources use the term - here is one example that reviews various definitions of statutory rape . Anyway, the category was kept, so what is the point of continuing the discussion here? What do you want to achieve?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: SR is rape