Well, it appears this one involves Kansas too - why am I not surprised?

This has been posted on SP in the past, but there are some new developments in the case.

A 20-year old man gets a 13-year old girl pregnant. Instead of doing the responsible thing and going to the police, instead the parents of the Nebraska teen decide that she should marry the guy, since the sex was consensual, and it wouldn't do to have an illegitimate baby. PROBLEM: Nebraska law prohibits 13-year olds from getting married. However, the practice is prefectly OK in neighboring Kansas provided you have informed consent from those to be married, and from the parents if they are under 18. (As it turns out, when dmc mentioned in the related thread that 14-year old getting married wasn't all that uncommon in the relatively recent past, who knew that it was still legal in the U.S. today?) To go even further, there is NO minimum age for marriage in Kansas, any age is acceptable with parental consent.

So now comes the update. They got married - and now, at 14, she had the baby. The proud father (and he really is proud - that's no joke), now 21, is of course, facing criminal charges, and could be sent to prison for up to 50 years. Furthermore, he's not accepting any type of plea agreement that would send him to prison for a shorter term. He's pleading "not guilty" saying he did nothing wrong. This despite the Nebraska statue that makes having sex with a 13-year old a strict no-no. And there's really no way to interperet the law in any other way. The defense seems to be that this is a valid marriage - and according to Kansas law, it is indeed valid. And since sex is considered a normal part of any marriage, it's exonerates him from the charges. (They seem to be leaving out the part that the sex occurred BEFORE they were married, but the heck with the details.)

Now I don't see too many people defending this guys actions, but here's the thing. Since the marriage is valid, let's change the situation slightly. What if he had married her prior to having sex with her? Would that still be a criminal offense? While not explicitly stated, it is certainly implicit in Kansas law that if minors are allowed to get married, then minors are also allowed to have sex. Is it just me who finds this law completely unrealistic and something that seriously needs to be changed? I can understand if someone is under 18, they would need parental consent to marry, but I for one do not think that parental consent nullifies a need for a minimum age requirement. You also need the informed consent of the people involved, so you couldn't say, for example, a toddler was able to give informed consent. But evidently a 13-year old CAN give informed consent, and I'm wondering what the limit is. 12? 10? I mean if 13 is OK, why stop there?

You can read all about the case (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9108399/) here

[ March 17, 2006, 16:01: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

What if he had married her prior to having sex with her? Would that still be a criminal offense?Marriage has to exempt from age limits for intercourse. It would take a strange interpretation of the law to put someone behind the bars for doing his marital duty. Parental consent on its own shouldn't override age of consent laws but sex is an essential part of marriage, so people are entitled to expect it to be legal for them if they are legally married. Next, invalid marriage would also have to provide such an exemption if they had acted in good faith, anyway. Furthermore, if they are married validly in one state, they shouldn't be punished for having sex in any other state -- states may not recognise divorces from other states or same-sex "marriages" or whatever falls under bigamy in one law and not the other, but putting people to jail for sleeping with wives? Come on. Still, there's the problem of having sex before they married.

I'm not sure if he should go to jail if he had really wanted to marry her and not just exploit her. However, this isn't sure. Next, the girl's consent should be examined. If there had been any coercion on the part of the parents, marriage may be legally void. Next, it wouldn't hurt to check if said marriage wasn't only a simulation in order to avoid punishment on the guy's part.

Edit: But yeah, 13 year olds are a tad bit too young for marriage or sex. They shouldn't really have boyfriends or girlfriends, let alone have sex.

Edit bis: What Felinoid says makes much sense. On the level of civil law, moving to Kansas to marry and then coming back could be construed as circumventing the Nebraska law. It could even give a pretext to the Nebraska authorities to refuse to recognise said marriage. Still not sure if people should go to jail, though.

[ October 31, 2005, 21:41: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Furthermore, he's not accepting any type of plea agreement that would send him to prison for a shorter term. He's pleading "not guilty" saying he did nothing wrong. Bah, the jerk's just gambling that he'll get off. Which, ironically, is what put him in this position in the first place. :hahaerr:

Since the marriage is valid, let's change the situation slightly. What if he had married her prior to having sex with her? That depends. Would he have sex with her in Nebraska or in Kansas? If they're living in Kansas then it's o... it's o... Well, I can't seem to say it, but it starts with an O and ends with a K. But if they just went out-of-state to get married and skirt the local laws, then they should get their a$$es kicked when they try to pull that "married" **** back in Nebraska.

Moving to Kansas: okay
Quick trip for a marriage and then living in Nebraska: not okay

[ October 31, 2005, 21:20: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

To address the age question.

Any choice of an age is arbitrary and artificial. In early societies boys and girls became adults when they reached puberty. As society became more sophisticated and the formal learning period expanded the age of adulthood was pushed upward.

As to when a person male or female is old enough to give informed consent? We are now discussing mental maturity which is harder to define and will vary from individual to individual. Again picking an age is arbitrary.

As far as jailing the man I see no benefit to it and in fact it would be harmful to the family he has created.

As far as I know, they still live in Nebraska, and regardless, she got pregnant while she was in Nebraska, although I don't really know how one would prove that.

As far as whether or not it's OK, I think that really depends on what they mean by informed consent. For example, it seems reasonable that if someone is old enough to make an informed decision about having sex, then that person may very well be able to make an informed consent to marriage as well. Like I said previously, it seems that accoding to Kansas law it is implicit that it's OK to have sex with the person you're married to, regardless of the age. It would have to be a very strange interpretation of the law indeed to say otherwise.

Also, as chev rightly points out, unless it happens to be a gay marriage, most states honor the marriages of people married outside the state. Thousands of people get married in Vegas every year, and those marriages are acknowledges by their home states. I had a friend who got married earlier this year in Florida, but his marriage is considered fine here in Maryland. So while it may be a snakey way to avoid the law, it certainly appears that if you can get married in one state (again, barring gay marriages) you can in effect say you're married anywhere.

@Nakia - I agree. Since they are now married, I do not see the purpose of prosecuting this man. While we may disagree with his actions, at least it appears that his actions and feelings for this girl are genuine, and the only thing imprisoning him will do is take away the family's sole source of financial support.

They could declare him guilty but abstain from ordering punishment, I think. Not sure if you can do that in the Anglo-Saxon legal system, though.

Depends on how the law is written. Hopefully the judge can give community service. Might do him some good. Since he knew the girl's half-brother he must have known she was underage. Way underage.

Also, as chev rightly points out, unless it happens to be a gay marriage, most states honor the marriages of people married outside the state. Thousands of people get married in Vegas every year, and those marriages are acknowledges by their home states. I had a friend who got married earlier this year in Florida, but his marriage is considered fine here in Maryland. So while it may be a snakey way to avoid the law, it certainly appears that if you can get married in one state (again, barring gay marriages) you can in effect say you're married anywhere. Hm, is that really so ? What about marriages involving more than one woman, completely in accordance with the laws of the country the weddings took place ?

Agere in fraudem leges. Most laws about recognition of marriages from a foreign country have a clause, that a marriage made deliberately to avoid the law (on a two-week trip for example) of the homecountry is void in the homecountry. At least around here.

[ October 31, 2005, 23:21: Message edited by: Iago ]

There's the problem of recognition of divorce and remarriage, of gay union, degree of proximity, age... perhaps something more. Some marriages are never going to be recognised in other countries or even different states within the US.

In their case, it looks like acting to circumvent the law, but the age of consent laws are meant to prevent exploitation rather than unions (which doesn't mean such unions aren't frowned upon).

50 years for consensual sex with a 13 year old girl is a total idiocy. He wouldn't get that much for raping an adult woman and there's a big, big difference here. If people like he get such long sentences and rapists a couple of years, it sends the ridiculous message that it's better to rape a 16 year old girl than to do it consensually with a 13 year old one. What ****ing kind of law would that be?

I agree with Nakia. It would just be harmful to his new family. If they're happy, what's the damn problem? Johnny Law will once again just be a ****ing *****.

Marriage has to exempt from age limits for intercourse.I would agree, if there were something approaching a sane minimum age for marriage.

To take an extreme, verging-on-strawman example: what if the girl was 6, the man was still 20, and the parents consented? Sex still okay?

Its disgusting that any 20 year old can even think of having sex with a very young teen girl.

This is a guy that is old enough to have already left highschool for a number of years, yet is having sex with a girl that just started highschool!

@ Iago - I am certain that there are limitations in all countries as to what constitutes a valid marriage, and as such, someone immigrating to a new country may in fact find that their marriage isn't recognized by that country. An obvious example would be polygamy. Even if your native country allows polygamy, you couldn't move to a country that doesn't allow it and declare that you have more than one spouse.

However, going to a different state is very different than going to a different country. You don't need a passport, or have to deal with a language barrier or anything. All you need to go to a neighboring state is a car and some gasoline. I can say for certain that a great many people in the U.S. every year get married outside their home state, and yet get the marriages recognized in their home state. It's even possible to get married in Mexico, Jamaica, or some other Carribbean nation, and those are usually recognized when you get back to the U.S. as well.


Back on topic though, I think the biggest reason I have for not prosecuting this guy is who are we protecting? Who is the victim? His wife? It's quite obvious she doesn't think so. It does not appear (providing she was fully consenting of course) that she was in any way psychologically damaged or traumatized. If she doesn't consider herself a victim, it appears her parents that pushed for her to get married don't have a problem with it, and if she is happy with this man, then who are we benefitting by pushing this case forward?

Just so that I make myself clear, if any of the following were true I would not support this marriage:

1. If the sex was not consensual.
2. If she didn't want to marry him, but was coerced into doing so.
3. If he didn't really want to marry her, and just did so in an attempt to avoid the prison term (we'll find out if in a few years they get a divorce).

If this guy's actions are genuine, isn't this the best solution for all concerned? What are the alternatives? Another uneducated single mother? Another abortion? Another child that's going to have a difficult time getting ahead? (And by that, keep in mind that there are technically TWO children that question applies to.) All things considered, isn't marrying her, and helping care for and raise his family the best possible outcome that could be hoped for?

To take an extreme, verging-on-strawman example: what if the girl was 6, the man was still 20, and the parents consented? Sex still okay?Obviously not, but neither marriage. How can a person consent to marriage if he can't consent to sex?

Hmm... I do find myself in agreement with Aldeth.

@ Cúchulainn

Two weeks ago we were at a Bat Mitzvah (13 yr old coming of age ceremony for Jewish girls). At the reception, my wife had the line of the night. "Is this a Bat Mitzvah or a sweet sixteen party?" When I was 13 girls did not look like that. Some of them I would have wagered were 21.

Rate of maturity, whether physical, sexual, or mental, is highly fluid. As such, age of consent laws should always be suspended with parental consent. The marriage should be legal.
Of course, having sex with her before they were married was illegal, but 50 years? Give him 6 months or something. What if two highschool sweethearts did it and one was a day over the 'age of consent' and the other a day under? Would you give one of them 50 years?
I still worry about it a little, a 21 year old and a 14 year old, but everything I've seen says that it is a healthy relationship, just keep an eye on them.

@NOG

It usually doesn't work like that with age of consent laws. They aren't so strict that you can have one a day over and another a day under, and have it be illegal. I'll use my state, Maryland as an example. Once you hit 16 you can have sex with anyone you damn well please. However, if you are 14 or 15, you can consent to sex with someone else who is within 3 years of your age (provided that they are also at least 14 years old). Therefore, a 14 year old can consent to sex with her 17 year old boyfriend, but would not be able to if her boyfriend is 18.

That having been said, your point is still well taken. Why is a 14-year old with a 17 year-old OK, but a 14-year old with an 18 year-old not OK? As I said above, if the teen was OK with it, her parents are OK with it, and everything is working out fine, this is not something that the justice system needs to intercede into.

(As it turns out, when dmc mentioned in the related thread that 14-year old getting married wasn't all that uncommon in the relatively recent past, who knew that it was still legal in the U.S. today?) I probably would have guessed it still was given the inertia of many legal systems.

Found this "Age of Consent" document on the web.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Seems that 14 is still the age of consent (for sex with anyone) in South Carolina, and possibly Iowa and Missouri. Lowest defined age internationally appears to be 12.

I've got a very vague recollection that a now-famous actress starred (legally) in some dodgy porn movies at the age of 14. This might have been playground legend however.

An aside, I'm slightly surprised that there is a female-female age of consent in the UK. From distant memory, when same-sex laws were enacted in the Victorian era, it omitted Lesbians as Queen Vic didn't believe they existed.

Ah, a bit more research

The Labouchere Amendment, criminalising all same-sex activity, was introduced in 1885. Althought widely believed, Queen Victoria's refusal to believe lesbianism existed resulting in lesbianism's omission from the Act is probably false. It is believed those presenting the amendment removed it (as the House of Lords did nearly 40 years later) fearing criminalizing lesbianism would alert women to its possibility. The story was useful, however, when her statue was made the focus of a demonstration in 1977 promoting lesbian visibility on International Women's Day.

So in New Mexico you can have heterosexual sex at 17 but homosexual sex at 13? WTF???

@ Shell - Yeah, that's ****ed up. First of all, I think it's ridiculously high to have 17 be the age of consent, but it also seems strange that the limit is higher for traditional sexual intercourse than it is for the less traditional forms.

The shocking part about that list is that there are still several states that have laws making homosexual intercourse illegal.

First of all, I think it's ridiculously high to have 17 be the age of consent,Why? And why not 18? In my own opinion, it's strange to have the minimal age for sex with an adult lower than the minimal age for marriage. It gives an impression that the lawmaker can make up his mind on when people become able to understand the implications of sexual intercourse and partnership. Further, it even gives a slight impression that the lawmaker (or, simply put, the state) believes a period of having sex with none or minimal obligations to be an integral stage of development in young people. :rolleyes:

Seems that 14 is still the age of consent (for sex with anyone) in South Carolina, and possibly Iowa and Missouri.In Europe, Spain and a couple of other countries. Probably the highest in Europe is 16. Poland has 15. In Poland, no four years here four years there crap is defined, so prosecutors and judges can decide whether to prosecute and later sentence a young adult for a slight violation in a given case.

However, I can't fathom a contemporary fourteen year old being mature enough. WTF? Not mature enough to get a driving license but mature enough to have sex? Fourteen year olds shouldn't have sex, period. The direct, literal purpose of age of consent laws is to decide when it's punishable for the offender, not when the minor is "entitled" to have sex. But it may well be and actually is often read as sort of a legal permission to have sex. And that's dangerous.

I've got a very vague recollection that a now-famous actress starred (legally) in some dodgy porn movies at the age of 14. This might have been playground legend however.Parents of minors starring in porn movies or any sexual scenes whatsoever should serve a hefty prison term for neglecting parental duties and even longer term if they actually give consent to that.

So in New Mexico you can have heterosexual sex at 17 but homosexual sex at 13? WTF??? Stupidity of lawmakers sometimes amazes me. Good is that they actually allow homosexual sex. In some places they sentence people to death for this.

Probably has to do with not being able to get pregnant from homosexual sex, but it's still :nuts:

The direct, literal purpose of age of consent laws is to decide when it's punishable for the offender, not when the minor is "entitled" to have sex. But it may well be and actually is often read as sort of a legal permission to have sex. And that's dangerous.You know, that's probably the most sensible thing anyway has brought up on the topic. The purpose of age of consent is not to give the go ahead to have sex, but rather protect the people who shouldn't yet be having sex. I agree that many people view the age of consent in the former way, as when it's "OK" to have sex.

Why? And why not 18? In my own opinion, it's strange to have the minimal age for sex with an adult lower than the minimal age for marriage. First, I agree with you that age of consent should match up with minimum age for marriage.

As far as why I think 17 is too high for an age of consent, I can only argue from what I can remember growing up. By age 17, whether male or female, you certainly know what you're doing. I can't see how any 17-year old can claim that they were unaware of potential consequences of having sex, most notably a pregnancy or contracting an STD. With sex ed now commonplace as part of public school education, I find it hard to believe that any teen doesn't know what they're doing by the time they're even 14.

Furthermore, to take your arguement regarding marriage a step further, in most states the legal marrying age is lower than the age of adulthood (18) with parental consent.

To quote Johny Cochran: "If there is grass on the field, punishment you cannot wield."

To quote Johny Cochran: "If there is grass on the field, punishment you cannot wield." Is that an actual quote? I mean, that seems over-the-top even by Cochran standards.

Aldeth, I think it's more of a paraphrase than a direct quote.

In any event, society is changing faster than our laws can keep up. If you read Romeo and Juliet, they mention that girls under the age of 13 were often "happy mothers made". Most westerners no longer see that as appropriate, myself included.

Where to draw the line is a difficult thing, though, but I am of the firm belief that the line must be drawn somewhere and then stuck to. It should also be made somewhat unifrom across states.

In this particular case, I can tell you that I teach a lot of 13 year olds. I wouldn't trust any of them to take care of a pet rock, let alone a baby. Social services should have gotten involved a long time ago and investigated the sick 19 year old for humping a 13 year old, the stupid parents for giving their consent to the subsequent marriage, and the idiot judge or clergyman or whoever who performed the ceremony.

I don't know if I agree that there must be a strict line drawn for an age of consent, moreso for sex than marriage. Marriage is a legal contract, sex isn't, so I guess I'm OK with an age restriction on marriage, but not sex. No matter what age you pick, it's still an artificial, subjective standard that we are imposing.

I'll make my point using two opposite ends of the spectrum: I think everyone will agree that someone who is 18-years old should be able to consent to marriage and sex. At the same time, I think that everyone will also agree that someone who has not yet reached puberty should not be able to consent to marriage or sex. In fact, with the notable exception of Kansas, I'd imagine pretty much every state in the country has laws that state exactly that. There are obviously some variations, but generally you're allowed to consent some time between puberty and 18.

The problem is the area in between. The two examples I posted are black and white. One, definitely yes, the other, definitely no. How do we address the gray area? In Maryland it's 16. A 16-year old can consent to sex with a 60-year old, but a person who is as little as a day away from their 16th birthday cannot. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the gray area.

As far as offering a solution, this is the best that I can come up with. For marriage - just make it 18. There's no other legally binding contract you can enter into prior to the age of 18, so why make an exception for marriage? I know we have the "parental consent" caveat, but after turning 18 you could probably challenge the marriage and have it ruled invalid on the basis that you were a minor when you entered into it. So let's just get rid of the gray area and say in order to get married you have to be a legal adult - like most people are when they get married anyway. Got your high school sweetheart knocked up? Sorry, but you'll be having an illegitimate child until you're both 18.

For consenting to sex, I really think it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. I will agree that 99% of the time a 20-year old having sex with a 13-year old is not OK. But I'd still want to hear both sides of the story.

I'm not comfortable with any strict age-based guideline, because it doesn't take into account the actual individuals in the case, but rather assumes both individuals are representative of other members of their age group. It rules out the possibility of them genuinely having feelings for one another. Don't get me wrong - generally speaking I'm not OK with 20 and 13, but let's play a game, and tell me when to stop:

20-13?
20-14?
19-13?
19-14?
18-14?
18-15?
17-15?
17-16?
16-16?

Se the problem with strict age-based limits? The way I see it, yeah, most likely the 20-year old is just taking advantage of the 13-year old, but how do we know the 16-year old guy isn't taking advantage of his 16-year old girlfriend? We can rule out this possibility on the basis of them being the same age? Case by case.

I respectfully have to disagree on this one, Aldeth. I know that whatever age we select between puberty and 18 is going to be arbitrary, but once that age is selected, it needs to be laid down as the law. I don't care if she is one week shy of her 16th birthday, if the law says you have to be 16 to consent to sex with an adult, that's what it says. I understand your point completely, but I see no grey area there. I don't care if she has a 500 IQ, once we set the rule it needs to apply to all people or the rule becomes meaningless.

An example -- Americans vote on Nov. 4 (right? or is it Nov. 2? Damn. Let's say for the sake of this example it's Nov. 4, ok?) You have to be 18 to vote. If your birthday is November 5, you still can't vote in that election, even if you are one day shy. It's a pain and all that, but once we strarted making exceptions the whole shooting match goes out the window -- people will start arguing that their son is 16 years old but by any measure of mental, emotional, societal, spiritual, or whatever health and advancement, he is far and away beyond the capabilities of a dimbulb such as, say, my brother in law, who is 45. Nevertheless, the numbers are there and preclude the precocious little fellow from voting.

Election day is the 1st Monday in November, unless the first Monday happens to be the 1st day of the month, in which case it is set for the 8th. So depending on what year you pick, election day could very well be either the 2nd or the 4th.

Now obviously, once you set a law, yes it does have to apply equally to everyone. What my point was that I am against setting ANY strict age-based law for consenting to sex. Your point is valid - you need to be 18 to vote, 16 to drive, 21 to purchase alcohol. And once such a law is passed regarding sex, you have to enforce it, which is why I'm not sold on it being a great idea.

Point taken; that's the crux of our divergence in opinion -- I don't see the necessity of enforcement as being something to make society think twice. There's just too many people with too many silly arguments out there for true justice to have a chance if the regulations on this sort of thing are not strictly spelled out.

I know it wasn't a sex-related case, but the Twinkie defense for murder pops into mind as one of the all time stupidest arguments that actually made it into the court system (IIRC, it was slapped down, but still . . .)

Adult woman with teen husband - you get nine months in prison.

However, if you're an adult man, and have sex with a teenage girl, you get 30 months. (http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2006/02/07/top_story/doc43e8d5bf609e4822887956.txt)

Both sentences are too short.

Bruno is right. 10 to 15 years in both cases would be about right...

10 to 15 years in both cases would be about right I'm not so sure I agree though. Especially in the case of the guy. I mean, he did marry this girl, and now he also has a baby to support. Putting him in jail will ensure he can't provide for his family. Granted, he's going to have a hard time gettnig a job anyway, now that he is going to have to check "yes" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?", but still, I'd like to think that if his intentions of loving this woman and providing for his wife and child are genuine, then some balance between the rule of law and the welfare of those dependent on him must take place.

But the girl would be better off without this pervert aroung her kids (present and future)...