MA: Amendment to the Mideast Sex Crime Statute (Tabled)

[ZuWo]

First of all, there's a typo I noticed. Section 2, passage 1 should read "Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 16 years by a person over the age of 21 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree."
 
Regarding my amendment: In general, it goes in the same direction as the current form of the Sex Crime Statute. The main difference between the two versions is that the bill I've proposed is more restrictive. Indeed, I am of the opinion that the kinds of sex crimes outlined under Section 2 are very problematic because they involve children or very young teenagers - it should be possible to punish people who commit such crimes more severely. Clearly, this goes hand in hand with Section 3, where I raised the maximum penalties and fines.

In fact, this bill does not alter the main thrust of the original Sex Crime Act but it is a tightening of existing law.

[ZuWo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That needs to be fixed

That's what I mentioned in my post above. It should read 16 rather than 1416 years.

[ZuWo]

according to section 6, any 16 yr old having sex with a 15 yr old is guilty of carnal sexual conduct. I find that ridiculous.

I admit this must be fixed. Thanks for pointing that out!

[ZuWo]

What about the following amendment of Section 6?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

@A-Bob: I think we're misunderstanding each other. The original version of the Act said "14 years" and I wanted to make it "16 years". Then I made a typo and the bill read "1416". I want the bill to read "16 years" of course.

[ZuWo]

What do the members of this body think about my amendment of Section 6?

[ZuWo]

What do the members of this body think about my amendment of Section 6?

Do you mean Section 2 clause 6?

Yes, you are right of course. I copied that wording from shua's post but it's a bit misleading.

[ZuWo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keep in mind that this is taken directly from the old Mideast Sex Crime Statute - this clause has been in place for nearly seven years. My most recent amendment of this clause (the one I introduced after shua's post), which states that any sexual conduct except oral sex and mutual masturbation between individuals who are 14 on the one hand and 17 or 18 on the other hand is a carnal sexual conduct is actually a loosening of the current law.

To illustrate my point: This is the current text of the clause in question:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is my amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ZuWo]

I think it may be more appropriate to loosen more of the clauses if my fellow Assemblymen agree with me now that this old statute has been brought up.

Do you or any of your fellow Assemblymembers have concrete suggestions? I'm ok with loosening some of the clauses as long as the people involved are at least 14 years of age and the age difference between the individuals is not too big, but I will not accept a loosening of the law when children of the ages of 12 or 13 are involved.

[ZuWo]

I think it may be more appropriate to loosen more of the clauses if my fellow Assemblymen agree with me now that this old statute has been brought up.

Do you or any of your fellow Assemblymembers have concrete suggestions? I'm ok with loosening some of the clauses as long as the people involved are at least 14 years of age and the age difference between the individuals is not too big, but I will not accept a loosening of the law when children of the ages of 12 or 13 are involved.

I agree, but for instance, Section 2 clause 4 and 5, I think a two year difference is too narrow an age difference and impractical.

We could amend these clauses like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you think that's better?

The law does not state that a judge is obliged to punish people who are involved in such a sexual conduct very severely or even at all. And by far not all of these cases are brought to court.

[ZuWo]

Yes, I'll support the amendment.

Then I need someone to introduce this amendment on my behalf - I can't be Governor and legislator at the same time, I believe.

[ZuWo]

Honorable Assemblymembers; I would like to stress that it must be kept in mind that the punishments for all of these offences are flexible. Let's have a look at the appropriate section (3):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thus, a judge who deals with a case of such a sex crime only has to consider the maximum punishments that are mentioned in the respective sections; there is no minimum punishment for any of these sex crimes.
For instance, if an 18-year old has sex with a 15-year old (the same principle basically applies to all sections of this bill) and this is brought to court, a judge can as well acquit the individual who is accused of the crime in question since the law clearly states that a judge may punish someone - a judge may, but doesn't have to punish the 18-year old in this case if he/she considers the circumstances and the context of the sexual encounter unproblematic. This is important to remember.

I think we can pass this bill with a good conscience and trust our judges that they are able to rule in a way that makes sense. This bill gives judges an instrument to punish people who have committed real sex crimes, but at the same time it gives them the option to be very lenient if it is appropriate.

[ZuWo]

As one of the only teenagers who actually lives in the Mideast, I have serious concerns with these ages. Lots of high school relationships would be in jeopardy because of this. I'd be interested in hearing the argument behind these specific numbers, or if they were just chosen at random.

Also, are we really sending minors to prison over this?

Ask badger and the members of the Assembly back in 2005 why they came up with some of these numbers - I have used these old ages as a starting point for this amendment and tightened them in cases where very young children are involved and where the age gap is very large.
Indeed, defining age restrictions in legal matters is always arbitrary. For example, why should teenagers be allowed to drive cars at the age of 16? Why not at the age of 15, 17 or 18? Why should they have the right to buy certain kinds of alcohol only when they are 21, and not when they are 19, 20 or 22? It is your right to be unhappy with some of these ages but you won't be able to define these ages in a way that is less arbitrary.

Also, please have a close look at the bill. As Section 3 and my previous post make clear, the punishments are not carved in stone. If a case is brought to court (and this is rare) a judge can acquit an individual any time because it is solely the maximum penalties that are defined. Our judges will punish an individual only if they consider a certain sexual encounter a case of sexual abuse. If the context of the sexual encounter is unproblematic because it is evident that the younger person was aware of what he/she was doing there is no reason to convinct the older person. This bill gives our judges a useful tool to punish those who deserve it but at the same time does not send minors to prison who have not committed a real crime.

[ZuWo]

Sadly with all the concerns raised in debate I think I may have to oppose this bill sadly unless serious changes can be made to the bill.

I am looking forward to seeing concrete proposals of the things that need to be altered. The thing is, if we flat out reject my amendment we will return to the status quo, which also contains clauses like these:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Mideast_Sex_Crime_Statute

[ZuWo]

With pleasure, Assemblyman Inks.

Here's the current statute:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ZuWo]

And here's what my amendment (including the most recent changes which yet have to be voted on) would try to do:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ZuWo]

I don't see any reason to change it.  If anything, maybe loosen clauses 7-9.

I am ready to accept a loosening of clauses 7-9 if we at least tighten clause 2 so that it reads

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are dealing with sexual conducts that involve children who are younger than 12 so I think such an amendment can be considered appropriate.
If we accept this amendment Sections 3 and 5 will become superfluous. Thus this amendment has the advantage of simplying the current Statute:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ZuWo]

This bill has become such a mess that I would like to withdraw it. However, that's not the end of debate. I will work on a better version of this amendment, which would tighten section 2, clause 2 and loosen section 2, clauses 7 to 9 of the original statute.