Annette Burrhus-Clay - School Education Coordinator - TAASA

In the wake of the recent resurrection in enforcement of statutory rape laws there brews a controversy. The chasm generally centers around the motives behind, versus the actual outcomes, of this renewed interest in old statutory rape laws. For some agencies, such as law enforcement there is also the matter of practicality . The fundamental principle that all of the primary players (law enforcement, social services, rape crisis centers, judicial systems, parents, etc.) can agree on is the need to protect young children from "predatory older men". After this one consensus everything else is up for debate.

Statutory rape laws have been around longer than we have been a nation. Statutory rape laws in this country are strongly rooted in English common law. "As in England, early lawmakers in this country adopted 10 as the age of consent. In the early 19th Century, states gradually raised the age of consent, in some cases to 21."(Donovan 97). It would be misleading to imply that these early laws were put in place to actually protect the best interests of children. Quite frankly, the motive was more likely to protect the father's interest in his daughter's virginity. A "ravished maiden" was seriously devalued in the marriage market.

Some could convincingly argue that the property element of statutory rape laws is still intact. This is illustrated by states such as California, Mississippi, and others that have a set age of consent but have exemptions to the law if the minor is married. Are we saying that individuals under the age of consent have the maturity-wisdom-sense to enter into a lifetime commitment-contract but do not have the same abilities to decide who to have sex with? If marriage is the desired result, why not dust off the old fornication laws on the books, as Idaho has undertaken recently.

Others have pointed out sincere and valid reasons why stepping up prosecutions for statutory rape is necessary and essential to the protection of American youth. As Governor Weld of Massachusetts so eloquently stated "Statutory rape is not a victimless crime. Little girls pushed by grown men into sex and motherhood- experiences for which they are not in any sense ready- are the victims of crime and should be defended with the full force of the law." Michelle Oberman, a DePaul University Law professor concurs,"Minor girls are uniquely vulnerable to coercion and exploitation in their sexual decisionmaking." Many people have voiced the desire to put "jail" back in "jailbait", with the belief that adults will not get sexually involved with minors if they understand that there are severe consequences.

The reality is that the recent interest in reviving statutory rape prosecutions has been a response to teen pregnancy and more specifically to these girls getting on welfare. This is serious problem and understandably people are grappling for solutions. The catalyst for this renewed concern was as a result of a study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 10,000 mothers between the ages of 15 and 49. The researchers discovered that 50% of the babies born to 15-17 year old mothers had fathers age 20 or older. Even more unnerving was the finding that generally the younger the mother, the older the father. Other studies confirmed similiar findings such as "Men over 20 years are responsible for five times as many births among junior high girls as are junior high boys." (Quinn 95) These and similar discoveries shattered many of the previous assumptions about teen pregnancy. Almost immediately, politicians started calling for prosecution of the men responsible. California took the lead and states such as Georgia, Delaware, and Florida followed suit.

Is the revival of statutory rape enforcement the answer or is this "a new way to sound tough on crime in the guise of social compassion"?(Gleick 96) Perhaps its a little bit of both. We know that 74% of girls who have sex before the age of 14 have experienced coercive sex , as well as 60% of girls who have sex before age 15.(Quinn 95) Its obvious that we are not doing enough to protect young people from sexual abuse and exploitation and maybe statutory rape laws are a step in the right direction. However, its also true that many respected experts in the field are worried about the adverse impact of "discouraging teens from obtaining prenatal or reproduction health care." (Donovan 97) Or as Michelle Oberman pointed out "drawing a connection between enforcing these laws and lowering adolescent pregnancy rates flies in the face of everything we know about why girls get pregnant and why they choose to continue their pregnancies."

My concerns are many and quite honestly I'm not even sure where I stand on this issue. It does bother me that this law is being much more rigorously applied to girls that get pregnant and is doing very little for girls in the same situation who are not pregnant. So what is the message, that its wrong to get teenage girls pregnant or it's wrong to have sex with a minor? What about the states who still don't have gender nuetral statutes? Is it okay for adult women to have sex with boys, or isn't this a concern because they won't get pregnant and collect welfare? I also have an issue with the drastically varied ages of consent among the states. Should the age of consent be 18 or 14 or somewhere in between? Should the number of years between the parties be an issue? Most states say yes, although this could vary from 2 years to 7 years. A few states like Colorado make it a crime for anyone 18 and over to have sex with anyone under 18 years. Apparently in theory this could include an 18 year old and a 17 year old. Is this protecting children from abuse or a morals clause?

All objective thinking aside, my dilemma is this: What would I think is the proper course of action if I discovered a 21 year old man was having sex with my 13 year old daughter? I would want him hanged! A year in county jail would not be near enough punishment and would he even get that if she wasn't pregnant? If I discovered my 13 year old daughter was having sex with a peer I would be upset to say the least but would not see this as a criminal matter.. There are no easy answers to this controversy. My only hope is that all sides keep up the dialogue, avoid fingerpointing and labeling of people who differ in opinions , don't settle for superficial solutions to complex issues, and remember where we have solidarity; the health and well-being of our young people.