Statutory rape in Wisconsin

[Volokh, Eugene]

	I think they both would have been guilty, though such a crime
would have been especially hard to prosecute. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:PFink at albanylaw.edu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:23 AM
> To: Lawrence Rosenthal; Volokh, Eugene; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: Statutory rape in Wisconsin
> 
> If they had both been fifteen would they have both been 
> guilty of the crime of sexual contact with someone under the 
> age of 16, or, does the statute require that the the offender 
> be over 16.
> 
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
>      and Public Policy
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, New York   12208-3494
> 
> 518-445-3386
> pfink at albanylaw.edu
> 
> >>> "Rosenthal, Lawrence" <rosentha at chapman.edu> 08/08 12:59 PM >>>
> Pertinent Wisconsin law provides:  "Whoever has sexual 
> contact or sexual intercourse with a person who has not 
> attained the age of 16 years is guilty of a Class C felony."  
> Wi. Stat. s 948.02(2).  "Sexual contact" is defined to 
> include "[i]ntentional touching by the complainant, by the 
> use of any body part or object, of the defendant's intimate 
> parts or, if done upon the defendant's instructions, the 
> intimate parts of another person."  Wi. Stat. s 948.01(5)(a)(2).
> 
>  
> Larry Rosenthal
> Chapman University School of Law
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Wed 8/8/2007 9:34 AM
> To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Statutory rape in Wisconsin
> 
> 
> 
>         I regret to say that all I have on the underlying sex crime
> prosecution is the press account that I quoted, from the Fond du Lac
> Reporter, Aug. 1, 2007:  "Court records show that Allen was convicted
> in
> 1998 of second-degree sexual assault of a child for receiving oral sex
> from a 15-year-old girl. The records show that Allen was 16 years of
> age
> at the time of the incident, which occurred in 1997 in Shawano County.
> In a victim statement included with court documents, the 15-year-old
> girl said it was her idea to perform the sexual act. She also wrote
> that
> she didn't think it was Allen's fault or that he should get in
> trouble."
> The offender record, available at
> http://offender.doc.state.wi.us/public/search/sor, reports only that
> he
> was convicted of "Second-Degree Sexual Assault of a Child," which is
> defined to cover any sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a
> person
> under 16.
> 
>         Eugene
> 
> Michael Curtis writes:
> 
> > >Can Eugene give us a cite to the case or does it not have
> > one?  Why was
> > >the boy a sex offender--because the girl was 15 or because
> > it was oral
> > >sex.  In NC if the kids are within three years of each other
> > in age &
> > >the act is voluntary , it is typically not a crime (whatever the
> sex
> > >act)--under the kids having sex with kids statutes.  But if
> > it is oral
> > >sex they can be changed under the general crime against
> > nature statute
> > >according to our appellate courts.  If that is what made the
> > child here
> > >into a sex offender, then it is irrationality squared.
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members 
> can (rightly
> or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members 
> can (rightly
> or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>