Contributing to Delinquency of A Minor

[Robert Sheridan]

The principle is defined, in California, at least, according to a  
number of benchmarks, for example:  The age of consent is 18.  If a  
male over 18 (or even younger...see Michael M. v. SC) engages in  
sexual relations with a  minor female, he' s liable under the stat  
rape statute, Penal C. Sec. 261.5.  Further distinctions increase the  
blame, and  the punishment, for unlawful sexual relations, as it's  
called, in stepwise fashion according to whether the female is under  
16, 15, and 14, and worse still if the male is more than five years  
older than the female.  Much worse if force is used.  What might you  
call such a principle?  A ratcheting up or down one?  A sliding scale  
of relative values, meaning blameworthiness?  Such determinations are  
about as culturally relative as one might imagine.

Communities whose marriage and courting practices vary from the  
dominant legal norm are at risk, of course.  Among the Roma (Gypsy)  
for example, whose culture derives from northern India a millenium  
ago, child marriage has been traditional.  Should this prove  
intolerable in a particular case, it is not unheard of for the female  
or her relatives to claim child sexual abuse, rightly or wrongly.   
Police detectives and others in such situations need an awareness of  
the cultural characteristics they're dealing with when evaluating the  
bona fides of such claims.

rs
sfls




On Apr 22, 2008, at 5:31 PM, DavidEBernstein at aol.com wrote:

> Hmmm....  I went to a ("modern") Orthodox Jewish High School  
> (Yeshiva of Flatbush), and several of my female classmates, of  
> Syrian Jewish origin (there is a large Syrian Jewish community in  
> Brooklyn), got married junior or senior year to older men, at least  
> in their mid-20s, and had babies soon thereafter.  Is there a  
> principled way to distinguish this from the 16 year old pregnant  
> "married" women in the FLDS, assuming that the latter women indeed  
> wanted to be married to the men in question?
>
> In a message dated 4/22/2008 6:33:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Hamilton02 at aol.com 
>  writes:
> I'm not sure the born-into element is relevant (except for the  
> likely defense by the women of brainwashing). You are in a  
> conspiracy if you take actions that lead to the criminal result.   
> There is no question that all adults in the FLDS engage in practices  
> that lead to the rape and essentially prostitution of young girls to  
> much older men. Not only rape, but also Mann Act violations.
>
>  Smith is determinative on child abuse issues -- there is no  
> religious defense to sex abuse.  These issues have been litigated in  
> the clergy abuse cases, and the vast majority of courts have ruled  
> that religious motivation is no defense to the perpetration  of sex  
> abuse or the fostering of it.
>
> If the only element here were polygamy, we could have a very  
> different discussion (though I would still side with the proposition  
> that Smith makes the practice illegal even if practiced for  
> religious motivations).  The rape aspect of the culture takes us  
> well beyond the that hypothetical, though.
>
> Marci
>
>
>
>
> Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car  
> listings at AOL Autos.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20080422/66e0a3f4/attachment.htm