Contributing to Delinquency of A Minor

[jfn]

>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.

The polygamy issue is relevant because marriage trumps statutory rape 
and the Mann Act. The age of consent for sexual relations outside of 
marriage (usually 18) is not the same as the age of consent for 
marriage (frequently 16). Even where the age of consent for marriage 
is generally 18, state law typically permits 16 year-olds to marry 
with parental consent, and some states allow marriage at even younger 
ages with parental or judicial  consent.  I haven't verified the 
accuracy of the source cited below  in each particular, but it at 
least illustrates the point that under state law, you cannot equate 
the marriage of a "child" with "child abuse." In Texas in particular, 
where "with parental and judicial consent, parties can marry but not 
below the age of fourteen for males and thirteen for females," the 
alleged child abuse within the FLDS appears to depend on the 
illegality of plural marriage.
http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-basics/state-age-of-consent-laws.html.

According to the same source:
In Alabama, "with parental consent, parties can marry at age fourteen."
In Hawaii, "with parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, 
parties can marry at age fifteen.
In Kansas, "with parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, 
males can marry at age fourteen and females at age twelve."
In Massachusetts, "with parental consent and/or the consent of a 
judge, males can marry at fourteen years of age and females can marry 
at the age of twelve."
In New Hampshire, "with parental consent and the consent of the 
judge, males can marry at age fourteen and females can marry at age 
thirteen.
In South Carolina, "with parental consent, males can marry at age 
sixteen and females at age fourteen and younger parties may receive a 
license by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child

John Noble

At 6:32 PM -0400 4/22/08, Hamilton02 at aol.com wrote:
>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
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Visiting Professor of Public Law
>Princeton University
>
>
>
>In a message dated 4/22/2008 5:54:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
>rs at robertsheridan.com writes:
>
>True enough, although if the current parents had been taught these 
>beliefs by their parents, one might wonder when this conspiracy was 
>entered.  Can you be born into a conspiracy, or do you have to join?
>
>I'd also like to add Smith v. Employment Division/Oregon to the list 
>of relevant doctrine that must be either considered or ruled out 
>when dealing with such a subject, as the parents, I expect, are 
>likely to claim what is given, that theirs is a bona fide religious 
>belief while Texas will assert that the laws against sexual 
>misconduct against minors are of general applicability, to which the 
>claim of a religious defense has no more relevance than a claim that 
>one has a right to drive at 105 mph because God-told-me-so.
>
>One of the interesting aspects of all this is that some cultures 
>practice child marriage, where the child daughter moves into the 
>home of her child husband-to-be, i.e. her future mother-in-law, 
>until she passes puberty whereupon they live as h&w.  Some cultures 
>originating in Northern India, I believe.  Age of consent is very 
>culturally relative, it seems, globally speaking.
>
>I know, they have theirs and we have ours and we're free to define 
>ours in the light of our best judgment based on what we know about 
>people, including children.  One of the reasons that so-called 
>"cultural" defenses don't often fly well is just this:  This is here 
>and now, not someplace else, then.
>
>rs
>sfls
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
>listings at <http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851>AOL 
>Autos.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20080423/f4e1340c/attachment.htm