Female privilege

[Tom Sawyer]

But you do need a conviction to imprison or fine the person who raped her.

How does your certainty with regard to the case described in the OP in any way help the male in this case? Your certainty is not in any way a legal standing, so the State cannot base any legal action on that certainty, no matter how certain you are. Certainly you can understand that.

But you don't need a conviction in order to have something ruled invalid by the law. For instance, if you marry somebody and it turns out that they're already married, your marriage is automatically void. You do not need to have your partner convicted of bigamy in order to have it dissolved since he or she did not have the legal ability to marry you in the first place so it's just nullified upon determination of the facts about their previous marital status.

It should be the same thing here. Once the court determines the facts about the relative ages of the two parents at the time of conception, it becomes apparent that he could not have legally consented to any action which led to the child. That should be enough in and of itself to absolve him of any responsibility, financial or otherwise, towards the child.

It doesn't matter if she's convicted of a crime or not. He clearly did not have the legal ability to consent to the sex.

 

[KeepTalking]

It seems to me the emphasis should be on the young man's age at the time of conception. All parties stipulate to the paternity of the child in question, but at the time of conception the father was also a child. And if we are to have consistency not just in the law, but in the principles on which we base that law, then a child at fourteen is a child at fourteen regardless of gender.

The problem with this is the already mentioned, and much more likely, case of when both parties are considered children at the time of conception.

 

[Emily Lake]

It seems to me the emphasis should be on the young man's age at the time of conception. All parties stipulate to the paternity of the child in question, but at the time of conception the father was also a child. And if we are to have consistency not just in the law, but in the principles on which we base that law, then a child at fourteen is a child at fourteen regardless of gender.

While I appreciate the sentiment that you're espousing in this case, I don't think it's so clear when you try to approach it from a policy perspective.

I tried to approach this in a step-wise fashion earlier in this thread, but it got lost in the mix of back and forth, which was frankly more interesting than anything I had to say. I will, however, attempt to raise the topic again, since it seems to have come up again in a format which allows me to present my case in a reasonable fashion.

There are many factors which come into play when discussing child support payments. I'd like to stipulate off the top that the intent of laws around child support are for the benefit of the child, not the benefit of either parent. That is to say, that the monies changing hands are intended to provide for the well-being of the child in question, and are not intended as a boon for the parent who has custody of the child. To that extent, an argument might be made that whether or not either parent had intent in the creation of the child in question is irrelevant to the question of the well-being of the child.

It might be all well and good to say that since the child was underage, he should be excused from the financial responsibilities of caring for his offspring, and that the mother should have no recourse for claiming child support from him - especially as it was a case of statutory rape.

I'd like to look at this in a bit more detail, from the perspective of just policy regarding children.

Take for consideration, a case where both parents are underage at the time of conception. Both are children themselves. Does that excuse one or the other of them from financial responsibility when they reach the age of majority? I would argue not. To the extent that the mother chooses to keep the child, there is still a child to be reared, and the father has still taken part in the creation of the child. Just because he was underage at the time of conception doesn't excuse him from that responsibility. Similarly, we can imagine a scenario where the mother bears the child and surrenders it to the father at the time of delivery. Should she then be excused from the financial burden because she was underage? Again, no, she had a part in the making of the child, and the father should have a claim for the support of that child.

Now then, what of statutory rape? In this case, it's easy to dismiss the request that the male bear responsibility, as he was underage at the time. But what of the reverse? If the underage parent were the girl, we would certainly expect that the overage male support the child, wouldn't we? And even if he could not be located, we tend to forget that the mother bears the financial cost of the child regardless.

So what about non-statutory rape? It's unseemly to draw distinctions between types of rape, but the reality is that statutory rape and non-staturory rape are different. In the case of statutory rape, one party is deemed to be mentally unable to consent, regardless of their wilingness to do so. In the case of non-staturoty rape, the non-consenting party is able to consent and is unwilling to do so. To me, that's a distinct difference in nature that makes it worth mentioning. And in the case that I wish to raise, I think it's important to clarify the distinction.

So consider a scenario where a minor male rapes an older woman. To make it more real, consider a 15 year old boy raping a 20 year old woman. As far as the law is concerned, the boy is unable to consent to sex... but in this case he is the aggressor in a forcible and violent rape perpetrated upon an older woman. If this woman were to conceive from this encounter, would the boy be liable for child support?

At the end of the day, there are many possible scenarios, with many complicating circumstances. To find an ethically correct answer to each possible scenario would be untenable from a policy perspective. So although it may appear unjust on the surface to allow a scenario in which man is sued for child support by a woman who engaged in statutory rape with him when he was a minor... it seems like an eminently more pragmatic solution.

And since the purpose of child support is to provide for the well-being of the child, I don't think that it is unethical to pursue this course of action.

- - - Updated - - -

I apologize for the WoT

 

[KeepTalking]

But you do need a conviction to imprison or fine the person who raped her.

How does your certainty with regard to the case described in the OP in any way help the male in this case? Your certainty is not in any way a legal standing, so the State cannot base any legal action on that certainty, no matter how certain you are. Certainly you can understand that.

But you don't need a conviction in order to have something ruled invalid by the law. For instance, if you marry somebody and it turns out that they're already married, your marriage is automatically void. You do not need to have your partner convicted of bigamy in order to have it dissolved since he or she did not have the legal ability to marry you in the first place so it's just nullified upon determination of the facts about their previous marital status.

It should be the same thing here. Once the court determines the facts about the relative ages of the two parents at the time of conception, it becomes apparent that he could not have legally consented to any action which led to the child. That should be enough in and of itself to absolve him of any responsibility, financial or otherwise, towards the child.

It doesn't matter if she's convicted of a crime or not. He clearly did not have the legal ability to consent to the sex.

In this case, you already have two legal documents, the marriage certificates, with which to base the judgement.

I am not saying that this issue cannot, or should not be resolved by provisions in the law. I think I have already agreed that this is the moral path to take. The problem here is that the law is not currently on the males side, and it is not clear to me that the male in this case would have taken the necessary actions to absolve himself of his responsibilities even if the law was on his side.

Let's say there is a provision in the law in Arizona that says a male who is below the age of consent fathers a child with a female who is able to consent. Chances are that such a law would require the male to provide proof of his date of birth by providing his birth certificate within 90 days once notified that there is a paternity suit against him. The male in question did absolutely nothing when presented with this suit by the State. He didn't provide his birth certificate, or even attempt to, he just ignored the notification. If there were a provision in the law on his side, he would still be in the same boat, because of his own inaction.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It seems to me the emphasis should be on the young man's age at the time of conception. All parties stipulate to the paternity of the child in question, but at the time of conception the father was also a child. And if we are to have consistency not just in the law, but in the principles on which we base that law, then a child at fourteen is a child at fourteen regardless of gender.

The problem with this is the already mentioned, and much more likely, case of when both parties are considered children at the time of conception.

what is the problem?

Two kids smoking cigarettes who then accidently burn down Grandpa's barn are not treated the same, morally or legally, as a fully functioning adult and child burning down the same barn. Whether on purpose or through negligence the adult is seen as the responsible party and as having control of situation.

 

[J842P]

It seems to me the emphasis should be on the young man's age at the time of conception. All parties stipulate to the paternity of the child in question, but at the time of conception the father was also a child. And if we are to have consistency not just in the law, but in the principles on which we base that law, then a child at fourteen is a child at fourteen regardless of gender.

No, no. That would be too reasonable. Plus, it's his fault he didn't report it anyway, so he should just man up.

 

[Metaphor]

But you do need a conviction to imprison or fine the person who raped her.

The person raped in the OP is a him.

How does your certainty with regard to the case described in the OP in any way help the male in this case? Your certainty is not in any way a legal standing, so the State cannot base any legal action on that certainty, no matter how certain you are. Certainly you can understand that.

What are you talking about? The State is using force to extract financial resources from a child who was raped, because the rape produced a child. It seems to me the onus is on the State to prove the person it is extracting financial resources from is responsible for the child that they are using to justify the coercion.

 

[Metaphor]

Because in the vast majority of disputed paternity cases it is the identified father who can prove or disprove the paternity.

The paternity is not in dispute.

What you are suggesting is that if the (male) victim of rape, who is victim because he is a child, has an adult responsibility to prove he was a minor, else the State can assume whatever it wants and re-victimise the victim, this time with State power?

 

[Metaphor]

I'd like to stipulate off the top that the intent of laws around child support are for the benefit of the child, not the benefit of either parent.

Well, that's plain wrong. They're for the benefit of the State -- every parent that the State can hold to his or her obligations is one less child for the State to pay for.

In ay case, that they're 'about the child' is irrelevant, since on this and previous threads a solution (State support for children where no suitable co-provider/parent can be found) has never been accepted. Instead, people are obsessed with pinning the cost on one particular individual, even when that individual has less moral obligation to the child than a person chosen at random.

It might be all well and good to say that since the child was underage, he should be excused from the financial responsibilities of caring for his offspring, and that the mother should have no recourse for claiming child support from him - especially as it was a case of statutory rape.

It is all well and good. The case of repsonsibility with respect to the raped child is no different to someone drugging me, stealing my sperm, then hitting me up for child support.

If the underage parent were the girl, we would certainly expect that the overage male support the child, wouldn't we?

Yes, of course we would?!

And since the purpose of child support is to provide for the well-being of the child, I don't think that it is unethical to pursue this course of action.

You think there isn't a single less harmful way to provide for the well-being of the child?

 

[Metaphor]

Let's say there is a provision in the law in Arizona that says a male who is below the age of consent fathers a child with a female who is able to consent. Chances are that such a law would require the male to provide proof of his date of birth by providing his birth certificate within 90 days once notified that there is a paternity suit against him. The male in question did absolutely nothing when presented with this suit by the State. He didn't provide his birth certificate, or even attempt to, he just ignored the notification. If there were a provision in the law on his side, he would still be in the same boat, because of his own inaction.

Do you think it is appropriate to serve legal papers on minors?

Let's say the child in the OP was 11. Should an 11 year old have manned up and gotten his legal shit together to provide a birth certificate? And if not, should he then be responsible for the child his sperm produced when he was raped?

The attitudes of some people about the legal obligations that raped children ought to have put on them is strange to me.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm wondering if this isn't just a simple bureaucratic screw up. Mother applies for assistance, state gets father's name, sends out the notification to the (alleged) father and pays no attention to how old he is. Every step simply rubber stamped with no regard for details. Olivas didn't help himself when he could have (90 day notice). I hope for his sake he can still fight this.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, that's plain wrong. They're for the benefit of the State -- every parent that the State can hold to his or her obligations is one less child for the State to pay for.

I invite you to provide evidence to support your claim.

And since the purpose of child support is to provide for the well-being of the child, I don't think that it is unethical to pursue this course of action.

You think there isn't a single less harmful way to provide for the well-being of the child?

Well. You certainly snipped out a significant amount of the actual point in my post, and responded only to the bits that fleshed it out, I suppose.

I will submit to you one of the questions that caused me to step back and look at this as a policy question:

If a 15 year old raped a 20 year old in a non-statutory fashion, would you then be amendable to that person being held financially liable for child support?

 

[RavenSky]

I'm wondering if this isn't just a simple bureaucratic screw up. Mother applies for assistance, state gets father's name, sends out the notification to the (alleged) father and pays no attention to how old he is. Every step simply rubber stamped with no regard for details. Olivas didn't help himself when he could have (90 day notice). I hope for his sake he can still fight this.

I suspect this is basically what happened. The question is - will the state reverse it now?

 

[Metaphor]

I invite you to provide evidence to support your claim.

What evidence do you have for yours? You didn't offer any.

If a 15 year old raped a 20 year old in a non-statutory fashion, would you then be amendable to that person being held financially liable for child support?

Before I answer this (which I'm not going to do quickly, since it's morally complex), why can't you answer the simpler moral question posed by the OP? Or do you imagine my answer to the above is somehow necessary for you to answer?

Is it morally right for a statutorily raped 14 year old boy to have to pay (State forced) for the child resulting from his rape, ever?

 

[fast]

The message that I'm getting from you is that we have an obligation to report a crime. There are a few things I need to mention. First, I may come to agree with you on this matter, but I need to make sure I'm not myself falling victim to misguided beliefs of others. I do believe there are circumstances whereby people do have a responsibility to report certain crimes, but it should be noted that many people are seemingly forever claiming responsibilities where there are none.

It's a hot button topic, but consider tipping. We do not have an obligation, a duty, nor a responsibility to tip others, yet it's spoken incorrectly that we do. Is it a custom? Sure, but there is no legal responsibility, and even if there is some other kind of responsibility, then surely that's a topic for another thread. My point begins and ends with conveying the tendency of others to say things merely because they believe it to be the case, and since you're most interested in the legal aspects of this issue, I'm all too happy to switch my position if it can be demonstrated that we do in fact have a responsibility to report a crime--and such demonstration not be limited to logical argumentation alone.

The other issue is to make sure it's indeed applicable. Even if it's true (which I'm willing to concede it is) that we do have certain responsibilities to report certain crimes, then we still need to make sure it also pertains to the reporting of an adult raping a child. Further still, we must remember that if you're imbuing the victim with having responsibilities to report, not only must it be the case that the reporting of such crimes is a responsibility, it must also be applicable to the minor in question. Finally, from where does this responsibility originate? I do hope it's a legal responsibility, for if it isn't, then you're going to have a time substantiating the claim that there is in fact a genuine responsibility.

I'll stand by what I said. If there is a responsibility to act, then not acting is a failure to act, but absent the responsibility, then no such inaction is a failure.

My comments regarding the male's responsibility to report the crime has always been with regard to the legal aspects of this specific case. If he expects to be legally absolved of any responsibility, then he has the responsibility to report the crime within the time period proscribed by law. Further, in this specific case, if he was initially unaware of any legal responsibility, he certainly became aware when the State first informed him of the situation.

At that point they also informed him that he had 90 days to contest the paternity, and by that time he was apparently 20 years old, a legal adult. Instead of taking the responsibility, he chose to ignore the situation. Legally speaking, he is now on the hook for child support. Had he taken any responsible action at any point, my take on this specific case would be quite different.

Morally speaking, I do not think the State should be going after rape victims for child support. I would be fully behind any initiative that would correct such a moral failing in the law. Even were such a provision enacted, however, there would need to be a conviction for rape against the female in this case for the State to take action in furtherance of that provision.

At this this juncture, let me be as clear as a judge: I do not care about right and wrong. I care only about what is legal and what is not. Specifically, I'm interested in knowing whether he had a legal responsibility to report the crime, and the reason I want to know that is because that will tell me whether or not his inaction was or was not some kind of failure on his part.

You said, "Further, in this specific case, if he was initially unaware of any legal responsibility, he certainly became aware when the State first informed him of the situation." I don't care about whether or not he was aware of the purported responsibility. If he did in fact have a responsibility to report the crime, then that is so regardless of whether he was aware that he had a responsibility to report the crime. What you say implies he had a responsibility, but I'm still hesitant to bite.

You also said, "If he expects to be legally absolved of any responsibility, then he has the responsibility to report the crime within the time period proscribed by law". Statements like that make me cringe with uncertainty.

He may have had 90 days to contest the paternity, and there may very well be legal consequences for not contesting it, but in no way shape or form did he therefore have a responsibility to contest the paternity. The potential for legal consequences doesn't in and of itself bestow responsibility. If we are legally required to do something then don't do it, then you have a basis to claim a failure to live up to a legal responsibility, but there being legal consequences for not acting is insufficient to claim there was a responsibility.

If he taken the responsible action? Don't confuse being responsible with responsibility. We have a responsibility to show up for jury duty when called upon, but we don't have a responsibility to exercise our right to vote, but if we choose to vote, we should do so responsibly. He could have chosen to report the crime, and he could have done so responsibly--perhaps by reporting the facts as accurately and honestly as possible, but to suggest there was some legally bound duty or legally dictated obligation (hence, an actual legally required responsibility) doesn't portray a situation that accurately reflects the facts of the matter--at least not so far as I can tell.

 

[Sabine Grant]

What evidence do you have for yours? You didn't offer any.

Do you need evidence for Emily's statement regarding,

There are many factors which come into play when discussing child support payments. I'd like to stipulate off the top that the intent of laws around child support are for the benefit of the child, not the benefit of either parent. That is to say, that the monies changing hands are intended to provide for the well-being of the child in question, and are not intended as a boon for the parent who has custody of the child. To that extent, an argument might be made that whether or not either parent had intent in the creation of the child in question is irrelevant to the question of the well-being of the child.

?

Is it a different concept in Australia? Are Australian courts awarding child support to be paid to the parent who has custody of the child or is primary residential custodian of the said child based on a different concept?

I am quite puzzled at this point as to which "claim" you are requiring evidence for. But so it is clear to you, this is the purpose of child support laws in the US :

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/child-support/

http://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/child_support/1child_support.htm

To note :

In other words, the parent who is not living with or raising the child will be required to pay a set amount each month toward the upkeep and care of the child.

Meaning that the beneficiary of the said payments is the child for the PURPOSE of the child's upkeep and care.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you need evidence for Emily's statement regarding,

There are many factors which come into play when discussing child support payments. I'd like to stipulate off the top that the intent of laws around child support are for the benefit of the child, not the benefit of either parent. That is to say, that the monies changing hands are intended to provide for the well-being of the child in question, and are not intended as a boon for the parent who has custody of the child. To that extent, an argument might be made that whether or not either parent had intent in the creation of the child in question is irrelevant to the question of the well-being of the child.

?

Is it a different concept in Australia? Are Australian courts awarding child support to be paid to the parent who has custody of the child or is primary residential custodian of the said child based on a different concept?

I am quite puzzled at this point as to which "claim" you are requiring evidence for. But so it is clear to you, this is the purpose of child support laws in the US :

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/child-support/

http://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/child_support/1child_support.htm

To note :

In other words, the parent who is not living with or raising the child will be required to pay a set amount each month toward the upkeep and care of the child.

Meaning that the beneficiary of the said payments is the child for the PURPOSE of the child's upkeep and care.

I agree that the purpose of child support laws is not to 'punish' or 'benefit' one parent over another.

Emily's claim was that the purpose was to benefit the child. I claimed that the purpose was to prevent the State losing money. My view is more cynical but I also see more evidence for it. e.g.: when a single parent applies for welfare in the US, the amount that the State forked out for the child is (attempted) to be recovered by the State against the other parent. So, the State is trying to cover its losses by finding someone to pin the welfare costs on.

But, it doesn't matter. The purpose of the law (actual or stated) isn't really relevant. It's the effect of the law that matters.

The purpose of child support laws is not to punish a non-custodial parent. However, when the State extracts money from a raped child using child support laws, the effect of the law is to re-victimise the victim, this time with the State as the perpetrator.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Do you need evidence for Emily's statement regarding,

?

Is it a different concept in Australia? Are Australian courts awarding child support to be paid to the parent who has custody of the child or is primary residential custodian of the said child based on a different concept?

I am quite puzzled at this point as to which "claim" you are requiring evidence for. But so it is clear to you, this is the purpose of child support laws in the US :

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/child-support/

http://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/child_support/1child_support.htm

To note :

In other words, the parent who is not living with or raising the child will be required to pay a set amount each month toward the upkeep and care of the child.

Meaning that the beneficiary of the said payments is the child for the PURPOSE of the child's upkeep and care.

I agree that the purpose of child support laws is not to 'punish' or 'benefit' one parent over another.

Emily's claim was that the purpose was to benefit the child. I claimed that the purpose was to prevent the State losing money. My view is more cynical but I also see more evidence for it. e.g.: when a single parent applies for welfare in the US, the amount that the State forked out for the child is (attempted) to be recovered by the State against the other parent. So, the State is trying to cover its losses by finding someone to pin the welfare costs on.

But Metaphor, the cost the State assumes in such case is for the upkeep and care of the same child. If the other parent is deceased, the State becomes the "surrogate" payer for payments going towards the child's upkeep and care. When the State identifies another living parent, the State will of course expect the other parent to be the party responsible to provide financial support for the upkeep and care of the child.

But, it doesn't matter. The purpose of the law (actual or stated) isn't really relevant. It's the effect of the law that matters.

The effect of the law is that in the US both parents are expected to be the parties supporting the cost of the care and upkeep of the child. Going back to the purpose of child support laws which my links detail.

The purpose of child support laws is not to punish a non-custodial parent. However, when the State extracts money from a raped child using child support laws, the effect of the law is to re-victimise the victim, this time with the State as the perpetrator.

I hope you actually read my comments in this thread regarding the SPECIFIC case presented in the OP. Again (and as I brought it up twice) while my latest post introduced 2 scenarios with the same factor of the bio father being a party deemed unable to consent : there is no rationally constructed justification which can be applied to any notion or belief that a party deemed unable to consent to a sexual activity ought to be held responsible for any subsequent consequence from the said sexual activity he was deemed unable to consent to.

It just makes NO sense at all.

 

[Metaphor]

I hope you actually read my comments in this thread regarding the SPECIFIC case presented in the OP. Again (and as I brought it up twice) while my latest post introduced 2 scenarios with the same factor of the bio father being a party deemed unable to consent : there is no rationally constructed justification which can be applied to any notion or belief that a party deemed unable to consent to a sexual activity ought to be held responsible for any subsequent consequence from the said sexual activity he was deemed unable to consent to.

It just makes NO sense at all.

Well, that seems obvious to me to, but apparently, some people are yet to be convinced.

 

[KeepTalking]

The problem with this is the already mentioned, and much more likely, case of when both parties are considered children at the time of conception.

what is the problem?

The problem was that the only consideration you mentioned was the age of the father. As your example shows, there needs to be more consideration than that, such as the age of the mother. There is also the very real possibility that Emily brought up, where a minor male rapes a female who is not a minor.