Whatever, but the point remains, two teenagers engaging in oral sex and getting caught could very well end up in that graph even if no force is used (speaking in commone sense vs. idio...err legal sense). The point still remains that two teens exploring their sexuality in a consensual and non-violtent way (from a common sense perspective) could end up on a sex offender registry. The underlying logic: they molested each other.

Our Paul,

The second point is straight forward. Does the paper by Dr. Snyder, and his graph that you quoted, support your contention that teen sexual exploration is being criminalized? In my view, the answer is no. Please note that others in this blog, such as PD Shaw, agree with this formulation. And assuredly not when the reported crime involves victims under the age of ten, as Dr. Snyder’s paper presents.

But that is just it, remove those cases that you agree are there and what would happen? Would we see fewer people at the tails? Probably not is my guess at least not in the right hand tail, maybe a slight decrease in the left hand tail. Would we see a drop in the peak? Probably. If that is the case, then the graph goes along with what CLS has been telling us. That criminalizing teenage sexuality is a problem, and that problem is one of turning the innocent into criminals and hounding them pretty much for the rest of their lives.

And frankly I think you should apologize for the nutso comment since you've agreed with CLS' main point that criminalizing teenage sexuality in general is a bad idea.

The first is whether teen age sexuality is being criminalized. The answer to that is yes. If you are Christian, Muslim, or of other faith, and your Holy Book is not enough to dampen down the sexual drive when the brain is plastic and still developing, why you then call in the law. Anything to scare the pants back on to those sinful teens.

The second point is straight forward. Does the paper by Dr. Snyder, and his graph that you quoted, support your contention that teen sexual exploration is being criminalized? In my view, the answer is no. Please note that others in this blog, such as PD Shaw, agree with this formulation. And assuredly not when the reported crime involves victims under the age of ten, as Dr. Snyder’s paper presents.

That said, the last question. Does the FBI data that Dr. Snyder analyzed contain possible cases of “ consensual” acts of sexual of exploration between teens that is classified as rape? I would unhesitatingly say yes, although it would be hard to prove how many cases given the parameters imposed on his data.

What today is classified as sexual psychopathology will in all probability tomorrow be classified as a brain disorder whose etiology lies either in the in utero gestasional period or in a failure of the maturing brain to bend to the mores of societies. The later poses a problem, for what is accepted in one society, may not be accepted in another.

Understand that agree with your basic thesis, but disagree of your interpretation of the data presented in Dr. Snyder’s paper…

Trumwill: You ask for the passage that says statutory rape offenses are included. I said that “statutory offenses” are included. The quote showing that statutory offenses are included is in my first reply. The report says that statutory rape ought to be put in a different category but it specifically says that in at least two broad areas statutory offenses are included. I listed those. Since numerous offenses are included in the chart, including statutory offenses, it is deceptive to harp about one category where it is supposed to be excluded (whether it is or not is up to local police who report such matters) when other categories included specifically say such statutory crimes are included.

Shaw asks “is it your position that ‘statutory rape’ offenses are included in that chart? My point was that statutory offenses are included and rape is only one kind of offense. not the only one either. Turn the question around to what I was saying and what was debated: “Are you saying that NO statutory offenses are included?”

In Shaw’s post on California he then quotes a passage saying total circumstances are accounted for. And mentions a 14yo “forced into performing a sex act against her will, due in part to her maturity....”He says that has nothing to do with statutory age of consent issues. The question is not whether that is just one factor but whether prosecutions take place in the US where teens are arrested for consensual sex and where age was the only factor. No one disputed that some warranted prosecutions exist with factors other than age. But that some do exist certainly doesn’t disprove that prosecutions are still taking place where the only factor was age. All we have to do is look at the cases of teens arrested for “sexting” and who are then told they must register as sex offenders, to prove that.

The people hell-bent on defending these badly drafted, contradictory laws, seem to believe that if they can show one case that is warranted that proves all cases are warranted. They also appear to believe it disproves my case -- but that is because some fantasize I said no cases are warranted, when I never said any such thing.

Our Paul says that Andrew Sullivan “Scholar that he is ... gives a link to an Editorial in the Economist that covers criminalization in detail. Implication: I didn’t do so. If Our Paul had bothered to actually read more than my conclusion he would have seen that virtual every case the Economist just spoke about has been blogged about on my blog long before the Economist found the issue. As far as I know none of the examples in the Economist article were not first used on my site, along with others along the way that they didn’t use.

The piece everyone reads is the summation of my thoughts about what has happened. The evidence was in dozens of other posts that most did not bother to read (though they are listed on site for convenience) and then pretend didn’t exist. Ignoring the evidence presented, doesn’t mean it was not there. This page has links to almost 5 dozen articles I posted, most listing specific cases which document my case. It is not everything on the blog on the topic, since the earlier posts were not indexed.

To my mind, Classically Liberal, has abstracted a graph, and come to a variety of conclusions that are truly nutso to the rational mind.

The key sentence to interpret the data can be found on the first page of the report:

From most to least serious, these crimes are forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, and forcible fondling. If more than one of these offenses occurred, the most severe sexual charge was used to classify the sexual assault in the incident. (my italics, OP)

If one drifts down to page three, the four different reported crimes are individually graphed. Forcible rape peaks at around age 15, an age at which the emerging hormonal tide comes into its full force. The other three reported sexual crimes show a distinct bi-modal distribution, with an early peak occurring at victim age five, a second peak occurring slightly earlier than age 15. Only in the last category (Forcible Fondling) is the first peak smaller the second peak. This, and other aspects of Dr. Snyder’s report point to the fact that he was dealing with an examination of sexual psychopathology.

The issue of inadvertently tagging teen age sexual exploration as a crime is real, and my response to Dr. Joiner’s post was not aimed at minimizing this problem. Our host points to a blog post by brother Andrew whose stature among liberals was recently raised a few notches by being nabbed in a park with a few ounces of that weed. Scholar that he is, Andrew gives us a link to an Editorial in the Economist that covers criminalization of teen age sexual activity in detail.

Psssst: I probably would not have commented further, but CLS (September 25, 2009 | 09:33 pm) had this to say:

Our Paul doesn't actually quote anything from the report at just tries to be cutesy and clever without really presenting any evidence.

Don’t know about the “cutsey”, will accept the “clever”. Where I come from, you do not take a paper that explores a significant problem, and misinterpreted the data to beat your own drum.

Sexual offenses are species of unwanted touching (battery). The gist of the offense is that lack of consent, plus some element of sexual conduct. In most states, lack of consent can be proven by the defendant's own knowledge that the victim is too immature to give knowing consent.

For example, in California, lack of consent can be established by showing duress:

As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress.

So, if a fourteen year old is forced into performing a sex act against her will, due in part to her immaturity, she is going to appear in that chart. But that has nothing to do with statutory age of consent issues.

Shaw and Our Paul, basically make the same point -- that the chart does not include statutory offenses.

I have repeatedly written that the chart does not include statutory rape. The report from the chart repeats what are in the instructions for law enforcement officers to code statutory rape under a specific category for statutory rape.

CLS, is it your position that "statutory rape" offenses are included in that chart?

Last I heard, contrary to the common perception recidivism rates for sexual offenders are lower than that for other crimes.

CLS,

Could you provide the passage that states that statutory rape offenses are included? Or provide me a link to where you did so in the comment section of your post? Or date and time so I can find it?

If a statistic has several major components to it, and one of them says that statutory rape "should" be excluded while it says that in two other categories statutory crimes are included, including the more likely offense for kids (fondling) then it is not quite truthful to say the chart excludes all voluntary, consenting acts. It clearly does not do that. It includes them. It may exclude them in one of the components but it includes them in others so the chart does reflect such statutory crimes, whether we like it or not.

“Damn it, Our Paul, do not ever, ever, build your story on a single graph if you have not read the primary paper.”

As I recall, the flowers in the center of the table actually wilted at his thunderous pronouncement…

The paper in question originates from the National Center for Juvenile Justice, utilizing data from the FBI’s National Incidence Reporting System. The FBI classifies sexual assault into four groups: forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, and forcible fondling. The author takes this classification and examines them from a variety of perspectives such as the age of victim, age of offenders, location, relationship of offenders to victims, etc.

The presented graph has diddly squat to do teen age sex (at least as I remember it) as the “sexual assault offender” that is graphed is the summation of these acts: forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, and forcible fondling. For those who are arguing about the graph, on page 8 of the linked report (pdf form) contains the primary data for the graph. Worth a peek, as well as some of the other graphs, which point to the fact that we are not dealing with the let’s play doctor and nurse meme, or the latest fad of sending one’s naked picture to their teen age paramour.

To my mind, Classically Liberal has abstracted a graph, and come to a variety of conclusions that are truly nutso to the rational mind. The data deals with psycho/sexual pathology and not with Jack and Jill going up the hill to fetch a pail of water and playing if you show me yours, I will show you mine…

Why exactly Dr. James Joiner decided to build a thread around Classically Liberal’s post I surely do not know. Perhaps, as I have posted in the past, only the Shadow knows!!!

Which is an argument against red letter laws for youth, but I don't like them for youth or adults.

There is a difference in how the definitions are employed between rape and other sexual assaults. Statutory rape is nonforceable sexual intercourse that is illegal solely because of the statutory age requirement.

The other sexual assaults are treated as forcible where consent is not given because of incapacity, whether from drugs, mental impairment, disability, or youth. If you look at the study, there are a lot of approx. 12 year olds sexually assaulting five year olds. That's not a "category invented by the government" to criminalize sex; that's a reflection of the reality that there exist biological impossibilities. Try to enforce a contract against a five year old.

In any event, I stand by my statement for which I was called a liar:

The study that is the basis of that chart does not include statutory rape or incest, absent force.

Statutory rape is not included in that study or the chart and I, and no doubt many others, believed it was just from reading the link.

In particular the case of Matthew Bandy is particularly galling. It is well past time to do away with immunity for prosecutors. Personally I'd like to see a 20 year period where prosecutors get absolutely no immunity at all. Let them get a taste of what it is like to be ground up and spit out by the legal system and then shit on by society.

Sorry, but two of those catagories would seem to include things like mutual masturbation between two teens, oral sex between two teens, and other activities that do not include vaginal or anal intercourse where teens are invovled. Hence your comment,

Those classifications are distinct from the reporting category of nonforcible sex offenses (statutory rape and incest).--Link

Is not entirely accurate. Nonforcible offenses include more than just incest and statutory rape as per the definitions in the docutment you linked.

I will quote the study:

The 1991 through 1996 NIBRS master files contain reports from law enforcement agencies in 12 States . . .. These reports were scanned to identify incidents of sexual assault. The FBI’s offense coding structure classifies sexual assault into four separate offense categories. From most to least serious, these crimes are forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, and forcible fondling. If more than one of these offenses occurred, the most severe sexual charge was used to classify the sexual assault in the incident.

So the study summarized reporting on four offenses, each of which are based on NIBRS definitions of forcible sex offenses. Those definitions expressly exclude statutory rape:

Forcible rape (except “statutory rape”) The carnal knowledge of a person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will; or not forcibly or against the person’s will where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity. If force was used or threatened, the crime should be classified as forcible rape regardless of the age of the victim. If no force was used or threatened and the victim was under the statutory age of consent, the crime should be classified as statutory rape.

This is because the NIBRS system of coding by law enforcement segregates forcible and non-forcible sex crimes:

19. Sex Offenses,Forcible
- Forcible Rape (11A)
- Forcible Sodomy (11B)
- Sexual Assault With An Object (11C)
- Forcible Fondling (11D)

20. Sex Offenses, Nonforcible
- Incest (36A)
- Statutory Rape (37A)

Offenses Reported in NIBRS

The study does not include statutory rape. The study says so. The NIBRS coding specifically separates the two categories.