MA: Amendment to the Mideast Sex Crime Statute (Tabled)

[HappyWarrior]

As Proposed by Mideast Governor Zuwo:

Amendment to the Mideast Sex Crime Statute

The Mideast Sex Crime Statute shall be amended to read:

Section 1

1. All those persons between the ages of 14 years old and 16 years old not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to consent to engage in oral sex or mutual masturbation with persons between the ages of 14 years old and 18 years old.

2. All those Laws criminalising solitary masturbation are repealed.

Section 2

1. Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 16 years by a person over the age of 21 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree.

2. Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 12 years by a person over the age of 16 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree.

3. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 12 and 14 years by a person between the ages of 18 and 21 is defined as statutory rape of the first degree.

4. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 years by a person between the ages of 18 and 21 is defined as statutory rape of the second degree.

5. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 12 and 14 years by a person between the ages of 16 and 18 is defined as statutory rape of the second degree.

6. Any sexual conduct, except oral sex and mutual masturbation, with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 by a person between the ages of 16 and 18 is defined as carnal sexual conduct.

7. The clauses in this Section shall only apply to circumstances where all parties involved in the sexual conduct were willing, even though they are unable under the Law to give informed, legal consent.

Section 3

1. Those guilty of Carnal Sexual Conduct may be punished by up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $2000. If released, a person guilty of this crime shall not be placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

2. Those guilty of Statutory Rape of the Second Degree may be punished by up to fifteen years in prison and a fine of up to $11250. If released, a person guilty of this crime shall be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for up to thirty years.

3. Those guilty of Statutory Rape of the First Degree may be punished by up to life in prison and an unlimited fine. If released, a person guilty of this crime shall be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life.

Section 4

1. Nothing in Sections 2 and 3 shall be construed to amend in anyway the definitions of, or punishments for, rape where consent by one of the parties involved is not given.

2. Section 3 of the Mideast Pornography and Sex Crime Statute is hereby repealed.

[California8429]

Can the Governor make his case for this amended version?

[ZuWo]

First of all, there's a typo I noticed. Section 2, passage 1 should read "Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 16 years by a person over the age of 21 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree."
 
Regarding my amendment: In general, it goes in the same direction as the current form of the Sex Crime Statute. The main difference between the two versions is that the bill I've proposed is more restrictive. Indeed, I am of the opinion that the kinds of sex crimes outlined under Section 2 are very problematic because they involve children or very young teenagers - it should be possible to punish people who commit such crimes more severely. Clearly, this goes hand in hand with Section 3, where I raised the maximum penalties and fines.

In fact, this bill does not alter the main thrust of the original Sex Crime Act but it is a tightening of existing law.

[California8429]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That needs to be fixed

[ZuWo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That needs to be fixed

That's what I mentioned in my post above. It should read 16 rather than 1416 years.

[California8429]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That needs to be fixed

That's what I mentioned in my post above. It should read 16 rather than 1416 years.

Oh, I thought it was 14 and you wanted it to be 16 and it came out 1416

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

according to section 6, any 16 yr old having sex with a 15 yr old is guilty of carnal sexual conduct. I find that ridiculous.

[ZuWo]

according to section 6, any 16 yr old having sex with a 15 yr old is guilty of carnal sexual conduct. I find that ridiculous.

I admit this must be fixed. Thanks for pointing that out!

[ZuWo]

What about the following amendment of Section 6?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

@A-Bob: I think we're misunderstanding each other. The original version of the Act said "14 years" and I wanted to make it "16 years". Then I made a typo and the bill read "1416". I want the bill to read "16 years" of course.

[ZuWo]

What do the members of this body think about my amendment of Section 6?

[California8429]

What do the members of this body think about my amendment of Section 6?

Do you mean Section 2 clause 6?

[ZuWo]

What do the members of this body think about my amendment of Section 6?

Do you mean Section 2 clause 6?

Yes, you are right of course. I copied that wording from shua's post but it's a bit misleading.

[California8429]

What do the members of this body think about my amendment of Section 6?

Do you mean Section 2 clause 6?

Yes, you are right of course. I copied that wording from shua's post but it's a bit misleading.

Because these ages are so close, I'm think this might get a big chaotic. For instance, it is not uncommon at all for a freshman who is 14 to date a senior who is 18 in my town. A 2 year difference as rape in the 2nd degree I believe is extreme and will be a mess with dealing in court since so many people have relations with those slightly older or younger than them.

[HappyWarrior]

What do the members of this body think about my amendment of Section 6?

Do you mean Section 2 clause 6?

Yes, you are right of course. I copied that wording from shua's post but it's a bit misleading.

Because these ages are so close, I'm think this might get a big chaotic. For instance, it is not uncommon at all for a freshman who is 14 to date a senior who is 18 in my town. A 2 year difference as rape in the 2nd degree I believe is extreme and will be a mess with dealing in court since so many people have relations with those slightly older or younger than them.

I've got to absolutely agree with this.

[ZuWo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keep in mind that this is taken directly from the old Mideast Sex Crime Statute - this clause has been in place for nearly seven years. My most recent amendment of this clause (the one I introduced after shua's post), which states that any sexual conduct except oral sex and mutual masturbation between individuals who are 14 on the one hand and 17 or 18 on the other hand is a carnal sexual conduct is actually a loosening of the current law.

To illustrate my point: This is the current text of the clause in question:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is my amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[California8429]

I think it may be more appropriate to loosen more of the clauses if my fellow Assemblymen agree with me now that this old statute has been brought up.

[Napoleon]

I see a lot of fiddling around with various numbers, anyone willing to explain why we need them? Thanks.

[ZuWo]

I think it may be more appropriate to loosen more of the clauses if my fellow Assemblymen agree with me now that this old statute has been brought up.

Do you or any of your fellow Assemblymembers have concrete suggestions? I'm ok with loosening some of the clauses as long as the people involved are at least 14 years of age and the age difference between the individuals is not too big, but I will not accept a loosening of the law when children of the ages of 12 or 13 are involved.

[California8429]

I think it may be more appropriate to loosen more of the clauses if my fellow Assemblymen agree with me now that this old statute has been brought up.

Do you or any of your fellow Assemblymembers have concrete suggestions? I'm ok with loosening some of the clauses as long as the people involved are at least 14 years of age and the age difference between the individuals is not too big, but I will not accept a loosening of the law when children of the ages of 12 or 13 are involved.

I agree, but for instance, Section 2 clause 4 and 5, I think a two year difference is too narrow an age difference and impractical.

Yes Napoleon, we absolutely need set ages to clearly define rape and protect young Mideast citizens.

[Napoleon]

I am asking why thee specific ages and why all these various restrictions such as limiting contact to oral sex. What is the general purpose? Essentially, I would like to see an argument in favor of these changes. To me, it makes little sense to allow oral sex but not other forms of sex.

-Napoleon, concerned constituent

[ZuWo]

I think it may be more appropriate to loosen more of the clauses if my fellow Assemblymen agree with me now that this old statute has been brought up.

Do you or any of your fellow Assemblymembers have concrete suggestions? I'm ok with loosening some of the clauses as long as the people involved are at least 14 years of age and the age difference between the individuals is not too big, but I will not accept a loosening of the law when children of the ages of 12 or 13 are involved.

I agree, but for instance, Section 2 clause 4 and 5, I think a two year difference is too narrow an age difference and impractical.

We could amend these clauses like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you think that's better?

The law does not state that a judge is obliged to punish people who are involved in such a sexual conduct very severely or even at all. And by far not all of these cases are brought to court.

[California8429]

Yes, I'll support the amendment.

[ZuWo]

Yes, I'll support the amendment.

Then I need someone to introduce this amendment on my behalf - I can't be Governor and legislator at the same time, I believe.

[Napoleon]

A year in prison because a seventeen year old has sex with his or her fifteen year old significant other is unreasonable. That could be a high school junior and sophomore.

[ZuWo]

Honorable Assemblymembers; I would like to stress that it must be kept in mind that the punishments for all of these offences are flexible. Let's have a look at the appropriate section (3):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thus, a judge who deals with a case of such a sex crime only has to consider the maximum punishments that are mentioned in the respective sections; there is no minimum punishment for any of these sex crimes.
For instance, if an 18-year old has sex with a 15-year old (the same principle basically applies to all sections of this bill) and this is brought to court, a judge can as well acquit the individual who is accused of the crime in question since the law clearly states that a judge may punish someone - a judge may, but doesn't have to punish the 18-year old in this case if he/she considers the circumstances and the context of the sexual encounter unproblematic. This is important to remember.

I think we can pass this bill with a good conscience and trust our judges that they are able to rule in a way that makes sense. This bill gives judges an instrument to punish people who have committed real sex crimes, but at the same time it gives them the option to be very lenient if it is appropriate.