Interesting juvenile case could set precedent
Or, at least the logic is intriguing. The case is In Re: D.B., and the Ohio Supreme Court reversed his adjudication as a delinquent, after being convicted of statutory rape.
A 12-year-old boy had sex with an 11-year-old boy (there was a third boy as well, apparently). Ohio law says that children under the age of 13 are a special class when it comes to sexual consent (the age of consent is higher than 13, it's just a further distinction). The prosecutor charged D.B. with forcible rape, but the trial judge dismissed that. The sex was consensual.
But, the boy was adjudicated (convicted) of statutory rape, and sentenced to a minimum of five years (and up to his 21st birthday) commitment to a juvenile justice facility. That was suspended, but he was still sentenced to therapy and put on probation indefinitely (for those who don't follow these issues, once you're on probation, anything you do - even trivial status offenses that aren't illegal for adults - can land you in juvie).
The Ohio Supreme Court basically said that was unfair and made no sense, because if the sex was consensual, than he was a victim and the other boy was an offender, since they both had sex with a child under the age of 13. To not prosecute both parties was a violation of the boy's due process and equal protection rights, because prosecutorial discretion was essentially singling him out for prosecution.
Basically - and this is probably an oversimplification, so if a lawyer type needs to correct me, feel free - their logic is that statutory rape laws don't apply, or shouldn't apply, to persons under the legal age of consent, particularly if they're both apart of the protected class. Which would mean that you wouldn't have absurd prosecutions like this, so long as the sexual activity was voluntary and consensual. It also takes a swipe at prosecutors, who sometimes use their discretion to nail one person while protecting someone else, who may also be guilty (and culpable) under the law.
Apparently, several gay rights groups filed friend of the court briefs, on behalf of the boy.
A 12-year-old boy had sex with an 11-year-old boy (there was a third boy as well, apparently). Ohio law says that children under the age of 13 are a special class when it comes to sexual consent (the age of consent is higher than 13, it's just a further distinction). The prosecutor charged D.B. with forcible rape, but the trial judge dismissed that. The sex was consensual.
But, the boy was adjudicated (convicted) of statutory rape, and sentenced to a minimum of five years (and up to his 21st birthday) commitment to a juvenile justice facility. That was suspended, but he was still sentenced to therapy and put on probation indefinitely (for those who don't follow these issues, once you're on probation, anything you do - even trivial status offenses that aren't illegal for adults - can land you in juvie).
The Ohio Supreme Court basically said that was unfair and made no sense, because if the sex was consensual, than he was a victim and the other boy was an offender, since they both had sex with a child under the age of 13. To not prosecute both parties was a violation of the boy's due process and equal protection rights, because prosecutorial discretion was essentially singling him out for prosecution.
Basically - and this is probably an oversimplification, so if a lawyer type needs to correct me, feel free - their logic is that statutory rape laws don't apply, or shouldn't apply, to persons under the legal age of consent, particularly if they're both apart of the protected class. Which would mean that you wouldn't have absurd prosecutions like this, so long as the sexual activity was voluntary and consensual. It also takes a swipe at prosecutors, who sometimes use their discretion to nail one person while protecting someone else, who may also be guilty (and culpable) under the law.
Apparently, several gay rights groups filed friend of the court briefs, on behalf of the boy.