Section 2907.04 Changed title to: Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor General Assembly: 121. Bill Number: Amended Sub. S.B. 2 Effective Date: 07/01/96
(A) No person who is eighteen years of age or older shall engage in sexual conduct with another, who is not the spouse of the offender,when the offender knows the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, or the offender is reckless in that regard.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of corruption of a minor, a felony of the fourth degree. If the offender is less than four years older than the other person, corruption of a minor is a misdemeanor of the first degree.
The confusion arises because section 2907.02 states ..
A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies:
(b) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.
But 2907.02 was written to address the crime of RAPE. Section 2907.04 was written to address corruption of a minor as it was originally written, but modified to reflect "unlawful sexual conduct". Further, the law was drafted to provide differing penalties based on the age of the "offender".
So essentially 2907.02 says "no sexual conduct with anyone less than 13 years of age period, whether you're aware of their age or not," and presumably regardless of your age(?) unless that person is your spouse and you're living with them. Then apparently it's all right, nevermind the fact that you're married to a child.
And 2907.04 says "if you're 18 years or older, no sexual conduct with anyone whom you know is age 13 to 16, unless they are your spouse". And then the severity of the penalities varies depending on the age difference of the "victim" and "offender".
That's because marriage is okay, even if your bride is 13. But only if you're straight. It's okay for a 30-40-50-60something year old guy to marry a 13 year old girl provided her parents agree to it and she wants to. But that 80 year old pair of gentleman who have been monogamous for 50 years? Absolutely not! Fucking degenerates.
And yeah, but it also says something about "reckless"ness. So I guess that means you have to ask them first to at least show you care. Is that sort of like the asking someone "Are you a cop?". They have to tell you, don't they? Or do they skate along on loopholes like "Well, I'm not a cop, but I am working for them. So you're under arrest for solicitation and possession of marijuana."
No sense makin' bitches. Is it consenting? Yes. Are you directly involved? No. Is it hurting anyone? No. Good. Fuck OFF.
Man, that soapbox creeps right under me when I'm not paying attention.
Changed title to: Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor
General Assembly: 121.
Bill Number: Amended Sub. S.B. 2
Effective Date: 07/01/96
(A) No person who is eighteen years of age or older shall engage in sexual conduct with another, who is not the spouse of the offender,when the offender knows the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, or the offender is reckless in that regard.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of corruption of a minor, a felony of the fourth degree. If the offender is less than four years older than the other person, corruption of a minor is a misdemeanor of the first degree.
The confusion arises because section 2907.02 states ..
A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies:
(b) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.
But 2907.02 was written to address the crime of RAPE. Section 2907.04 was written to address corruption of a minor as it was originally written, but modified to reflect "unlawful sexual conduct". Further, the law was drafted to provide differing penalties based on the age of the "offender".
Source: http://orc.avv.com/title-29/sec-2907/sec-2907.02.htm (including session law and notes)
Source: http://orc.avv.com/title-29/sec-2907/sec-2907.04.htm (including session law and notes)
Reply
So essentially 2907.02 says "no sexual conduct with anyone less than 13 years of age period, whether you're aware of their age or not," and presumably regardless of your age(?) unless that person is your spouse and you're living with them. Then apparently it's all right, nevermind the fact that you're married to a child.
And 2907.04 says "if you're 18 years or older, no sexual conduct with anyone whom you know is age 13 to 16, unless they are your spouse". And then the severity of the penalities varies depending on the age difference of the "victim" and "offender".
Whew. Did I get that right?
Reply
And yeah, but it also says something about "reckless"ness. So I guess that means you have to ask them first to at least show you care. Is that sort of like the asking someone "Are you a cop?". They have to tell you, don't they? Or do they skate along on loopholes like "Well, I'm not a cop, but I am working for them. So you're under arrest for solicitation and possession of marijuana."
No sense makin' bitches. Is it consenting? Yes. Are you directly involved? No. Is it hurting anyone? No. Good. Fuck OFF.
Man, that soapbox creeps right under me when I'm not paying attention.
Reply
Leave a comment