The Glade 4.0

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is pretty shitty, but IMHO this one isolated incident of injustice pales in comparison to the multiple cases of 16 year olds tried as adults on similarly severe rape charges for having sex with their 15 year old girlfriends. Regardless of whether you think it's appropriate for 16 year olds to have sex, 10+ year rape charges for the "crime" of sometimes being a few weeks older are absolutely insane.

Seems he enjoyed it. Why is the woman getting in trouble again?

Because "Facilitated Communication" is bullshit. He has been judged to not have the mental capacity to consent. No consent = sexual assault.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Perhaps you could cite some of these "multiple cases"? In most states, statutory rape laws are specifically designed to exclude cases where the parties are within a year or two in age precisely so that something doesn't become a felony just because one or the other had a birthday.

Also, you might want to consider that there's no injustice here at all. This woman took advantage of a severely retarded person while purporting to be helping him in a professional capacity - one she had absolutely no professional training or licensing to perform. She was a PhD in "ethics", not a psychologist, psychiatrist, doctor, physical therapist or much of anything relevant to helping people with medical problems. She was an advocate who thought her passion on the issue was a substitute for proper training in the technical skills she was allegedly performing. Heck, partway through the article it discusses her dismay at how the actual scientists and doctors were too concerned with the scientific method. This sort of rejection of science is exactly what gets decried when... other sorts of people do it.

If there was any injustice to be found it would be the fact that she wasn't also charged with practicing medicine without a license in addition to being essentially a forcible rapist.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The problem with this, is that the law has basically decided for a disabled person that he shall never get nookie because he can't give consent. Would suck to be him, but I'll bet he will really miss his "therapist."

Other than that, I agree with Diamondeye completely. This woman's a quack and needs to go away.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

What a tragic tale of a poor social justice warrior oppressed by a harsh and privileged court system.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Indeed! Why the article even points it out:









It's just unbelievable that an "ethics professor" would not be allowed to exercise theraputic techniques on someone as if they were a physical therapist or psychologist. This focus on "science" and "research" is pretty clearly a terrible form of oppression to take away the voice of people with the intellectual capacity of a toddler.

I feel terrible for the family too:



It's great that they recognized the true problem here was the racist behavior of this woman towards them as opposed to that of a competent adult taking sexual advantage of a deeply disabled man.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I still don't see why we need to waste taxpayer dollars keeping her locked up. I don't think she's a threat to society. I think the consent issue is being blown out of proportion, especially since the disabled man probably enjoyed it.

You're well past the age where you have an excuse for terrible opinions like this. Absolutely no one is interested in putting her in prison because they're worried she'll find a different disabled person to ****.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The article does not describe the actions of a competent adult.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

The point was supposed to be that this is a case where the left is pushing for an obvious injustice (letting this woman off) that they damn well know to be an injustice because it supports the overall agenda. I contrasted that with an area where conservatives also push for an obvious injustice (massive prison sentences and sex offender status for teenagers for having sex) because it supports the agenda.

Also, the close in age exceptions in many states only apply to people over 16, and many states simply set the age of consent at 16 and have no close in age exceptions. Over 40% of the population of the US lives in a state where 16/15 is a felony and a further 30% live in a state where it's a either a misdemeanor or the burden of proof is on you to prove consent to avoid a felony.

All I'm trying to say is the punishment doesn't fit the crime. She's clearly a shitty individual but that's not a good reason to lock her up for 10 - 20 years.

Conservatives have not, in fact, been pushing for massive prison sentences for children very close to each other in age nor does it support any overall agenda. Sex offender legislation has been something supported by both sides but aside from possibly some occasional pedants no one has seriously advocated that just because one partner has a birthday that sex should suddenly become a felony.

If you want to contrast things, try to contrast them with things that actually exist, not a caricature of "conservatives".



They really don't need them because it's very difficult to justify trying a 16 year old for having sex with a 15 year old as an adult regardless of the statute. Individual horror stories may exist but this is not a general practice or we'd be overwhelmed with sheer numbers of jailed teenagers.

The age of consent generally refers to consent with a person 18 or older:

Ohio - 2907.04 Unlawful Sexual Conduct With A Minor



Note that the cutoff here is "thirteen or older" not fifteen. A person who is 18 and has sex with a 15 year old is in trouble, a 16 year old is not. A person who is 18 and has sex with a 16 year old is also not violating the law based on age alone. The only real exception is for a person under 13 and even then if the offender was under 16 it would be nearly impossible to treat it as an adult crime without other aggravating circumstances.

Texas, 21.11 Penal Code, Indeceny with a child:



The age part of the affirmative defense is very easy to prove and a 3 year age allowance is plenty reasonable.

Nebraska, sexual assault of child:


3 year age gap again. For less serious sex offenses in Nebraska the age gap widens.

How about the notoriously restrictive Utah?



So, in the champion social conservative state of Utah, it's a misdemeanor if a 16 year old and a 15 year old have sex. Good luck getting that into adult court for a prison sentence; it's a misdemeanor. Juvenile probation is about the maximum you'd ever see for that offense.

That's 4 states so far and out of those sex between a 15 year old and 16 year old is perfectly legal in 3 of them an falls into your "misdemeanor" category in the others - and I picked moderate to conservative states, too. Where are you getting this information from; I am not going picking through all 50 penal codes.

Furthermore, misdemeanors and the availability of affirmative defenses are not indicative of any desire to inflict "massive prison sentences" or anything of the sort. Just because the law could conceivably be read in a certain extreme way does not mean that it actually is in practice. One of the reasons we have lawyers and courts is to apply the law appropriately to the circumstances, not just blindly and pedantically throw wording at a situation regardless of whether it makes sense to do so.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The punishment does, indeed, fit the crime. She, for all intents and purposes, had sex with a toddler.

Furthermore, she's part of this large group of F.C. adherents who are representing this as a therapeutic technique of sorts which A) they have no legitimate medical or therapeutic credentials to do and B) is based on this idea that the disabled people they're advocating for are really just like the rest of us intellectually and are merely "trapped" inside the inability of the body to function properly.

Essentially what they're doing is envisioning themselves in the disabled person and responding to what they imagine the disabled person would want if they were he. The problem is that the disabled person isn't like them; they may be limited to a pre-teen, young child, toddler, or even animal level of understanding of the world. The article even carries an example where Stubblefield claims that D.J. typed that he doesn't like Gospel music when he clearly likes swaying to it in church according to his family. D.J. doesn't know that it's gospel music; he's just responding to the rhythmic sounds of it. Anna is the one that doesn't like Gospel music because she associates it with social conservatism and evangelical Christianity that (it is not hard to surmise) she is hostile to.

The reason this is incredibly dangerous because they are representing the disabled as having the ability to consent to things, and then representing themselves as the mouthpiece for that consent. In the absence of actual evidence that FC works what they're doing is trying to circumvent the legal protections for the disabled. Whether intentionally, or simply by using the disabled person as a human Ouija board they're basically granting themselves the right to do anything they want with that person by claiming they are the means by which the disabled communicate wants that all evidence indicates they can't possibly actually have.

This sort of behavior has to be quashed, and harshly. While I think the 40 year maximum might be too much, 10 to 20 years is not unreasonable at all. She needs to be made an example of to the rest of these folks; part of the reason for punishment is deterrence.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Which of them are you referring to?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

It's a felony in Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Technically, in Illinois it's the 17/16 situation that is the felony, but.....that's even worse.

In Arizona and Texas it's a felony unless you can prove consent. (you also have to prove their age, but that's trivial)

Also, while judges have the discretion in most of these cases to hand out a short prison sentence or no prison sentence at all, the offender is still a convicted felon that also ends up on the sex offender registry for 25 years to life, with all the life-ruining baggage that entails, and the judge has no power to prevent any of that once the prosecutor actually files the charges and decides to prosecute the 16-year old as an adult. Then there's the rampant sexism involved in how these cases are prosecuted. Only the male is ever guilty of such an offense, and this is especially egregious in some states where if both parties are under 16 they can technically be convicted of raping each other, but only the male will ever get prosecuted.

Except that it isn't. You talked about a felony where one person was 15 and the other was 16. Starting right with Alabama from your list:



So no, if one partner is 15 and the other is 16 it's not a felony. there has to be AT LEAST a 2 year age gap, and arguably that means that if they actual birthdates are less than 2 years apart it's not a felony if, at a given point in time, one is 15 and the other 17.

Let's take the next one, from the Alaska section:



Once again, a minimum 3-year age gap is required. The 15/16 thing doesn't exist.

Arizona:



Once again, minimum 2 years - and unlike Alabama it's unequivocal here that it means 2 full years not just what the ages happen to be on the day of the offense.

That's the first 3, and it squares with those I cited earlier. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? You just got it into your head that "age of consent" means "all sex below the red line is felonious no matter what" because ~Conservatives~. You either didn't actually read the laws carefully or don't know how to and therefore pretty much have no business having an opinion - especially not when you're linking me the fact that you're wrong.



I have news for you, sex without consent is always a felony, everywhere in the country.



You're correct about the sexism, but once again - a significant age gap, not just an intervening birthday is needed. Furthermore, people generally don't end up on sex offender registries for misdemeanors nor are all sex-related offenses sex-offender qualifiers. Soliciting or being a prostitute for example is rarely, if ever, a cause for being labeled a sex offender.

The underlying fact however is that the problem of teenagers very close in age getting convicted of various offenses because one had a birthday was recognized and remedied a long time ago. The scary boogiemen that want to put kids in jail for this don't actually exist.

Let's do one, more. Next up is Arkansas:



The fact that Arkansas legalizes sex with children as young as 10 under certain circumstances notwithstanding, you are wrong.

Shut

The

****

Up.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Uhhhh.....



It's literally the next one down.



I didn't put Alaska in my list.



I said in Arizona you needed to prove consent to avoid a felony. That's exactly what that says.



Of course, but everywhere else the burden of proof is not on you to prove consent in order to satisfy an affirmative defense. The state has to prove that there was no consent. That's a huge difference.



I'm pretty sure statutory rape or whatever the equivalent felony is in each of these states counts as something that gets you labeled a sex offender.



If you want to say that actual prosecutions for something like this are rare, I would agree with you. However they still happen and the fact remains that it's still a felony and you're still subject to the whim of the prosecutor.



I didn't put Arkansas on the list either. I don't see what's so hard about this.

I thought it was fairly clear that the comment was all-encompassing.

I find it very interesting that every major success story of facilitated communication involves the disabled person going to college for some social justice cause, writing academic papers about social justice, and traveling the social justice speaking circuit. Not once has someone broken out of their shell, learned to communicate effectively through their facilitator, and gone on to a challenging and rewarding career as a marine biologist. Or really, any profession that their facilitator wasn't engaged in.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Did you miss the word DEVIATE dumbass? And miss the fact that it's Alabama? It's referring to t3h gayz0rrrZZZZ!! and it's probably unenforcable at this point.



I'm going by Wikipedia's list, that you cited.



And this is completely **** irrelevant because SEX WITHOUT CONSENT IS RAPE REGARDLESS OF AGE. Holy ****.

[quote

Of course, but everywhere else the burden of proof is not on you to prove consent in order to satisfy an affirmative defense. The state has to prove that there was no consent. That's a huge difference.[/quote]

No, the state still has to prove consent because without consent it becomes full-on rape which is ALWAYS a felony. The language is in there to avoid excessive lawyering. Amazing as it may seem, the law isn't perfectly linguistically crafted and does sometimes contain redundancy.



Seeing as how your characterization of the entire situation has been wildly inaccurate, I don't give a **** what you're pretty sure of especially in regard to juvenile offenders. You haven't actually cited a single example yet to support your claim, and in your latest response all you did was quibble about your list v. Wikipedia's.



No, actually you're not in juvenile cases - the Prosecutor does not get to arbitrarily make it an adult case - and the fact is that they pretty much DON'T happen because the law has been written specifically fixed to avoid the situation you're concerened about - and your sole attempt at an example excluded a word intended specifcally to limit it to gays, and which is probably unenforceable at this point.


[/quote]

Did you or did you not cite the Wikipedia article?

More importantly these are states that range from "moderate" to "ridiculously conservative" and your suspicion hasn't born out. This is because you have retarded ideas about conservatives.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, you made me go look it up. Here you go, that's not actually what it means.



Wow, really? You're being deliberately obtuse here. I listed the states where it's a felony and then provided the wikipedia link to back up where I got that information. I never claimed it was a felony in every state. Obviously the link is going to give information on the age of consent laws in every state, even the ones where it's not illegal.



I see nothing there to indicate that the third condition of consent is treated any differently than the other two conditions required to satisfy the affirmative defense. Of course I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong on this point, but seriously, give me some credit here. I am actually aware that sex without consent is always rape, I stated from the beginning that the difference in these two states is that the defendant must prove consent.



You didn't actually say anything about any of the states I claimed that this situation was a felony in except Alabama, and I already showed you how you were wrong on this point.



That was my sole attempt at an example because it's the only example where you actually picked a state where I claimed it was a felony in the first place! No, it's not a felony in Alaska or Arkansas or Ohio, I never claimed it was. Also, the word does not specifically limit it to homosexuals, it includes all oral and anal sex, even amongst heterosexuals. I'll admit that I do not know what specifically is required to escalate a juvenile case to an adult case but 16-year old juveniles get tried as adults for a lot less serious crimes than statutory rape or the equivalent.

A) Not in so many words, but why do you think Alabama has this statute specifically referring to genital/anal contact that other states don't? Use some common sense.

B) That provision is unenforceable, like I said. Lawrence V. Texas invalidated sodomy laws in Texas and the other 13 states where they were still on the books 12 years ago. It's still a law on the books but has no effect.



And going down that list, in none of the first 4 states, just like the 4 I provided previously, is it actually a felony for a 16 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. You made that claim but your link didn't back it up because you just looked at age of consent and whether it was a felony, without looking into circumstances where the law makes an exception. In every state so far the law has made an exception for the 15/16 scenario you provided in one form or another. Your list wasn't relevant because you provided a list of the general circumstance rather than a list that met the specific case you started the discussion on.



There doesn't need to be anything specifically treating the consent issue differently than the others; it's there for completeness and to prevent a lawyer trying to use the affirmative defense in a non-consensual case in a hail-mary play to a sympathetic jury.

Affirmative defenses are there for the defendant's benefit, not for the state. Sex without consent is a crime in itself; the state has to prove that the sex was nonconsensual. They can't make an end-run around their own Constitutional burden of proof by charging someone with underage sex and then saying "well you have to prove it was consensual". Affirmative defenses don't come into play until AFTER the state has proven the crime. If the state fails to prove the crime in the first place the defense doesn't need to use the affirmative defense.

I'll give you another example - in Ohio it's an affirmative defense to Driving Under Suspension to prove that you drove A) in response to an emergency and B) that no one else was reasonably available to drive, like for example if you and your buddy are out fishing alone and he has a heart attack. Even if your license is suspended you can drive him to the hospital and if you're arrested when you go to court your lawyer can use this defense. If, however, the state cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that you A) were driving and B) had a suspended license, you still get acquitted without the affirmative defense coming up.

What you're suggesting would be blatantly unConstitutional and totally contrary to the purpose of the legislature in creating an affirmative defense in the first place.



Yes, actually I did - Arizona, which you specifically mentioned, and no, you didn't prove me wrong about Alabama since that provision is unenforceable and refers to types of intercourse, not age - it's just the juvenile form of the same statute preventing adult anal or oral sex which is also unenforceable.

Finally, your list was meaningless since you did not vet your list for exceptions, even though you are talking about a specific situation - 15/16 year old sex - rather than the general rule. You just assumed that because sex with someone 15 years old was a felony generally in those cases that it was in your specific case.



And you made no attempt whatsoever to vet your list to see if it applied to the exception you cited.



You do recall that you were making claims about the frequency of this supposed issue well before you posted the list of specific states names, and tying it to some agenda you imagine conservatives to have?

All you're doing is complaining about the list, but you have still failed to actually cite a single state statute that doesn't make an exception for close age proximity. Your sole attempt was Alabama which was clearly aimed at gays since A) it was specific to oral and anal intercourse and B) it specifically removed the close-in-age exception that pertained to the other statute which itself specifically mentioned "members of the opposite sex". Moreover it is, once again, an unenforceable statutue and has been for over a decade.

Are you really this disingenuous?



Obviously it doesn't, but it's pretty clearly still aimed at them since those are the types of intercourse homosexuals are limited to, and the OTHER statute specifically mentions "the opposite sex" and - once again - the statute is unenforceable.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, I really didn't. I went down the page and listed off the states that specifically made 16/15 illegal. Even if you are correct that the Alabama provision is unenforceable, (I'm not so sure about this, Lawrence v. Texas refers to "consenting adults" which might not apply to teenagers) you can see that I did not arrive at the conclusion I did just by looking at the age of consent. There is actually a law on the books there that specifically makes it a felony. There is one for the other 16 states that I listed as well.



I don't think this is how it works. If your license is suspended, it's illegal to drive. If you are arrested for driving with a suspended license, the burden of proof is on you to prove that there was an emergency and that no one else was reasonably available. If you can't prove both things, the affirmative defense fails and you get convicted. The state is not required to prove that an emergency did not occur in order to convict you, you have to prove it to get off.

Similarly, in Arizona, it's illegal to have sex with anyone under 18. If you can prove that you were within 24 months of your partner, your partner was over 15, and that the conduct was consentual, you satisfy the affirmative defense and get off for the otherwise illegal conduct. If you can't prove all three things, your affirmative defense fails and you're convicted.



The only claim I made before providing the list was that 40% of the US population lives in a state where this is a felony. Do you disagree that at least 40% of the US population resides within those 15 states? Also, if you want me to actually cite it, here you go. This site lists all the relevant laws for every state, you can easily check each one.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/report/state-laws

We did Alabama already, go down to Delaware, the next one I listed:



Click on the state to open it and it shows all the relevant offenses. 2nd degree unlawful sexual contact has no close in age exemption.

Now, go down to Florida:



Florida even has a specific, seperate crime for the specific case of under 18 having sex with under 16. You can't possibly claim there's an exception here. Now we can go down to Illinois. I don't think I need to quote it again, you can click on it right there. All sex with someone under 17 is defined as criminal sexual abuse, there are no exceptions. Now, this is far more broad than my initial claim, but 16/15 is still a crime here. Idaho considers all intercourse with a woman under 18 to be rape. Not only do they have the 16/15 problem, they also still have the 18/17 problem that you claim has been eradicated. Even worse, they've actually codified the sexism into their laws. In Idaho, the male always being guilty isn't just a matter of who gets prosecuted, it's actually a matter of law. 18/17 is legal when the woman is older but rape when the male is. Now, we can check out Kansas. You'll notice that like Florida they have a seperate crime for when the ages are close. Maybe I was wrong? Well, no, this page cites every law, so you can easily go check and see that the specific crime that applies is still a felony.

You can feel free to check the remainder of the 15 states I listed.

It does apply to teenagers; the majority opinion was that the law violated substantive due process rights. Everyone has substantive due process rights, not just adults, so it applies to teenagers, pedantic nitpicking of the wording notwithstanding.

Furthermore, you didn't even mention that law until AFTER I'd already demonstrated that the law that is still enforcable had an age exception so your protests are rather hollow.



It doesn't matter if you don't think that's how it works. That IS how it works. It's not up for debate.



I didn't say they did. I said that they have to prove that A) you were, in fact, driving and B) that your license was, in fact, lawfully suspended. Those facts are both easy to prove, but if they couldn't then the state would fail to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. All you really did was restate exactly what I said, except that you skipped straight from "arrest" to "the defendant has to prove", ignoring the burden of the state to prove the offense was committed in the first place.

You topped it off by claiming the state didn't have a positive burden to disprove the affirmative defense, which was not what I said. So once again, it's irrelevant how you think it works. I told you how it works, and I'm not just making it up. I was taught how it works in a formal setting and passed an exam that contained this topic.



And this does not change the fact that the state has to prove the ages of the people and that sex did, in fact, occur. The fact remains however that an affirmative defense makes an act "not a crime". Whether you win a case by the state failing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or by affirmative defense an acquittal is the end result.

Most officers and prosecutors won't arrest or won't charge if they are highly confident the affirmative defense would be met in court because it's a waste of time to do so. I don't know what you think you're explaining to me here other than affirming that you're sort of grasping how this works.



This is not in fact what you claimed; prior to that you made generalized claims of terrible injustices because of these laws and related them to some undefined conservative agenda. You only made more specific claims when pressed.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/report/state-laws



Technically no it doesn't - it also doesn't have an exemption if BOTH parties are under 16 so while you're technically correct there's another problem with that law - if both parties are under 16 each has assaulted the other. This can't work - a person who commits sexual assault has to be competent to consent themselves at the time the other one is assaulted.

Now, go down to Florida:



Yes actually I can because there's a new law in Florida passed in 2007 that allows petition if the victim was at least 14 and the offender was no more than 4 years their senior. So, while in theory a 16 year old could still be convicted of raping a 15 year old based solely on age in practice this would never occur:



Criminal records in general are expunged at 18, so the 16 year could, even with other criminal records, petition to have the sex offender status removed. This renders the entire exercise of trying to get a conviction in juvenile court moot in all but the most extreme of circumstances.



The problem being that it's a crime in both directions if we strictly read the law. Technically the law reads this way; in practice the you can't convict 2 juveniles of sexually assaulting one another this way. In the trial of either, the other is assumed to be unable to consent due to their age, but once that person switches places and becomes the defendant, the argument that they assaulted the other person contains an assumption of consent - you can't non-consensually assault someone; we call that an "accident".



Which is unenforceable under Lawrence v. Texas - it's just a reverse of the Alabama situation; in this case heterosexual sex is criminalized to a greater degree than homosexual, rather than a lesser. The same legal principles apply. Lawrence v. Texas was a very broad decision that had wide-ranging effects beyond the immediate. For example, it applied to Texas but it caused the USSC to order a review in a Kansas case the very next day, which ultimately resulted in another law being vacated.



Lawrence v. Texas. The legal principle is the same, just the discrimination is working in the opposite direction - plus as you say it discriminates against males which would add even more weight against it if re-tested in court.



At least one of the Kansas statutes falls under Lawrence v. Texas. As for the others, all have the 15/15 problem which, while different than what you cited makes the PRACTICAL application of 15/16 problematic as well, and the law in Kansas lowers the penalty for offenders under 19 years old.

Let's go back to your original claim because in addition to finding at best some states where it's technically a problem but also run into the problem that the same law creates a paradoxical situation where being a victim can also make a child an offender, this is what you claimed:



You've moved the goalposts since then to merely pedantically arguing that in some states a felony is theoretically possible.

Your original claim was
A) Multiple actual cases
B) 16 year olds
C) tried as adults
D) similar charges - aggravated sexual assault, or aggravated rape. The charge she got was the most severe sexual assault charge possible in NJ, not some middling felony. She can get 40 years.

The last is critical. The point you raised was not "can they be charged with any crime at all?" or even "can they be charged with a felony" but that they are tried as adults simply for having consensual sex with a few weeks (or I'll even except several months) of age difference.

So really, no the fact is that you don't have a single example from any state because even if you are technically right that it might be theoretically possible, the fact is that in actual reality a 16 year old is basically never going to get charged with aggravated rape/aggravated sexual assault/insert state name for crime here simply for banging his willing 15 year old girlfriend/boyfriend.

What you did was make an outrageous initial claim and then gently move the goalposts back to what's technically possible under given state laws, while disregarding your own initial conditions of actual cases, severity, and trying juveniles as adults.

At best you've proven that some states have poorly written laws.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."