Whatever R. Kelly may have done [he's accused of having sex with a minor and video-taping the act -- MW], his lawyers make some compelling arguments on the legal issues surrounding his defense.
By alleging that the illegal acts happened between November 1997 and February 2002, Kelly's attorneys argue, the girl could be anywhere from 13 to 17 years old. If she was 17 at the time, she would have been old enough to consent to sex.It sounds as if there's quite a bit of reasonable doubt built right into the charges, if the police investigators themselves admit the act could have happened at a time when the girl could have legally consented.
Further, they argue, such a large window of time makes it impossible for Kelly to mount a fair defense.Another good point. There's reasonable doubt that a crime was even committed, and the accusation is so vague that there's no way to defend against it."It's no secret that Mr. Kelly is a well-known musician, who frequently travels," the motion states. "By failing to narrow the date of the charged defense, Mr. Kelly is wholly deprived of the opportunity to bring an alibi defense."
The attorneys also raised questions about the law that allows for a man to have sex with girls 17 and older but illegal to videotape such acts with girls 17 and younger.This is an issue I've raised before with regards to nudist camps, and it does seem like a logical flaw in our justice system. Furthermore, the criminal penalties for taking or possessing pornographic pictures of children are often more harsh than the penalties for statutory rape, which is absurd. (Each picture taken/possessed is generally treated as a separate offense.)"It is illogical, irrational and disproportionate to subject one to a criminal conviction for taking pictures of conduct that does not otherwise violate the law," they said.
Our society obviously has the responsibility and desire to protect our children from exploitation (which is why we don't allow minors to "consent" to sexual activities, even if they want to), but the laws on these matters need to be reformed and unified to present a coherent and consistent framework for punishing criminals and discouraging criminal behavior.
The main impediment to reforming laws to make them more equitable and sentences more proportionate is the fear of being accused of coddling criminals. It is especially worrisome for any politician to be accused of favoring child pornography or not taking it seriously enough. However, we should elect politicians willing to lead and to be courageous and not simply to reflect every popular sentiment.
Yes, and I think there are other areas that could use courageous reform as well.
I also see a REALLY big difference between a child of six and a "child" of 16 11/12. But the law doesn't.
And I agree with you completely about the issue you raise with statuory rape.
hln
hln: Most laws do make a distinction between young minors and older minors. Generally, the line is drawn such that kids 14 years old and younger are given extra protection.
Still, there's a lot of nonsense. Some states have an age-of-consent of 16, but it's illegal to photograph a 16 year old having sex. Hawaii has an age-of-consent of 14. The thing is that there are federal child pornography laws (supposedly based on the Commerce Clause), but states are allowed to set their own ages-of-consent. Thus, there's a confusing muddle.