The detailed legalities of statutory rape of minors, somewhere. topic crime.

[strateguy632]

we know to punish coerced rape but western law also punished consensual rape of a minor.

disclaimer this is not about u.s. law nor my opinions, i don't agree some of the contents that i summarize, just for information for conversation.

i will summarize some details relating to the rights of minors in a certain country.

the way the victims dress NEVER invites... and is never an excuse and never blame the victim

was reading a book about protecting children's rights, in addition to the child's body and emotions, and found two laws in a certain country that seem to conflict.
one law was about the lack of consent in minors age 14 to 16.
most of the stuff i read about this "certain country" seemed very western and "familiar to me" until two odd details: one, in the context of protecting children, "penal law that performing an abortion for a pregnant mother, terminating the fetus is a crime, regardless of weeks fetus age, unless a committee agreed it was "an extenuating" circumstance... not western but...
perhaps the context of protecting children can be a lesson for u.s.
another surprise is more complex. the law was written in odd legal drawl, so i summarize. prison 5 years for "consensual sex with a minor" between ages 14 to 16, despite consent, and despite not pressuring using dependency nor authority, (the latter detail was a leniency if the minor was 16 to 18, not exploited dependence authority etc.)
but then came the surprise : for age 14 to 16 the punishment is only if "not married" to each other... huh??? i recall that country had the western law to punish the one "marrying a minor younger age 17" both the spouse and the marry-er like arranger punishment so what was this leniency if married to the minor?
well "simon never said" the marraige was prevented due to the lack of consent. gasp. just punish the ones arranging the marraige of minors but the marraige counts gasp. it is valid.
so this detail "if not married" would be lenient if the wife minor had been married to him, or the husband minor to her.
legal data in that country specified "permission implied" within marraige, despite a crime to arrange, counted as marraige valid.
in fact that country turns out has specific laws for when the marraige is valid means "takes effect".
i will hide my subjective horror and just echo the law there, for discussion and contemplated.
1, first c is for Christians marraige is valid, in that unnamed country for example for the above leniency, a boy age 16 or a girl age 14, is valid. so that is the reference of the law "if not married" because "after the crime of marrying" the marraige is valid and would be lenient for the one married to the 14 year old lady, in that country, because he will say she is my wife.
2, second after c is i is for islam. if the marriage was islam then it is valid if boy age 12 and if a girl age 9. the man would prove they were married and the marraige valid as above despite punishing the ones marrying the minors. this surprised me because a law punishing the arrangers would indicate the minor never really agreed knowingly but as above valid.
according to this modern law the one marrying aisha would be punished because she was age 6 too young for 9 but the law was not passed until after aisha wife of prophet muhamed. so at the time not violate a law.
last for that country after i is j for jew, the marraige is "valid for a jew, if a girl at any age" gasp, apparently if her parents or one parent? arranged it, but a boy not valid unless 13.
so now you know why i hid the name of the country but it is fascinating to know the situation in some countries, and despite i would get punished for being the rabbi or kadi or priest marying them, the " law never said it was invalid" but opposite provided a leniency if they were married to the minor as above.