Do you have a link? I've read this a few times in forums but have never seen evidence. Thanks!
Ginsburg wrote on p. 102 of Sex Bias in the U.S. Code:
*
Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years’ and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense . . . . A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, . . . [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.*
This is a load of shit. This tortured argument came up about a decade ago and it soon found to be false.
The paper Ginsburg wrote was SOLELY concerned about writing laws with gender neutral langauage. She was not writing about age of consent laws whatsoever and was not advocating about age of consent laws one way or the other. That section she was quoting a bill that was up for vote in the Congress. She did not write that language in the bill.
That part of the bill she was quoting WAS NOT about making it legal for an adult to have sex with a 12 year old. It was about not turning 15 year old kids into criminals. It was basically saying statutory rape charges would not apply to you if you were under 16 UNLESS, it was with someone less than 12 years old. This is sometimes called a Romeo and Juliet law. And to be clear the only thing Ginsburg was concerned with was the gender. You could read the original law as only applying to females, that boys could not be raped.
view the rest of the comments →
zzvoat ago
Do you have a link? I've read this a few times in forums but have never seen evidence. Thanks!
Clinker ago
Ginsburg wrote on p. 102 of Sex Bias in the U.S. Code: * Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years’ and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense . . . . A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, . . . [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.*
This article reproduces the quote and gives the source
AreWeSure ago
This is a load of shit. This tortured argument came up about a decade ago and it soon found to be false.
The paper Ginsburg wrote was SOLELY concerned about writing laws with gender neutral langauage. She was not writing about age of consent laws whatsoever and was not advocating about age of consent laws one way or the other. That section she was quoting a bill that was up for vote in the Congress. She did not write that language in the bill.
That part of the bill she was quoting WAS NOT about making it legal for an adult to have sex with a 12 year old. It was about not turning 15 year old kids into criminals. It was basically saying statutory rape charges would not apply to you if you were under 16 UNLESS, it was with someone less than 12 years old. This is sometimes called a Romeo and Juliet law. And to be clear the only thing Ginsburg was concerned with was the gender. You could read the original law as only applying to females, that boys could not be raped.