Is Jared Fogel from Subway fame dead?

[GodFearinGunTotin]

My memory is sketchy, at best...but seems like there was a case where some high school couple were dating in high school. The guy was older and was out of school and over 18 (or whatever the age limit was) and got caught up in a statutory rape deal because she was technically, all of a sudden too young. People thought that was bull and I suppose this change was in response. Don't ask for links or cites, it's entirely possible I'm conflating 2 or more stories -- any permutation of which may not have occurred in Indiana.

Under the premise that if a broadly defined "relationship" exists, is is no longer illegal for an 18 year old to have anal/vaginal/oral sex with his little 14 year old boyfriend or girlfriend and nor is it still illegal for him to film it with his phone. Today, as long as there is a 'relationship' with the little 7th or 8th grader, not only can he have whatever sexual congress he wants, he can also walk around with as many images of junior getting penetrated in as many different ways as his phone can hold.

Who in the world, let alone our legislature, would have voted for that? It is shocking that this got snuck through without news coverage. Maybe it needs to be covered now?

 

[foszoe]

There are moves to tie it to age separation rather than a static age. Like 4 year differential

 

[Fargo]

My memory is sketchy, at best...but seems like there was a case where some high school couple were dating in high school. The guy was older and was out of school and over 18 (or whatever the age limit was) and got caught up in a statutory rape deal because she was technically, all of a sudden too young. People thought that was bull and I suppose this change was in response. Don't ask for links or cites, it's entirely possible I'm conflating 2 or more stories -- any permutation of which may not have occurred in Indiana.

Too young used to mean under 16 and everybody knew it. That is no longer the case. Now, too young is 13/18 depending on the circumstances with similar exemptions for in-relationship child porn.

 

[Fargo]

There are moves to tie it to age separation rather than a static age. Like 4 year differential

That happened two years ago.

 

[jamil]

There are moves to tie it to age separation rather than a static age. Like 4 year differential

Great, so 17 year old boy dating a 13 year old girl? I hope most dads would have something to say about that.

 

[Fargo]

Great, so 17 year old boy dating a 13 year old girl? I hope most dads would have something to say about that.

No, there is a 14 year old floor. So yes, seniors and high school grads can now both sleep with and film themselves sleeping with 7th-8th graders.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

No, there is a 14 year old floor. So yes, seniors and high school grads can now both sleep with and film themselves sleeping with 7th-8th graders.

 

[bwframe]

Too young used to mean under [STRIKE]16[/STRIKE] 18 and everybody knew it...

FIFY

The reason we have age for sex limitation is that the younger folks don't have the experience or knowledge to understand the repercussions of their actions. Sexting and such is the perfect example of this and should be prosecuted fully.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Who in the world, let alone our legislature, would have voted for that? It is shocking that this got snuck through without news coverage. Maybe it needs to be covered now?

There was great outcry, even right here on INGO, about the evils of charging children who sexted their boyfriends or the like with distribution of child porn. Which, frankly, is probably well founded. With digital cameras in cell phones and the ability to upload and share from anywhere to anywhere the existing laws were struggling to keep up. I think we all agree that 30 year old guy photographing 14 year old girl is creepy, but 16 y/o self shooting and sending to 16 y/o boyfriend is not as bright line. I have no idea what the current iteration of the law says, I don't deal with sex crimes or child pornography so I've not bothered to keep up and didn't realize there had been any changes. However even before that I often had to refer to the code book for the calculus of who is legal with who in what circumstances when it came to consentual sex. Daddy finds out, calls the police, and maybe its criminal and maybe its not type events.

 

[Kutnupe14]

FIFY

Them reason we have age for sex limitation is that the younger folks don't have the experience or knowledge to understand the repercussions of their actions. Sexting and such is the perfect example of this and should be prosecuted fully.

Uh, tend to think it's because older people want to have sex with younger people.

Kut (thinks everybody understands "Lolita" and "jailbait")

 

[bwframe]

There was great outcry, even right here on INGO, about the evils of charging children who sexted their boyfriends or the like with distribution of child porn. Which, frankly, is probably well founded. With digital cameras in cell phones and the ability to upload and share from anywhere to anywhere the existing laws were struggling to keep up...

Tell that to Jared. Maybe this could have been his defense?

Uh, tend to think it's because older people want to have sex with younger people.

Kut (thinks everybody understands "Lolita" and "jailbait")

Apparently Jared does.

 

[Fargo]

I wasn't really trying to start a debate over what the age of consent should be, I just wanted to point out that the current trend seems to be to lower it as evidenced by our very own state.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Tell that to Jared. Maybe this could have been his defense?

Meh, no matter where the hazy lines of 16 with 15 year old and photos may be, I think we're all onboard with adults secretly photographing minors and distributing it as being well over the line.

The point is treating a 16 year old who takes a picture and sends it to another 16 year old because they are dating and that's the hip new thing kids are doing and then hitting that 16 year old with a felony child porn distribution charge is probably a bad idea.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I wasn't really trying to start a debate over what the age of consent should be, I just wanted to point out that the current trend seems to be to lower it as evidenced by our very own state.

25, if you have daughters.

 

[Fargo]

25, if you have daughters.

Since my daughters, like it or not, are headed straight to the nunnery I'm ok with that.

 

[bwframe]

I wasn't really trying to start a debate over what the age of consent should be, I just wanted to point out that the current trend seems to be to lower it as evidenced by our very own state.

Thank you for the information. I had no idea.

And we wonder why society has gone to ...

 

[mrjarrell]

It is codified in a number of places and forms in the revised code. IC 35-42-4-9(e) is one such place. 35-49-3-4 is another variation. It isn't the most well written law, while it facially applies to anyone under 22, mathematically it sometimes cannot.

Interesting. The Romeo and Juliet IC is OK with me. I don't see anything wrong with it and do not see it as some slippery slope. It's just codifying the way things used to be back in a slightly saner age, without the nannyish people we have today. It was that way back when I was a teen, don't see why it ever had to be codified. As for 35-49-3-4, I'm not really seeing that one. It offers a defence for someone who took a picture but it was for legitimate medical or scientific purposes, was an artwork or the person was lied to and offered fake ID. I just don't see the slippery slope, and someone would have to be really trying to make the point, when all evidence points to the opposite conclusion. I'd agree the law is written poorly, but I don't think it needed to be written at all. Unfortunately it had to be to protect the innocent from the out of control system that's come about.

 

[Fargo]

Interesting. The Romeo and Juliet IC is OK with me. I don't see anything wrong with it and do not see it as some slippery slope. It's just codifying the way things used to be back in a slightly saner age, without the nannyish people we have today. It was that way back when I was a teen, don't see why it ever had to be codified. As for 35-49-3-4, I'm not really seeing that one. It offers a defence for someone who took a picture but it was for legitimate medical or scientific purposes, was an artwork or the person was lied to and offered fake ID. I just don't see the slippery slope, and someone would have to be really trying to make the point, when all evidence points to the opposite conclusion. I'd agree the law is written poorly, but I don't think it needed to be written at all. Unfortunately it had to be to protect the innocent from the out of control system that's come about.

I don't believe you are looking at the current version of the IC. The one on findlaws website is not the current code.

The one on the state website, or the one on lawserver appear to be current.

 

[KG1]

The point is treating a 16 year old who takes a picture and sends it to another 16 year old because they are dating and that's the hip new thing kids are doing and then hitting that 16 year old with a felony child porn distribution charge is probably a bad idea.

I believe it was also the fact that they would be registered as a sex offender for life that pushed the envelope as well.

 

[Fargo]

I believe it was also the fact that they would be registered as a sex offender for life that pushed the envelope as well.

The legal standard for causing a juvenile to go on the sex offender registry is vastly different from what you describe. There isn't automatic registry, there is a contested hearing in front of a judge where the state has to prove that the child is a continuing danger etc.

Putting a juvenile on the sex offender registry is actually very difficult in Indiana.

Hell, the prosecutor can't even charge a juvenile without first receiving permission from the judge who has to make specific legal findings of probable cause and the best interest of the child and the community.