Assault & Battery assault

[pamskiluv]

A 29 year woman had consential and unprotected sex with a 15 year old boy.

Once the boy's mother found out about this, she drove to the woman location where she was housesitting 6 under age children for a friend, who had gone out of state.

She attacked the 29 year old. The 29 year old woman did not fight back.

The 29 year old has a long history of mental health issues and her attacker is aware of her history, and attacted the vurnarable adult anyway.

After attacking her the boy mother went on to press charges on the 29 year old woman for having unprotected sex with her 15 year old son.

Can the 29 year old woman press charges on her attacker, the boy's mother?

 

[Betty3]

Yes, she certainly can - Mom will then need her own lawyer.

 

[army judge]

A 29 year woman had consential and unprotected sex with a 15 year old boy.

Adults can't have consensual sex with children.

The 29 year old woman SEXUALLY MOLESTED the 15 year old child.

Let's not get it twisted.

Once the boy's mother found out about this, she drove to the woman location where she was housesitting 6 under age children for a friend, who had gone out of state.

She attacked the 29 year old. The 29 year old woman did not fight back.

The 29 year old has a long history of mental health issues and her attacker is aware of her history, and attacted the vurnarable adult anyway.

Oh, you mean like the 29 year old nutcase savagely, viciously, carnally ravished the delicate, dear, tender 15 year old boy?

Yeah, I'm getting this story.

After attacking her the boy mother went on to press charges on the 29 year old woman for having unprotected sex with her 15 year old son.

Can the 29 year old woman press charges on her attacker, the boy's mother?

Sure, what jury wouldn't be sympathetic with a mother protecting her delicate, dear, tender 15 year old baby boy from the lecherous advances and malicious assault of a 29 year old masher???

Frankly, it'll be YOUR word (the word of a child rapist) against a mama grizzly protecting her little cubbie.

Sure, you report the alleged attack, and see how far you get, you sick rapist!!!!!

 

[CdwJava]

Let's see, mom might be guilty of a misdemeanor for thumping the adult molester of her child. The adult molester might be guilty of a serious felony for child molestation ...

Hmmm ... I suspect that a jury will be unlikely to convict mom of the assault, so the DA may choose not to file at all or may accept a plea to some form of diversion. The child molester, on the other hand, she has some serious problems here!

Oh, and unless this adult is a dependent adult who is seriously disabled (in which case she shouldn't be watching ANY children on her own) the argument about her being mentally ill or somehow vulnerable is a red herring.

The adult is apparently guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree which can carry a term in prison up to 30 years, and fines of up to $40,000!!

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.342#stat.609.342

 

[Proserpina]

If we can refrain from calling posters rapists when there has been no rape conviction that'd be great.

 

[CdwJava]

Rape, no, as that requires force or fear ... molestation (or, "sexual misconduct" as per the statute), yes. Though, depending on the circumstances, RAPE might still be a potential criminal charge!

 

[army judge]

Rape, no, as that requires force or fear ... molestation (or, "sexual misconduct" as per the statute), yes. Though, depending on the circumstances, RAPE might still be a potential criminal charge!

Whatever it was (or later becomes), it wasn't as OP termed it, "consensual sex" with a 15 year old boy and a 29 year old female.

 

[CdwJava]

Whatever it was (or later becomes), it wasn't as OP termed it "consensual sex" with a 15 year old by a 29 year old female.

As there is no statement indicating the sex was coerced, it was not forced. Unless the suspect was in a position of authority over the victim, it was consensual in that the victim readily agreed to it. By definition, that cannot be "rape." It might be unlawful in many other ways, but, it wouldn't be "rape."

While we often use the term "statutory rape" to discuss unlawful intercourse, it is not, technically (or legally) a rape. It is unlawful by statute.

 

[army judge]

As there is no statement indicating the sex was coerced, it was not forced. Unless the suspect was in a position of authority over the victim, it was consensual in that the victim readily agreed to it. By definition, that cannot be "rape." It might be unlawful in many other ways, but, it wouldn't be "rape."

While we often use the term "statutory rape" to discuss unlawful intercourse, it is not, technically (or legally) a rape. It is unlawful by statute.

Yes, I know.
I often keep it in the vernacular, as all aren't as knowledgeable in the law as others.

It may be many things, but it was never consensual.

A child, by definition, can't give consent to sex with an adult.

The law terms these types of crimes (statutory prohibitions - speed laws were often cited in law school), "Malum Prohibitum" versus "Malum in Se" (evil unto themselves, murder was the most commonly used example in law school).

 

[CdwJava]

It may be many things, but it was never consensual.

A child, by definition, can't give consent to sex with an adult.

But, as it was not forced or coerced, it cannot be "rape." That has a very distinct definition under the law. The legal inability to give consent makes the offense criminal, but not rape. It may be a legal distinction of little import when discussing legalities, but it is an important one as defining unlawful intercourse as a "rape" can have some very serious legal and statistical consequences.

Oddly enough, it appears that in MN they do not have a crime referred to as "rape." They are both the act described by the OP and forcible sexual assault (aka "rape") is defined as criminal sexual misconduct in the first degree. Further, "consent" is defined in MN as, 609.341(4):

"(a) "Consent" means words or overt actions by a person indicating a freely given present agreement to perform a particular sexual act with the actor. Consent does not mean the existence of a prior or current social relationship between the actor and the complainant or that the complainant failed to resist a particular sexual act.
(b) A person who is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless as defined by this section cannot consent to a sexual act.
(c) Corroboration of the victim's testimony is not required to show lack of consent."

So, even with "consent" the act is not forced or coerced so not "rape". It is still unlawful, however, and appears to hold the same penalties as per 609.342.

Pursuant to UCR, a rape is defined as: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

So, in MN, if the sexual act committed by a 29 year old against an otherwise willing 15 year old was not coerced or engaged in by force or fear, it is "sexual misconduct" punishable by the same or similar penalties to what would be federally defined as "rape."

Semantics, to be sure, but Pro's point about it not being "rape" is correct.

 

[army judge]

But, as it was not forced or coerced, it cannot be "rape." That has a very distinct definition under the law. The legal inability to give consent makes the offense criminal, but not rape. It may be a legal distinction of little import when discussing legalities, but it is an important one as defining unlawful intercourse as a "rape" can have some very serious legal and statistical consequences.

Oddly enough, it appears that in MN they do not have a crime referred to as "rape." They are both the act described by the OP and forcible sexual assault (aka "rape") is defined as criminal sexual misconduct in the first degree. Further, "consent" is defined in MN as, 609.341(4):

"(a) "Consent" means words or overt actions by a person indicating a freely given present agreement to perform a particular sexual act with the actor. Consent does not mean the existence of a prior or current social relationship between the actor and the complainant or that the complainant failed to resist a particular sexual act.
(b) A person who is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless as defined by this section cannot consent to a sexual act.
(c) Corroboration of the victim's testimony is not required to show lack of consent."

So, even with "consent" the act is not forced or coerced so not "rape". It is still unlawful, however, and appears to hold the same penalties as per 609.342.

Pursuant to UCR, a rape is defined as: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

So, in MN, if the sexual act committed by a 29 year old against an otherwise willing 15 year old was not coerced or engaged in by force or fear, it is "sexual misconduct" punishable by the same or similar penalties to what would be federally defined as "rape."

Semantics, to be sure, but Pro's point about it not being "rape" is correct.

If you or I were the mother or father of a child that had been victimized, I don't think we'd care what it was called.

I'm the grandfather of such a child.

The only thing that mattered to me when I learned that some sicko had done despicable things to my 5 year old grandchild was, I hope he gets life.

What he got upon convictin was 8 years, and my grandson (along with about 20 other small children) was his third conviction, probably his 150th victim.

I don't care what it's called, it's wrong, more wrong than other things that get you life.

By the way, he was paroled after 2 years, committed several more disgusting acts on kids, and is now doing the 10th year of a 20 year bit.

Society feigns to care about kids, but cares far more about stealing trinkets.

 

[CdwJava]

If you or I were the mother or father of a child that had been victimized, I don't think we'd care what it was called.

You're right, we wouldn't care. But, the justice system would have to. We could call it "the slaughter of innocent youth," but it still would be the sexual molestation of a minor.

What he got upon convictin was 8 years, and my grandson (along with about 20 other small children) was his third conviction, probably his 150th victim.

I have similar tales ... sadly enough.

I don't care what it's called, it's wrong, more wrong than other things that get you life.

Not arguing that, just that it's not "rape." And if we are discussing LEGAL issues, it is important to retain the proper terminology so as to avoid confusing people. It's similar to referring to a BAC of .08 as a "legal limit," when it is no such thing. The term infers a character to an act that may have no bearing on the legal issues involved.

By the way, he was paroled after 2 years, committed several more disgusting acts on kids, and is now doing the 10th year of a 20 year bit.

Sadly, I have similar stories. (I worked juvenile crimes for many years, and also have family members that were molested.)

Society feigns to care about kids, but cares far more about stealing trinkets.

Sentence in many such instances is most likely the result of a plea deal and not the result of guilty verdict. And, for the record, in my state the penalties for thefts are NOT greater than those for child molestation or even rape. When they seem to be lower it is most often as a result of plea bargaining.

I know out here they often engage in serious plea bargaining partially to avoid the possibility that the suspect might walk, or, to avoid putting the victim child through greater trauma. While an upper term might be, say, 8 years, a plea to three might be offered to avoid said trauma or the chance that the suspect might get off scot-free. A conviction with lifetime registration as a sex offender might be preferable to either of the other risks.

 

[army judge]

I've learned that most drug addicts never get clean.
But, I've seen a few that do make it back to sobriety.

I've never seen a child predator that was ever successfully rehabilitated.

The ones I have personal about continue to offend until they're dead.