Jump to content

Talk:Age of consent in North America/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Citation needed for Lawrence v. Texas?

Why is there a citation needed link connected to the statement that Lawrence v. Texas invalidated Kansas' ban on homosexuality? The case is linked to and that provides the outside source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.239.18 (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if you want to be anal retentive, you could have a link to an actual PDF of the relevant decision(s). The equal age of consent case is Limon v. Kansas BTW. Lawrence only dealt with (consensual and adult) homosexuality in general. Given the fact that it has been six months since you posted this, I think we can go ahead and replace those "citation needed" with links, 24.69.171.49 (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

States missing

How come Nevada isn't listed? Do they not have an age of consent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.203.177 (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wisconsin isn't listed either. 70.121.237.145 (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Nor Maine 74.75.188.217 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Nor is Louisiana Schmorgluck (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Neither New Mexico, the age of consent is 17 for heterosexuals, 16 for homosexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.82.198 (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The Dakotas are missing as well. Clarinet Hawk (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii is currently present at [1]. Should it be merged into this article? --Pkarjala (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii is not a North American entity nor the US territories in the Pacific ocean, search for the archived disscussion here. JC 22:00, 31 August 2008 (PST)


Bill C-2 (Canada 2005 AoC=18)

As mentioned in WikiProject Law, I added mention about this. The old link was removed, but there is a copy of that FAQ explaining the ramifications saved. It seems someone removed the link to it. Furthermore, I don't know if this was my imagination but I recall having discussions about disputes regarding the correct interpretation of this law? Maybe I'm confusing it with a different debate... but back to the basics, people need to know about this, because it can effective make the Canadian AoC 18 since 2005 (including after the 2008 14>16 base change) if it wasn't overridden. Furthermore, due to interpretations on artistic fiction, the age of consent for fictional characters in Canada is definately 18. Fictional characters are legally treated as people in terms of sexual images of them being illegal. Tyciol (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Spinnout

Article section Ages of consent in North America#United States being too long, it is split into different article. And marked as "Main article" Ages of consent in the United States. Under the table 324 (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Other users kindly see the wikimedia commons for image vandalism on 7th feb, and succeeding removal of image on all wikipedia articles. And the IP concerned added back image now. And also the IP user is reverting without justification in talk page, Spinnout tag was already there when i first spinned out the article - see Splitsection tag. Under the table 324 (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Compare 86.121.8.36 and 86.121.9.93, after image revert in wikimedia (on 7th Feb 2009). Under the table 324 (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Under the table 324 is vandalizing this article. He/she has splited this aricle several times and it has been reverted each time. There is no valid reason to create this spin out. Under the table 324 please stop doing this. The older map had the wrong colours, the new map is now ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.8.166 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Map needs another amendment for the Middle Eastern nation of Yemen, the age of consent along with marriage is now 17 years of age. So the color should be changed from dark blue to that greenish yellow for 17 years of age. Here is the article about the new law. http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1233&p=front&a=1 Mazighe (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Ages_of_consent_in_North_America&diff=prev&oldid=261392626 Splitsection tag was already there], when i first split the article - meaning consensus to split was already there. Total of 50 states of USA is not useful for the all users who expect info about north america, still summary of 50 states continues to exist in this article after spinnout. See Wikipedia:Article size, article is 80kb long. Under the table 324 (talk)

OK so should this article be split out? I would like to know what EVERYBODY else says. Until the MAJORITY of the editors of this page say they are OK with this, the article must stay the way it is. Under the table 324 you can not take this decission on your own, so please refrain from spliting this article until/unless you see a clear consensus on this talk page from the other editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.8.166 (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently convinced that it should be split out, and I've redirected it back here. We have not established length criteria for when a country deserves its own article. I admit, english Wikipedia seems to have the most information on the United States (since it has individual laws for each of the 52 states) so if any country is going to get it first, it's the US, however it would be good to run this by the administrators first.
The "ages of consent in..." articles are part of a project ("Age of consent group of articles project"... although I'm not sure exactly what that is, first I've heard of it today) which Wikipedia is supposed to be conservative in restructuring, because it is a matter of conveying law to people and held to high standards of scrutiny. There are several WikiProjects with members who I know would want to have a say in this. A problem with doing this without discussion is it will make anybody think they can, someone already did it with Ages of consent in Canada and I just had to redirect that back here as well.
To attract discussion on this matter (it's a good point, the US is dominating the article) I'll tag this as relevant to several WikiProjects, as you can see above. Please discuss your idea of moving the US laws to its own article at those WikiProjects and allow adequate time for a response. This was rushed quickly in a month without prior consultation (people are busy, it's winter, AoC isn't on the brain because nobody can see skin) so you need to reach for answers, not expect them to come and do what you want if they don't. Tyciol (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Quebec issue

"(Marriages are permitted for those above 16 outside Quebec, and above 16 for males and 14 for females in Quebec.)" I've been faithful to this statement but I wanted to do further reading and couldn't find a source for it. This worries me, is it even true? I don't find it mentioned in Marriage in Canada so I'll bring this up there as well, but someone please source that if it is true. Tyciol (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

UCMJ

I believe that military personnel, under the UCMJ, must abide by the UCMJ standard of age 18 as the age of consent, regardless of the state the servicemember is in. So for example, if the state in which they are stationed has an age of consent of 16, the servicemember is still not legally able to engage in relations in accordance with that state's law. I'd include it but I have no time at this moment. Amnion (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, Article 120 specifies and age of consent of 16, not 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.207.157.11 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Map colours are wrong

Somebody needs to change the colours of New Mexico (the AOC is 16, not 17) and of Montana (AOC is 16, not 18).

Also, Iceland has the wrong colour. The AOC there is 15, not 14:

see Ages of consent in Europe :The age of consent in Iceland is 15, as specified by Section 202, which reads: "Anyone who has carnal intercourse or other sexual intimacy with a child younger than 15 years shall be subject to imprisonment for at least 1 year and up to 16 years."

202. gr. Hver sem hefur samræði eða önnur kynferðismök við barn, yngra en 15[fimmtán] ára, skal sæta fangelsi ekki skemur en 1[eitt] ár og allt að 16[sextán] árum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.10.70 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} @Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Missouri:

"Mistake as to the age of the victim may be a defense in some circumstances as defined in RSMo 566.020."

The cited link for RSMo 566-020 is broken and needs to be changed to: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5660000020.HTM

Clone53421 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger

All ages of consent articles are by continent, except for North America, which is split into North America (!) and Central America. This is very confusing as most countries of North America are missing from the article. North America here includes only the three NAFTA countries and two Atlantic states (Bermuda and Bahamas). The Caribbeans (and Greenland) are missing altogether from the discussion, perhaps because of this confusion. I even checked in the South America article where they should not be; they are nowhere to be found. I propose to merge, as we use the 7 continent model throughout en.wiki and the current situation is confusing. gidonb (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have merged these articles. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Regards, gidonb (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I read in the article, the age of consent there seems like it's 17. A 16 year old can't have sex with a 21 year old, but a 17 year old can. Therefore, the age of consent is 17. I'll edit this and someone needs to change the map to make it 17. 67.182.185.148 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Error in Minnesota

The section on Minnesota has an error: "If the victim is 13, 14 or 15 the actor must be no more than 48 months older." The text of the cited statute 609.34 does not support this. The 48-month exception only limits the penalty. There is a 24-month window in which belief that the complainant was 16 is a defense. There does not appear to be a true close-in-age exception except in cases involving minors under 13 and an actor no more than 36 months older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic Al Too (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Section 30-9-11 as listed in this article and elsewhere(http://law.justia.com/newmexico/codes/nmrc/jd_30-9-11-c28b.html), The age of consent is 17, not 16. I have been registered for a few years but I have not made enough edits to be allowed to correct this. I will submit an edit request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf359nmt (talk • contribs) 00:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wolf359nmt, 9 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I believe the age of consent in New Mexico is 17, not 16. Wolf359nmt (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source to verify.  fetchcomms☛ 01:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I provided a link to the statute above, but not here so as not to be redundant. http://law.justia.com/newmexico/codes/nmrc/jd_30-9-11-c28b.html Copies of the statute can be found elsewhere. The source is accurate. Wolf359nmt (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Age of consent and the definition of rape in Idaho was modified in the 2010 legislation to include an age similarity consideration, which did not exist before. The amended section can be found at the State of Idaho Legislature website[1].

The statute now reads thus:

18-6101. RAPE DEFINED. Rape is defined as the penetration, however slight, of the oral, anal or vaginal opening with the perpetrator's penis accomplished with a female under any one (1) of the following circumstances:

(1) Where the female is under the age of sixteen (16) years and the perpetrator is eighteen (18) years of age or older.

(2) Where the female is sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age and the perpetrator is three (3) years or more older than the female.

Furthermore,

"The provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not affect the age requirements in any other provision of law, unless otherwise provided in any such law. Further, for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section, in determining whether the perpetrator is three (3) years or more older than the female, the difference in age shall be measured from the date of birth of the perpetrator to the date of birth of the female."

NiaMalek (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. It is quite unfortunate for the law to still retain a gender-specific wording, whereby an adult woman grooming a male child is not considered rape (though it meets other offense criteria, just that rape has more severe consequences).
I also noted that the section is missing relevant statutes such as 18-1508. In addition, the section should be paraphrased much more rather than just simply cut-and-paste, with any statutory text at least marked in quotes.Legitimus (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH61SECT18-6101.htm

"Section 28-319 Sexual assault; first degree; penalty. (1) Any person who subjects another person to sexual penetration...(c) when the actor is nineteen years of age or older and the victim is at least twelve but less than sixteen years of age is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree."

According to this statement and how it's worded, Nebraska's age of consent is not 17, but 16 for the purposes of penetration;

"Debauching a minor; penalty. (1) Any person not a minor commits the offense of debauching a minor if he or she shall debauch or deprave the morals of any boy or girl under the age of seventeen years by: (a) Lewdly inducing such boy or girl carnally to know any other person..."

And according to this statement and how it's worded, Nebraska's age of consent is 17 for the purposes of the offense of debauchery, which is defined by Dictionary.com to mean "excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures; intemperance." There is no mention of the Nebraska Legal Definition of Debauchery to dispute this generally accepted definition, thus this definition should hold in court on the assumption that it is not defined elsewhere within the confines of sexual law for Nebraska.

Thus, the conclusion stands that legally one could have consensual sexual intercourse at the age of 16, but non-penetrating sexual acts would be subjected to the generally accepted definition of debauchery and be held to a legal age of 17.

Please note any errors in this conclusion and reference any contradicting articles regarding sexual law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.69.3 (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved the following section to the talk page because the claims were unsourced or sourced to a nn blog, and I see no previous discussion or evidence of consensus for its inclusion.:

There is ongoing advocacy for a uniform age of consent. One proposal would make the national age of consent 18. If a state has an age of consent below the federal limit, 10% of federal education funds would be withheld. Thus far, Congress has not considered this or any other proposal to change the status quo. However there is a common misconception among many Americans that there is a federal limit at 18, but that is false, as the age limit in most states is in fact below 18. Some speculate that this is due to the production of most American television media being in southern California, so writers, and thus viewers, would be primarily familiar with only southern California's penal code.[2]

Info and claims should only be readded when they can be adequately sourced per WP:RS. Flowanda | Talk 00:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Error in Connecticut

In the section it says that

  1. A 15-year-old born on February 1 can consent to a 18-year-old born on January 1. This is just under a 3-year age difference.
  2. A 15-year-old born on January 1 cannot consent to an 18-year-old born on February 1. This is just over, and illegal.


This is very unclear and should be rewritten to avoid the theoretical situation having to take place at a particular time of year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tungazzio (talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The explanation of MGL 272-4 is inaccurate and incomplete.

First, to satisfy this statute, the perpetrator must induce the child (of "chaste life") to engage in unlawful sexual intercourse. This means that the sexual act or transaction must be otherwise unlawful (i.e. prostitution). See, Commonwealth v. Foley, 24 Mass.App.Ct. 114 (1987) (defendant convicted of an attempt under 272-4 after offering 14 year-old boy money for fellatio, and boy refused). Note that even though the boy was under the standard age of consent given by MGL 265-23, the court applies 272-4 because the case involved an offer of an unlawful sexual act, and also probably because the defendant hadn't actually "attempted" statutory rape within the meaning of an "attempt."

In contrast, MGL 265-23 is overwhelmingly cited as the statute that sets the age of consent in Massachusetts. See, Commonwealth v. Miller, 385 Mass. 521 (1982); Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 59 (2009); among many others.

Thus, applicability of MGL 272-4 is clearly the exception, not the rule, limited to situations in which some illegality of the sexual conduct or transaction, such as prostitution or incest, is present.

Second, MGL 272-4 doesn't actually define a separate age of consent under these circumstances, but rather a completely separate crime that uses 18 as the maximum age for the victim. Notice that the maximum punishment under 272-4 is a $1,000 fine and two and a half years in prison. In contrast, MGL 265-23 authorizes life imprisonment. Thus, it is apparent that 272-4 doesn't actually raise the age of consent under certain circumstances. It it did, it would logically authorize courts to punish defendants convicted under it in accordance with the normal statutory rape punishments of 265-23, but 272-4 does not do this. Rather, it appears that 272-4 defines the completely separate crime of inducing someone under 18 to have otherwise unlawful sexual intercourse.

MacDaddy62 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement that there is a close in age exception for New Hampshire appears to be based on NH Criminal code Section 632-A:3. However, part I(c) of NH Criminal code Section 632-A:4 makes sexual penetration a crime when the age difference is 4 years or less, so there apparently is no close in age exception for sexual penetration.

However, note that part I(b) of 632-A:4 provides for a close in age exception for "sexual contact" (i.e. sexual touching).

Fabrickator (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation for Montana

The citation given in the section on Montana's AoC is a dead link, and furthermore it isn't even an anchor link to a citation at the bottom of the page like usual citations. This is the link given: http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca_toc/45.htm . As far as I can tell, they redid their site and the link now would be this: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/45.htm . Going through the site myself, however, I think that the following link would be more relevant: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/5/45-5-503.htm . Section 3(a):

(3) (a) If the victim is less than 16 years old and the offender is 4 or more years older than the victim or if the offender inflicts bodily injury upon anyone in the course of committing sexual intercourse without consent, the offender shall be punished by life imprisonment or by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not less than 4 years or more than 100 years and may be fined not more than $50,000, except as provided in 46-18-219 and 46-18-222.


Note that it talks about sex without consent but never explicitly states the age of consent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.121.12 (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dunno why I'm not considered autoconfirmed, must be the school.

There are two links that go to


http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter41/Section438.htm

Replace the second one with: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter41/Section440.htm Because that is the law the second one claims to be referencing..--Darkmusashi (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

New map

Who can make a new map for North America?

The current map is a cropped version of an old map, and it is very problematic:

  • it has the wrong colors for some Mexico states, it has the wrong color for Montana,
  • although the map now shows only North America, it has retained the old legend showing the color code for ages 9, 19, 20, 'must be married' and 'no law', though no countries in North America have such an age of consent, at the same time it does not show the correct color of 'puberty' for the Mexican states which have this age of consent,
  • the colors of the map are confusing: the shades of blue are barely distinguishable - other editors have also complained about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Age_of_Consent.png#Color_coding.
DONE! I've uploaded the file here. I tried editing the page itself and while I can edit it, I cannot edit the picture box for some reason. It says it's locked but I'm an established user, or so I thought. Really, I did think I was able to do so. Someone else will have to change the image. I'm going to be really upset if I completely wasted my time doing this. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added it. I do not know why it was preventing you, but at least it works now. Good work btw!Legitimus (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Time period

Given the interest in this subject both past and present, it might be useful to show how the ages/laws have changed over time. For example, someone might want to know what was legal in a particular state in 1930. Right now, the article only shows what is currently legal. Thus, a matrix might be more useful. Rklawton (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A good idea, but it would be difficult. There isn't a lot of readily available documentation on the old laws in many places.Legitimus (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C.A. § 13(a). effect on State statutory rape laws

In this article it is suggested that under the (ACA) codified in 18 U.S.C.A. § 13(a), if federal law sets the age of consent lower than a state law, the the higher age of consent set by the state law will apply in a Federal prosecution under this title. This is incorrect. Section 13 is not intended to enlarge the scope of federal laws which criminalize the same conduct as the state law. Federal law already has a statutory rape provision which sets the age of consent at 16. Therefore, Federal law already has proscribed this conduct and no need for the federal law to be supplemented by any state law. Thus, if a state law sets the age of consent at 17, a federal court will prosecute a defendant under the existing federal law which sets the age of consent at 16. See Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155, 118 S. Ct. 1135, 140 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1998) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.6.158 (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but how do you prosecute someone for having sex with a 16 year old if the age of consent is 16? Are you saying someone can't be prosecuted for having sex with a 16 year old even if state law sets the age of consent at 17? Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Federal age of consent?

The article mentions things like crossing state lines, etc but doesn't seem to mention any federal age of consent. For example it says

The Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 13) incorporates local state criminal law when on federal reservations such as Bureau of Land Management property, military posts and shipyards, national parks, national forests, inter alia. Consequently, if the relevant state's age of consent is higher than the federal age of consent, the higher age applies.

and although parts of this are disputed, more importantly it doesn't seem to define this federal age of consent (16 according to comments above) which I presume would apply to sex in these areas of the US but not involving any of the other aspects the article does mention. In other words, what would happen if the sex happened in a US military base (but didn't involve any members of the armed forces) or a national park or whatever?

The article does mention Chapter 109A in another section, is this what sets the federal age of consent? If so this should be more clearly specified.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I did a little poking around with some of the federal statutes mentioned. Basically it's not explicitly indicated that the age of consent under federal law is 16, but rather a certain statute (18 U.S.C. 2243(a), which is part of Chapter 109A) makes it illegal on federal land or in territories (that is, US land that is not a state, like Guam) to have sex with someone between 12 and 16 if the perpetrator is more than 4 years older. This law technically doesn't effect states, and that is pretty normal. I forget the name for the legal concept, but in general the federal government keeps it's nose out of normal criminal matters unless it involves travel or transactions between states, or takes place on the aforementioned non-state lands.
The specific paragraph you mention is actually wrong from what I can tell. The relevant law, 18 U.S.C. § 13, just makes it so that if a crime happens on federal property or some other kind of land that isn't part of a state, but that land is situated in or next state, then that state's law will be the one that applies. There is no comparison in the law itself to any "federal age of consent," but rather it just specifies so long as there is not federal law they would otherwise be prosecuted under, then the state law applies. So for example a statutory rape case happens on Andrews Air Force Base, and it falls outside of 18 U.S.C. 2243(a) mentioned above, then Maryland's law applies.Legitimus (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.23.127.46, 26 July 2011

173.23.127.46 (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico? / In general: Separation by sorting territories by continent(geograpically) impractical and mix-up; more-sense search-easier separation by sorting territories just by alphabetical frames(A-C, D-F, etc.) should at least also be created

The article states that "The below is a list of all jurisdictions in North America as listed in List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America.", but Puerto Rico (listed there) is still not here, neither as a sole object nor as part of the United States section, thus still missing. Maybe it would make sense to add Puerto Rico as part of the United States section, but - together with the United States section "US Virgin Islands" - to both appear as singles within a subsection of the United States section different from the subsection of the United States section including the US states only, thus, to make a section difference within the United States section between "states of the United States" and "dependent territories of the United States", a difference, which in the given wiki link article even results in separation by splitting away these political entities from each other (in the age of consent continent division articles by the way generally the, as dependent territories of a state can be located on another continent then the state itself (this of course can lead to "confusion", because e.g. this article here for North America does include the political entity United States, which is located on the North American plate, and does include the geographical island & political entity Hawaii (obviously because it is, like other subsections of the US here, a US state), which is located on the Pacific plate and thus geographically is NOT part of North America, so the difference between geographical continent and political continent is mixed up, which can also be seen in comparison to the United States parts in the age of consent Oceania continent division article, which (here not due to political but geographical view) ALSO lists Hawaii as part of it - thus Hawaii is accordingly to this continents lists located on TWO continents at the same time! (without being Russia or Turkey, eg.) - together with other US parts in Oceania, but again not together with ALL parts of the US including dependent territories), thus the continent division articles may help in giving an overview about the age of consent in continental regions of the world, but doesn't help nothing when you're looking for information/data about the age of consent of a country INCLUDING its dependent territories, thus, the continent division articles does make much fewer sense then it would be having one or more articles (A-C, D-F, etc.) sorted by country, thus it should be done that way (if someone would search in the age of consent O-R countries article for Puerto Rico, a dependent territory of the United States, a link could lead directly to the age of consent article country list containing the main entry for the United States section including Puerto Rico, e.g.; in the Oceania division article, e.g., even in the register overview at top of the article, the dependent territories have in brackets after its name the name of the territory they're belonging to, e.g. like it would be "Pitcairn Island (UK)", thus, logically, that subsection should only state that because Pitcairn Island is a dependent territory, its AOC law is ruled by the UK, with a wiki-link to the Pitcairn Island subsection (which could contain an additional wiki link if there would exist e.g. an own AOC-subsection within the Pitcairn Island main article) of the "UK" section of the AOC list article it is whitin (e.g. T-V)).) The point is that even if the wiki-link-article from the top of this article, who follows it, is a list of North American territories and so on which lists the United States, it is obviously clear that whith this only the location of a country's MAINLAND is meant, but that it does not postulate to know about the locations of the country's SUBDIVISIONS, which can happen to be within (Colorado as US state within the US mainland in North America) or outside (Hawaii as US state outside of North America, American Samoa as US territory outside of North America, etc.), so that every list trying to put a country's subdivisions of different continents into that country's mainland's section within the country's mainland's continent which can be a total different than what is the continent of the subdivision simply makes just no sense at all, because it's by defintion just impossible to categorize different-continent-things into only-one-continent-articles - that just doesn't make any sense at all...

As said the age of consent of an dependent territory DOES NOT DEPEND ON AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS LOCATION, where on earth, on which continent this entity is (e.g. France could have an AOC dramatically differing from that one of its same-continent-and-border-neighbour Spain, but what could be the very same AOC then of a territory located not in the neighboorhood or on the same continent, but even on (a continent on) the opposite side of the globe, if it is, e.g. a french pacific dependent territory, and so it comes that its law could be even just the SAME LAW as in mainland France); thus, because it's clear that countries/states are political entities which can cross continental boundaries (Russia, Turkey, etc.) and even spread with (colonial) territories dependent from them across the world (UK, France, Netherlands, etc.), it's obvious that the actual sorting by continents does not make any real sense (although I have nothing against a going on existence of the continent sorting lists articles even when another lists articles with a sorting of more sense will be created/in existence; I have nothing against the two sortings co-existing, thus I'm not saying the actual sorting lists articles should be deleted, personally I wouldn't care and if someone in the world wants to compare the AOC within a continent region..., thus it could very well remain, co-existing), but as of course not for every single country an article "AOC of/in xyz" exists, one or more (due to length) list articles like this here are necessary, only with another sorting, as outlined (AOC of countries A-C, D-F, etc.).

Although it would be the best to have all entities collected together on one single list site than navigating through multiple list sites, I understand the split into more than one article, but doing that splitting by continent was simple a wrong decision, which is not sense- or useful, as it is not acceptable when one wants to get to know the laws/law-history of (different parts of) a country (which includes of course all its subdivisions, with dependent territories) that one have to look up in e.g. the UK main article (if there would be no "AOC in the UK" article) what subdivisons the country has on what different continents and then search within that multiple different AOC continent list articles (and I'm guessing e.g. the UK has territories on pretty much a number of continents) for that territories (plus you cannot be sure to see all territories of a country if only looking at that list but not at the AOC-article of a country, but some countries does not have some or even not a sub-section of an own non-AOC country-main-article, if, e.g. like in the North America continent division article here, the US section has US dependent territory US Virgin Islands of the North American plate, but forgets the same one Puerto Rico of the same plate, while it contains US territory Hawaii of the Pacific plate, but omitting without a hint that right there on the same Pacific plate still are some other US-territories...) and if that data/information could be presented way much more logical and easier at one place together.62.143.224.212 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: I took a look at this article's talk page, but when I wanted to look up the archive of the talk page I just couldn't find it and only after a while I did find it the big tablet at the top of the talk page, where it is simply nearly invisible small, I think on other talk pages their archives are better to find because the talk page link to an archive ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_North_America/Archive_1 ) normally is some kind of post box or so (?) I saw - can someone who knows about make the link look that way?

However, compare to the above text (e.g. note that with the Central-America-link, when you're looking for e.g. a carribean island like Cuba, it's not clear from the beginning in which continent article you'll find it, because first it's not clear whether the Caribic here is within the Nort America or South America continent article - and second, even if you would generally know that parts of Caribic belongs to North America and others to South America, that too would not tell you specifically where Cuba is in, so as said it would be way better to simplify it all and just sort all entries alphabetically and if that list becomes too long, split it into A-C,D-F,etc., that would allow finding every territory in one second instead of this guessing and thinking about where what territory (on what continent belonging to?) dependent from what state(?) on which continent(?) where to search(?) - I think the difference is too obvious...):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_North_America/Archive_1#Central_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_North_America/Archive_1#Dispute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#States_missing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_North_America/Archive_1#Don.27t_move_Hawaii_to_Ages_of_consent_in_Australia_and_Oceania

62.143.224.212 (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is important to include Puerto Rico in this article. It should be added to article in alphabetical order, after Panama (following standard set in article, which is to list sovereign states and dependent territories all in one list in alphabetical order).--Lawrlafo (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 October 2011

"Section 159 of the Criminal Code criminalizes every act of anal intercourse, but provides exceptions for a husband and wife, and any two persons over the age of eighteen". I believe there should be a change within the sentence above. This part of the sentence: "but provides exceptions for a husband and wife" should be replaced with: "but provides exceptions for two people whom are married to one another". The words "husband" (aka male spouse) and "wife" (aka female spouse) imply that two people in a same-sex marriage (Reminder: Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada) are not part of this exception.


24.57.41.240 (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

According to here that is how the law is actually written. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from bgbrix3, 14 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Remove the following under "Tennessee"

"In a statutory rape case in Tennessee, the age of consent is 18. The stance of the state of Tennessee on the age of consent is "Statutory rape is sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by the victim when the victim is at least thirteen (13) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is at least four (4) years older than the victim." {Full text of TN statutory rape laws [70]} Tennessee law does not give clear directions for cases in which both parties are below age of consent."

Change to read:

'The age of consent in Tennessee is 18; however, "(a) Mitigated statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant, or of the defendant by the victim when the victim is at least fifteen (15) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is at least four (4) but not more than five (5) years older than the victim. (b) Statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by the victim when: (1) The victim is at least thirteen (13) but less than fifteen (15) years of age and the defendant is at least four (4) years but less than ten (10) years older than the victim; or (2) The victim is at least fifteen (15) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is more than five (5) but less than ten (10) years older than the victim. (c) Aggravated statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant, or of the defendant by the victim when the victim is at least thirteen (13) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is at least ten (10) years older than the victim.[1] "'


Footnote 70 is link to a page with outdated information.

Delete Footnote 70 and replace with the following

LexisNexis Custom Solutions: Tennessee Code Tool



Bgbrix3 (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Bgbrix3 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot work out exactly what you think should change. I'll be quite happy to change it, if you can say "Change THIS to THAT <per THIS REF>. So, can you plase re-state your reuest in that way? Thanks, 01:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "LexisNexis Custom Solutions". Tennessee Code Tool. LexisNexis. Retrieved 7 December 2011.

Model Penal Code suggestions?

Would it be worth including this? It is not law, but many states model their statute on the MPC.

Model Penal Code, § 213.3, Corruption of Minors and Seduction (2001) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.67.172 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico: It was right before

I think u better read the source u cited, because it, as well as the text of the NM law that is quoted in the article says that the age of consent is SIXTEEN...the age 17 is not even mentioned anywhere in the New Mexico statutes dealing with sex crimes, I checked.MaskNMI (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 May 2012

Update reference #70 to remove www.ageofconsent.com/tennessee.htm and replace it with a more valid URL (http://moraloutrage.net/state-laws/tennessee-age-of-consent-laws/). Per their website homepage, ageofconsent.com has not been updated in several years.

Decimal3 (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Done ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2012

Under the Texas Section it states: The age of consent in Texas is 17 (Texas Penal Code Section 21.11). However, "...It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor...was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex...(and) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offence" and is not a registered sex offender Section 21.11 (b).

Section 21.12 further prohibits all sexual contact between an employee of a school (including educators) and a student enrolled at the primary or secondary school where said employee works (unless the student is the employee's spouse). No age is specified by the statute (thus, even if the student has reached consent age of 17, it is still a violation), and violations are a second degree felony.

This is not entirely correct. This is for sexual contact. Sexual contact means (for this section) "the following acts, if committed with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person: (1) any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a child; or (2) any touching of any part of the body of a child, including touching through clothing, with the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a person. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.21.htm#21.11

As you can see this is for touching and exposing. For sex the relative section would be Section 22.011 (a)(2). http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm#22.011

There is more to the affirmative defense, being "(B) the victim: (i) was a child of 14 years of age or older"

The section as it stands seems to be a combination of section 21.11 and 22.011 of the Texas penal code. It needs to be separated.

Chet u571 (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: not clear on the change that needs to be made, or what to change it to Mdann52 (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for United States

Under the United states section, under the State Laws subsection, there seems to be an extraneous "History" heading between the Alabama and Alaska sections. Anuppari (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. – Teammm Let's Talk! :) 03:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Canada

Female homosexuality was never illegal in the former Colonial England colonies; male homosexuality was legalized in 1969 with the age of consent being set at 21; Then in 1988 the age of consent was lowered to 18.

If this is true (there aren't any citations) my question is: Why? Why was male homosexuality singled out as being illegal while the law didn't affect female homosexuality? 156.34.218.57 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Well . . . there are probably better citations than this; however, I do recall reading text accompanying a pictoral in a 1976 (USA Bicentennial) edition of Playboy (that happened to feature female homosexuality (which was, in fact, quite delightfully portrayed)) quoting Queen Victoria saying that "women don't do that sort of thing." 24.84.233.33 (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A better answer is, it was not homosexuality that was illegal, it was homosexual acts. The main homosexual act was buggery, which means, placing the male organ in the wrong sort of holes. No male organ, no buggery, therefore no crime. Thats the simple reason why "female homosexuality" was not illegal.Eregli bob (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tackling Violent Crime Act has passed the Canadian Senate ( http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/crime_bill_080227/20080227?hub=Politics ) and the age of consent is now 16 in Canada. I don't know if I edited it correctly in the Canada section, but it needs to be adjusted to be known as 16 years old. Also the world map of age of consents needs to have Canada changed to the correct colour. Young, Conservative, Canadian, Capitalist 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungConservative (talk • contribs)

I have added a note for the ramifications of the 2005 Bill C-2. This is not noted. The source on the Canadian government website has since been down but I have saved a copy of it. It is still a valid reference. I recall adding this into the article before, I'm not sure why it isn't in there anymore, but its presence in the Criminal Code must be represented. Tyciol (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Most common age

Under the section on US States, it list the most common age as 18 (with a citation to Age-of-concent.info). Given that only 12 of the 51 listed has an age of 18, this seems questionable. This 12 is even questionable as Pennsylvania's age of consent is only 16 (18 only apply for a corruption of a minor charge - similar to giving a minor alcohol). Even looking at "most common" as "applies to the most people", 16 yrs applies to 41% of the US population with 18 only applying to 30%. Putting Pennsylvania in the 18 category, it is still a 38% to 34% in favor in 16.

How is 18ys the most common state age when more states and a larger percentage of the population live under the laws stating 16yrs as the legal age? 70.184.168.201 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

How does that "All U.S. states set their limits between 17 and 18." fit together with the information in the article and the graphic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_-_North_America.svg)? There are states with aoc of 16 mentioned. --178.112.83.22 (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. Looks like a recent and inappropriate edit. I have reverted it for now unless the editor responsible wishes to explain him or herself.Legitimus (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
FDR keeps adding "17 and 18" or "18," and has been reverted three times.[3][4][5]. Like I stated in my edit summary, there is nothing wrong with mentioning the most common age. FDR clearly has a problem with 16 being the most common age, but that should not be our problem. And I disagree with PassaMethod's seemingly compromise edit to remove any mention of the most common age altogether,[6] which is why I reverted to Legitimus.
I will alert FDR of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Tennessee footnote #81 is a bad link now. (error 404)

Should be this: http://www.ageofconsent.us/state-laws/tennessee-age-of-consent-laws/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJARPCGP (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Marital exceptions and marital status

I think this article should add info about marital exceptions to the state laws. For example in Wisconsin, and I've already added this, the age of consent is 18, but there is an exception to this law that allows an adult to have sex with a minor 16-17 if he/she is married to the minor. But most of the other states sections don't discuss the issue of exceptions for marriage, which I think should be discussed. --RJR3333 (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding information about adultery to this page. The page is unwieldy as it is, needing to include close-in-age exceptions, classes of persons for which different ages apply, and varying degrees of crime depending on the ages of the persons involved. Generally, the illegality of adultery doesn't depend of the ages of the parties involved. I understand the argument that a married person may have sex with a minor who has reached the age of consent and might erroneously assume that no crime is involved, but this page doesn't attempt to identify all the situations where consensual sex puts one at risk of prosecution. A page on adultery law in each jurisdiction would be fine, but there's no compelling reason to incorporate it into this page, and plenty of reason not to. Fabrickator (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Can this be right ?

"The age of consent in Virginia is 18, with a close in age exception that allows teenagers aged 15 to 17 to engage in sexual acts but only with a partner younger than 18"

So in Virginia, the seventeen year old girl can have a sixteen and a half year old boyfriend, and that is OK, and then the next year, for the same girl and boy, when she turns 18 and he is 17 and a half, it suddenly becomes illegal ? Is this really the case ?Eregli bob (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Most jurisdictions do not have close in age exceptions so I would say it could be but I remember that in Chris Hansen's book he states that the age of consent in Virginia is fifteen not eighteen for a minor to consent to sex with an adult. From looking the law over it seems Hansen was mistaken though. But his program chose the age range to be 14 and younger in Virginia whereas usually they choose 15 or younger so maybe I'm missing something. --RJR3333 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
An example would be Wisconsin, where I live. In this state two seventeen year olds who have sex would both be guilty of a misdemeanor unless they were married because the age of consent is 18 and 17 years is the age of criminal responsibility in this state. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Statutorily, yes that is right. Any person who is 18 cannot engage in sex acts with someone who is not 18 or older. In the case of your example, the girl would be committing a Class 1 misdemeanor (high level), punishable up to one year in jail and a $2,500.00 fine. It does seem stupid for 18 and 17 and a half, but that's what Virginia's law says, because the age of consent is 18, "statutory rape" would apply. But obviously a charge in that situation would be left up to the discretion of the state's attorney or the court.
  • Only minors 15, 16, and 17 can have sex with each other without it being against the law. Even minors 13 and 14 who have sex with each other are considered Class 4 misdemeanors (low level) according to Virginia law. – Teammm (talk · email) 02:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but Chris Hansen said in his book on page 130 or page 131 "the age of consent in Virginia is fifteen(you can't drive until fifteen and half, but legally you can be sexually active)", was he mistaken? --RJR3333 (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes he was mistaken. It doesn't matter what Chris Hansen said, what matters is what the law says. Most states have close in age exemptions which allow those under the age of consent to have sex with partners of a similar age, but the age of consent is 16-18 for all US states.123username (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence v. Texas

What does this actually mean: "However, because the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Lawrence v. Texas which ruled that private, noncommercial sexual activity involving persons above the age of consent (in that case, two gays) is a right of privacy, it is likely that laws making fornication a crime are unconstitutional." It says "above the age of consent", so how is it a "however" to the previous sentence, which discusses the ages of consent in the US? Does it mean that because of Lawrence v. Texas, the consent laws are likely to be unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable? Or is fornication a specific thing, that was subject to laws other than age of consent? I feel like it's the latter and something may be missing before this sentence.--86.179.225.42 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This line does sound out of place. In fact, the assertion of if is completely irrelevant to the topic of this article: sex between or with people who are not adults. I'm removing it.Legitimus (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

18 isn't the best option

The chosen colors are giving the wrong impression. Human tradition aside, the age of consent should be determined by doctors and biologists. Implying that 18 is the best option by coloring it green is downright tyrannic to the teenagers and a vile attack to their freedom. 62.1.250.54 (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the same. In my country the age of consent is 13, and we live happy with that. I think that 18 is and artifcial imposition made by religious groups and feminits. The persons who must tell wich is the adecuante age to start enaggin sexual intercourse without problems must be doctors and biologists. My peronal opinion is that there is not an "adecuante" age to enage a relationship of sexual character. The normal age to start having complete sexual contact with penetration is the entrance of the puberty. When girls start having their period and males are able to ejaculate becaouse the main objetive of sexual intercourse is procreation. Any age of consent over that is inadecuate. But a topic wich is very controversial is that kids also have sexuality. Most of the people as a kid experiment sexual experiences like self-pleasure, showing their genitals to other kids, or even mutual rub. Those expereriences are not "abnormal" or "traumatic" they belong to the normal growth of the child and their sexual identity. When someone talks about this subject is automaticsly called a "paedophile". Well I have not sexual interest in kids, but as a kid (and a teen) I had lots of sexual experiences and anithing bad happened to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.156.187 (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

close-in-age disclaimer for Arizona

The text for Arizona states that the "defenses" provided by the law are NOT close-in-age exceptions. This seems to be a distinction without a difference. That is, the law provides that a person who fits the criteria specified (e.g. the person is under 19 years of age and no more than 24 months older than the victim, and the victim is at least age 15) is not guilty, but it's up to the defendant to establish this affirmative defense).

It seems very confusing for the text to state that these defenses are not close-in-age exceptions. Note that the issue of close-in-age exceptions applies only to part F, the other two parts refer to mistake in age and spousal exception. Fabrickator (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that it also says "and the conduct is consensual". If I understand right, the defendant would have to prove that, whereas in a normal rape trial, it would of course be up the the prosecution to prove lack of consent. 66.214.19.173 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Connecticut 3-year-gap

A 15-year-old born on 1 January can consent to a 18-year-old born on 1 February. This is just under a 3-year age difference.

Um, if the 18-yo is born on January 2, wouldn't that be "just under a 3-year age difference"? Why would 2 years and 11 months be the limit for a maximum permissible age gap of 3 years? --78.35.255.194 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing suggesting that 2 years and 11 months is the limit that's implied by the 3-year age difference, the statement is just an example of how the close-in-age provision works. Fabrickator (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

New York

"Sex with a person under 17 is a misdemeanor if the perpetrator is at least 16" - this statement sounds odd. Is it correct? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In The Overview Section

The text reads "In addition, many places have a higher age of consent if the older partner is in a position of authority over the young person such as being a teacher, working at her, being her manager, or her parent or stepparent." Emphasis added. This implies that younger boys are not involved with older partners is positions of authority, which is clearly untrue. Also "working at her" doesn't make sense. Chellykins (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it. Definitely sounded weird.Legitimus (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like Kentucky has a close-in-age exception for the case where the victim is at least 14 and the actor is less than 5 years older. As this section is currently written, the reader is left to their own devices to decipher the law. I appreciate the concerns about Wikipedia editors trying to interpret the law, but by selectively citing statutes, we've already taken on the risk that it will be wrong. In other words, I'm suggesting this section should be rewritten so that the facts about the law, as best as we are able to determine them, should be stated as plainly as possible. Fabrickator (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Revert request: "victim" vs. "young person"

A series of edits by User:Mattcymru changed "victim" or "victims" to "young person" or "young persons" or "young people". I suggest that these changes be reverted.

While it may be debatable as to whether all persons under the age of consent who participate in consensual sex are truly victims, as used in this context, "victim" represents the viewpoint of the law. "Young person" is a subjective term and hence ambiguous; "younger person" doesn't always work because in some jurisdictions, the younger person may also be violating the law. Fabrickator (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. "Victim" is used in a legal sense here and is the appropriate word to use. The changes by User:Mattcymru should be reverted.188.25.171.229 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Reverted. In some instances the exactly legal statute in quotes was altered, which is not acceptable.Legitimus (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2013

At the listing of the states that have 16 as the age of consent, there is only 29 in the list. not 30. there is a total of 50 states not a total of 51. 30+12+9 = 51. Lol. Bigerman55 (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: quote from the article, first sentence of Ages of consent in North America#State laws: "Each U.S. state (and the District of Columbia) has its own age of consent." 50 US states and the District of Columbia = 51. The article is correct. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 11:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Penal Code Changes; Edit Request

Puerto Rico's Penal Code was replaced in 2012. The text as follows is a faithful translation of the 2012 Penal Code and is what should substitute the section in the article where Puerto Rico law is quoted. Citations should also be updated with the former link to reflect these changes.

Article 130.- Sexual Assault.- : All persons who commit, or cause another to commit, an orogenital act or a vaginal or anal penetration, be it genital, digital, or instrumental, shall be punished with imprisonment for a fixed term of 50 years if done under the following circumstances:

(a) If the victim is below sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. (...)

Article 133.- Lewd Acts.- All persons who, without the intention to consummate the crime of sexual assault described in Article 130, subject another person to an act that would tend to awaken, excite or satisfy the sexual passion or desire of the accused, under any of the following circumstances, shall be punished with imprisonment for a fixed term of 8 years.

(a) If the victim is below of sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. (...)

64.237.238.86 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I think you need a reliable source for the translation. Since the age of consent hasn't changed, it is better to keep the source translation of the 2004 penal code until an official translation is available. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 September 2013

Please change the statutory references in the entry for Kansas. The KS criminal code was substantially revised in 2010, and this material was moved from chapter 21, article 35 (21-35xx) to chapter 21, article 55 (21-55xx). The statutes in question can be viewed at: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/statute/021_000_0000_chapter/ (notice that article 35 no longer exists).

To be accurate, section should read more like:

The age of consent in Kansas is 16. K.S.A. 21-5503, 21-5504, 21-5506 and 21-5507 prohibit sexual activity with minors aged 14 and 15. K.S.A. 21-5507 allows for a lesser penalty if the minor is between 14 or 15 and the offender is under 19 years old. 21-5506. Indecent liberties with a child; aggravated indecent liberties with a child. (b) Aggravated indecent liberties with a child is: (1) Sexual intercourse with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age. CeejKS (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Arkansas

I think there is a mistake in the part of Arkansas age of consent. It's written in article: Details: The age is minimum 16 for a minor (<18) with a major more than 20 years old. Major more than 20 is someone who is 21, 22, 23 etc. But in the law (Arkansas code) it's written: 5-14-127. A person commits sexual assault in the fourth degree if the person: (a)(1) Being twenty (20) years of age or older, engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person who is Less than sixteen (16) years. So, the words (20) years of age or older mean that 20 yo persons included in this definition. So in Details instead of 20 must be noted 19 (as long as 20 yo person also can not have sex with 15 yo person). 217.76.1.22 (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Will change. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


Louisiana

There is new information about Louisiana - there is a new "Misdemeanor Carnal Knowledge of a Juvenile" offense that carries up to 6 months in prison and no sex offender registration:

http://statutes.laws.com/louisiana/rs/title14/rs14-80.1

This should be added to the Louisiana post:

§80.1. Misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile

A. Misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile is committed when a person who is seventeen years of age or older has sexual intercourse, with consent, with a person who is thirteen years of age or older but less than seventeen years of age, when the victim is not the spouse of the offender, and when the difference between the age of the victim and age of the offender is greater than two years, but less than four years.

- See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/louisiana/rs/title14/rs14-80.1#sthash.qvcz95xi.dpuf [kevinwm0] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwm0 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2014

Age of consent in Idaho is 16 not 18 Cericoe (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This assertion is false. Sources provided are statutory language taken from Idaho legislature's official site, which indicate the text of this section is accurate. While the numerical "age of consent" itself is certainly an oversimplification of complex law, for purposes of this article it represents the chronological age at which such age stops being a factor considered in law. While the age of 16-17 in Idaho is only a factor in relatively specific circumstances, it still matters. It is only after both parties are age 18 and up that age stops being a variable in determination of a crime.Legitimus (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the definition of "age of consent" as used in these articles the minimum age at which any sexual activity is permitted, or the minimum age at which all sexual activity is permitted? See this for an example of what I'm trying to ask. BenYes? 20:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The age at which age itself stops being a factor. So yes, one might call that the age when "all sexual activity is permitted." The reason is that most states have the close-in-age exception, and for many of them if this exception is met, there is no minimum age. Thus that would make using the age where "any activity is permitted" very problematic.Legitimus (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

opinions about recent additions to Colorado

A series of changes to the "Colorado" section was made on 25 August 2014 by User:Ohwilleke, adding information about Colorado law on child prostitution and a marriage exception (for both "statutory rape" and child prostitution).

My feeling is that this "addition" detracts from the page. While there is a wide variation as to how much detail is provided for each state or other jurisdiction, this doesn't mean that it's good or acceptable to include greater detail simply because you can.

The point at which the detail becomes excessive, though, is obviously a matter of opinion, so I'm somewhat loathe to just impose my will unilaterally, since this usually seems to invite a debate with the editor involved (admittedly, though, this may be the life of any serious Wikipedia editor).

Anyway, I'm soliciting people who feel one way or the other about whether these changes are good or bad. Your responses will be appreciated. Fabrickator (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ohwilleke (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC) I feel strongly that these changes are appropriate and desirable. As a matter of practical reality, a great many people do not confer with well informed lawyers and instead rely on this particular Wikipedia page to determine if their sexual conduct is, or is not, a crime in their particular circumstances.

Indeed, without this additional information, the Colorado entry is actually misleading. A blanket statement that the age of consent is the age that is set forth in statutory rape laws gives a dangerous false impression that the age of consent is applicable in all contexts of sexual interaction, when in fact, many forms of sexual or intended sexual interaction with people who are within the age of consent in Colorado gives rise to very serious criminal penalties.

Someone who falsely believed that Colorado's age of consent for child prostitution offenses was seventeen, could end up serving twelve years in prison for conduct that would carry a punishment of a fine and a few days in jail if the prostitute had been eighteen years old. Yet, lots of conduct between adults that could arguably be considered prostitution which is a mere misdemeanor, is taken more seriously in cases involving people under the age of eighteen where the offense is a serious felony.

Comparable material is already present in the same article regarding federal laws on the same subjects, and in the particular articles of many other Canadian, Mexican, U.S. and other North American jurisdictions. The overall length of the Colorado section, as edited is still very similar to many of the other U.S. state entries.

The underlying factual reality is that there is considerable variation between states regarding how context specific state law is when applying age of consent laws. In some states, context doesn't matter much at all and "age of consent" is a global concept. In states like Colorado, a great many contextual distinctions with different ages of consent are present and a global "age of consent" isn't a very meaningful concept.

The provisions related to common law marriage are important because it is quite easy for people who are already sexual partners to establish a common law marriage and this a major loophole in statutory rape laws in states that do have common law marriage. Even more importantly, Colorado is unique in the United States in not recognizing a common law marriage that was valid in the state where the common law marriage came into being. For example, without this warning, a twenty-eight year old husband married to a sixteen year old woman under a valid common law marriage under Alabama law and recognized for federal tax purposes, could be prosecuted under Colorado law for having sex with his wife. Without this notation, no reasonable lawyer or non-lawyer would expect that this would be the case given Colorado's marriage exceptions and recognition of common law marriage in other cases, because in every other state a marriage valid when entered into under that state's marriage laws are valid everywhere.

I am a Colorado attorney familiar with the relevant laws because I participated in the legislative process to enact them was I was a partner in a law firm with a state legislator. The additions are accurate and well referenced.

The full extent and implications of this information might not otherwise be accessible even from a non-specialist Colorado attorney facing the questions that many people would visit this page for the purpose of answering. Even many non-specialist Colorado attorneys' would fail to spot the issues raised in these additions, even if asked the right questions, because they wouldn't know that these statutes were out there.

Of course, in addition to allowing readers not to expose themselves to criminal liability and counteracting rampant false urban myths on the subject, easy access to this information may materially reduce the number of people under the age of eighteen who are victimized by child prostitution, child pornography and trafficking in children because potential perpetrators are better informed in advance about the criminal liability that their conduct would expose them to and will not take that action as a result.

These justifications clearly justify a slightly longer subsection on Colorado than was present before.

The overall age of consent in North America page is certainly long, but the more appropriate way to thin it out, would be to have a summary table and then to put the individual jurisdiction information on separate pages, rather than on the main page. In this format, the Colorado specific information on this page would be barely more than a stub.

Maryland "position of authority"

As the section on "Maryland" is written, it appears that the higher age of consent (i.e. 18) for someone in a "position of authority" applies generally when a "full-time permanent employee" is involved with a subordinate. But the cited provision applies only to employees of primary and secondary schools and only if they exercise supervision over minors who "attend" a school, and then, only when the other person is a student who attends the school where such "supervision over minors" applies. Fabrickator (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Indiana

This is the correct link to Indiana's law, http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title35/ar42/ch4.html. The link right now goes to something else, https://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2014/ic/. --ECayce187 (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2015

This article has, "The age of consent in Indiana is 16.[76] " The source in 76 is https://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2014/ic/, the correct source would be http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title35/ar42/ch4.html. The former is a link to the Indiana legislature, the latter is a correct link to the specific law.

ECayce187 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC) This is the correct link to Indiana's law, http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title35/ar42/ch4.html, not this,https://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2014/ic/.

the current link is a link to the entire code as of 2014, whereas the link you provided seems to be the code from 2010. I'm going see if I can find the specific section in the current link. Cannolis (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the law has changed since 2014. The age of sexual consent in Indiana is still 16. Unless they had raised or lowered it, or made the penalties more or less strict, wouldn't that make the 2010 code still valid? --ECayce187 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I found the proper page, it's 438, and linked to title 35 specifically. Not sure how to make the link go to page 438, but put the page number in the citation. I don't see many changes either but I see no reason to use an outdated link, especially when it has multiple notations that say things like " Note: This version of section effective until 7-1-2014.", and we have access to the current one. Cannolis (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Georgia mistake

I think the statement that the bill to raise the legal age in Georgia to 18 is still being considered should be removed. That was 10 years ago, whether it didn't pass or was vetoed, it obviously did not become law. Plus the link to the citation seems to be a dead link. --ECayce187 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. You can also use {{Edit semi-protected}} to request an edit to semi-protected pages like this one. In three days, you will be able to edit them yourself. Graham87 03:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Indiana marriage age non-sequitur

"The law allows the actor a defense to prosecution if the victim is currently or was previously married (the absolute minimum marriageable age in Indiana is 15)". That is irrelevant, because some states have a lower marriage age than 15, if a girl who married at age 13 in a state where that was legal moved to Indiana from her home state, she still would have been married, so it would still be a defense if this is true, I don't think Indiana's minimum marriage age is relevant. --ECayce187 (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

"A close-in-age exception allows minors 14–15 years of age to legally consent to sex with a partner who is less than 18 years old." "The law allows the actor a defense to prosecution if the victim is currently or was previously married (the absolute minimum marriageable age in Indiana is 15), although this defense does not apply in the case of violence, threats or drugs. The law also allows a defense if the actor is within 4 years of age of the younger person and the two were in an ongoing dating/romantic relationship. This is not a close-in-age exception though, but merely a defense in court. The law also allows a mistake of age defense if the actor reasonably believed the victim was 16 or older." Which is it, is it an exception to the law or a defense in court? I live in Indiana, and I believe these are merely defenses in court, not exemptions from the law. When I read Indiana's law, the marriage defense just said that it was a defense if the minor had been married,not that it was legal, in states where a minor's marriage to an adult overrides age of consent laws, the age of consent laws explicitly state that it is legal in this case at an earlier age and specify that age, which Indiana's does not. Also in states where close in age exceptions are a factor, these are explicitly stated to make it legal, which Indiana's does not. I think these are just defenses mitigating the charges, not making the acts legal. If I am mistaken though, then the second statement needs to be changed. One of these two statements is false, and needs to go. --ECayce187 (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC) ECayce187 (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the Indiana entry. I said the close in age exceptions are merely defenses, not immunity from the law, and I removed the marriage age being 15 because since some people from Indiana are from other states with a lower marriage age, I don't think that fact is relevant to the victim's being married being a defense in court. --ECayce187 (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I want to start a discussion here about the age of consent in Texas, in effort to prevent any unsuspecting individuals in Texas who, basing their decisions on information on this page, may become the victims of overzealous prosecutors.

Texas Penal Code §43.25 makes the age of consent in Texas 18. Though it is true that §22.011(b) sets the age of consent at 17, as stated in the article, §43.25(b) says the following: "A person commits an offense if, knowing the character and content thereof, he employs, authorizes, or induces a child younger than 18 years of age to engage in sexual conduct or a sexual performance."

In this statute, "sexual conduct" is defined as "sexual contact, actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals, the anus, or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola." (Tex. P.C. §43.25(a)(2))

Furthermore, case law seems to show a trend of treating the word "induce" more loosely in these kinds of cases than in others.

Just thought I'd bring this up. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.196 (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3577899057365733365 http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/tenth-court-of-appeals/2012/10-11-00449-cr.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.194.165 (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This does seem to be the case. While §43.25 seems at first glance to deal particularly with sexual performance, its wording seems to make it an offense to engage in sexual conduct with a minor regardless of whether it's a performance. 76.184.192.75 (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

California

is missing. The age of consent in California is 18.[1]

--UmJamLam (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's right here: Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#California
Legitimus (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Legitimus. I wrote the current California section. It is right there in the first sentence. I don't know how it could be any clearer.
Tystnaden (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm
Fabrickator (talk) The age of consent is there, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to put it in the form "The age of consent in {state} is {age}." Essentially all of the entries for the United States, save California, have it in that form. There are minor exceptions, such as Pennsylvania, where it's a bit complicated. You may think that saying "There's a crime defined in California, going by thus and such a name, of being involved in a particular activity with persons under a specified age" makes it perfectly clear that said age is the "age of consent", and I won't dispute that. But it's still a roundabout way of saying it, and it makes the reader work considerably harder to get the answer that they're looking for. Fabrickator (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have added a political opinion at the end of a purely informational area. I am talking about the Pete Wilson comment. It does not seem to belong here. Perhaps the editor who added it can comment.
I propose removing it from here. --Tystnaden (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Arkansas redux

In the section about Arkansas - [7] - it is written: ".... if the minor is not more 4 years younger if above 12, not more 3 years younger if under 12". Wait a minute, but what whould happen, if the younger is exactly 12 ?? I guess, there is a mistake there. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not any kind of expert, but I would understand that one is only exactly 12 years old for one tiny moment, on your birthday. For the rest of the year you are above 12, and before your birthday you are under 12. This formulation is introduced as when "there is a defense." I would imagine that for the very unusual case of an act occurring exactly on the victim's 12th birthday, with a perpetrator aged 3 1/2 years older, then the defense team just has a slightly harder job to do. I wouldn't worry about it, if I were you. --Nigelj (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not. Above 12 is 13,14,15......And under 12 is 11, 10, 9 ...... So the question is very interesting. M.Karelin (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
A person is (exactly) 12 years old for only an instant. After that instant, the person is "above 12". But this is a moot point, since the pertinent portion of 5-14-125 states:
(B) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this subdivision (a)(5) that the actor was not more than:
(i) Three (3) years older than the victim if the victim is less than twelve (12) years of age; or
(ii) Four (4) years older than the victim if the victim is twelve (12) years of age or older ...
There is certainly room for improvement of this section. If you're so motivated, feel free to rewrite it. Fabrickator (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove corruption of minors

I'm not a lawyer but in states where the age of sexual consent is below 18, charges such as contributing to the delinquency of a minor are used as alternatives. I think its a mistake to list the contributing to the delinquency of a minor alternative that Pennsylvania uses, because most states use laws like that as alternatives, we would waste a lot of space in the article if we listed all corruption of minors laws. I think that should go in the statutory rape article like Flyer said. --ECayce187 (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding edits like this and this, nowhere have I supported that type of editing. I did not state that "all corruption of minors laws" should go in the Statutory rape article. What I stated with this edit was "No such Corruption of minors article; nor should there be. That's what the Statutory rape article is for." And I stated that because "corruption of minors" was linked in the lead and was a WP:Red link (I'll go ahead and redirect it to the Statutory rape article), and I therefore de-linked it. The term corruption of a minor is an alternative term for statutory rape, which is why it is listed in the Statutory rape article as one of the alternative terms. Regarding that first diff-link in this section, I have partially reverted you on that. The lead should summarize, per WP:Lead, and that means including the "gray area" aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Corruption of a minor already redirected to the Statutory rape article. And I have now redirected corruption of minors there as well. Flyer22 (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's the very principle of the thing. It doesn't matter if the law calls it rape, or sexual abuse, or unlawful intercourse, or sexual assault, or sexual offense in the nth degree, or corruption of a minor. If there are any criminal legal consequences of any sort for non-forceful sexual acts below an age, and age is used as a measurement, that age is the age of consent.Legitimus (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
My impression is that in most states, "corruption of a minor" refers to encouraging a minor to do something that's otherwise illegal. So if somebody gives a minor alcohol, or pimps them out, or encourages them to commit acts of juvenile delinquency, then that person is guilty of the applicable corruption of minors statute. However, the Pennsylvania statute includes a "morals" provision, and there is case law to the effect that, even though a minor has reached the stated age of consent in Pennsylvania (16), the jury gets to decide whether an adult having sex with the minor corrupted the minor's "morals". (This may not be "good" law, but it has not been overturned.) Fabrickator (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Legitimus: I think the best way is to see what secondary sources say the age of consent is in a particular state. It prevents original research concerns.WhisperToMe (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It would be great if there were a really reliable source for this information, aside from the statutes themselves. Overlooking the issue that these laws are subject to change, there really is no other generally reliable source, case in point being the "Statutory Rape Guide" issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (which hasn't been updated since it was issued 11 years ago), but was inaccurate as of the date it was published, insofar as Pennsylvania is concerned. Examining other sources may help to increase confidence as to the accuracy of this information (though this is arguably best done by the person who's relying on it), but there's really no source to trust without actually examining the evidence (e.g. statutes, case law, etc.). Personally, I don't think we should get into the "original research" issue; notwithstanding the Wikipedia policy, the page is too valuable to just dump it because of some rather arbitrary policy. Fabrickator (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
What changes in particular happened since the guide was introduced? The last actual change to the age of consent I know of was Hawaii's, and it seems like by the time the guide was published any differences between same sex and opposite sex age of consents were already done away with. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
If we were only talking about the age of consent per se, the changes may be somewhat few and far between, but between this page and the HHS Statutory Rape Guide, we're also talking about various exceptions as well as penalties. With roughly 50 different jurisdictions involved, there are likely to be changes nearly every year. While the fact that a secondary source such as said guide doesn't do a good job of meeting our purposes if it's not being updated to reflect such changes, the other point I was making is that it couldn't be relied upon as of the date it was issued, specifically in regard to the age of consent in Pennsylvania, vis a vis the effect of the "corruption of minors" statute on the age of consent in that state. Fabrickator (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
What affect does this statute do to the age of consent? What is the relevant text? Do secondary sources (newspaper articles, books, journals, law journals) talk about this? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Corruption of minors in Pennsylvania

I think the article on Pennsylvania should just say the age of consent is 16. Laws such as contributing to the delinquency of a minor are used in most states where the age of consent is less than 18, for example in Virginia the age of consent is 15, but a member of the state legislature was prosecuted under a corruption of minors law for having sex with a 17 year old. I don't think the article should focus on exceptions like that just for one state but not for others. --ECayce187 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's possible different "corruption of minors" statutes may be used for different reasons/things in different states. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

reversion of Honduras changes (19 May 2015)

The reverted section had changed the age of consent as shown for Honduras from 15 to 14, citing Article 140 of the Honduras Criminal Code [8]. Article 140 does seem to indicate that this portion of the law, which covers "rape", applies to consensual sex with someone under the age of 14. However, this does not jive with the subsequent statement that statutory rape is "sex with a woman between 15 and 18 years old".

That statement is probably based on Article 142, regarding "estupro", which applies in the case of "una mujer mayor de catorce pero menor de dieciocho años" ... ) "a woman older than 14 but less than 18". Does "older than 14" mean "at least 15" or simply, one second more than 14?

"Estupro" might loosely be translated as "underage sex without parental approval" (though I don't see anything in the Honduran law indicating a case will only be brought upon the request of a parent, as seems to be typical in other countries with Estupro laws). Article 142 specifies different prison terms when it involves someone in a position of trust, when it involves deception, and when it involves any other "dishonest abuse". It's not clear whether "dishonest abuse" means actual dishonesty or just anything about the sexual contact that someone may find to be objectionable.

I reverted the changes to this section rather than trying to resolve the issue. If someone does choose to rewrite this to reflect Articles 140 to 142, then (notwithstanding the inherent intricacies of the law), it will hopefully be written in a way that provides useful legal information without making the reader have to scratch their head too much. Fabrickator (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

removal of dead link?

A dead link was removed by the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_North_America&type=revision&diff=667173756&oldid=667032940. While I don't see any explicit prohibition on removing links merely because they're dead, the preponderance of relevant Wikipedia policy seems to be to try to fix or mitigate a dead link, and if an editor is not up to that, it should be left in. Anybody have a different perspective?

In this case, the content of the old page is readily available on archive.org. There are some newer pages on the "usdoj.gov" web site that approximate the content of the old page , but nothing really with the specifically pertinent wording to support the DOJ's support for a particular interpretation of the law. That said, the claim that this supported the statement in the Wikipedia article seems to be little more than just the text from the statute, in which case, that would be all that's really needed, so losing the footnote isn't very significant. In any case, if the editor's thinking was along those lines, it would be nice to have that rationale provided in the edit summary. Fabrickator (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Turks and Caicos?

No mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.81.253 (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Nebraska's color

If I am not mistaken, the age of consent in Nebraska is 16. Then why in the map it's colored similar to color of Texas or Louisiana (where the AOC is 17) ?? M.Karelin (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed – voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Honduras citation of US State Department source (6 August 2015)

The citation for the Honduras "age of consent" states (as indicated in the footnote):

The legal age of consent is 18. There is no statutory rape law ...

This doesn't make any sense to me. If there is nothing in the criminal law that would be the basis for prosecuting someone who has consensual sex with someone under the age of consent, what is this supposed to mean? The absence of such a law is inconsistent with the notion of an age of sexual consent. We are left to guess as to what the actual facts are. The fact that specific words are used is no help if the actual meaning of those words is unclear, and the source cannot reasonably be cited for that purpose. Fabrickator (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if somebody can look up codes of the old Pennsylvania age of consent? This Philadelphia Inquirer article seems to contradict the Pittsburgh one I posted:

  • Metz, Andrew. "Ex-swim Coach Gets Jail Sentence." Philadelphia Inquirer. October 9, 1995.
  • "In August, Weber, who also coached at the Lansdale Swim Club, pleaded guilty to having had oral sex with the girl, whom he had encouraged to join the Germantown Academy swimming club. According to police, the two also had sexual intercourse. At the time of the incidents, the legal age of consent for intercourse was 14; for oral sex, 16."

There is another article saying that the PA age of consent was 18 but was lowered to 16 in 1995. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Misspelling

Since this article is locked, someone with the ability needs to edit: under the heading Estupro (under Mexico) there's a misspelling of "chastity" as "castity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.247.21 (talk • contribs)

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out! —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


Color bias in pictorials give subtle but real political slant to articles

Green and red should be avoided as color codes for highly political issues like age of consent. Red is connotated with stop as with road stop signs and traffic lights. For example, in the illustration on this page green is used for 18 which implies it is the right AOC and red is used for under 12 implying illegality and wrongness. These two colors should be changed to unconnected colors such as violet and light yellow to remove any potential bias.

Boilingorangejuice (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ages of consent in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Texas

Texas must be colored on the map. It can't stay gray forever. There have been discussions on whether the age of consent is 17 or 18, but a consensus must be reached and the map fixed. It's very unencyclopedic and uncomfortable for the reader to see the map like that.

See Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Texas and Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Texas, for discussions.2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:ADEC (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The map denoting ages of consent around the world seem to be a bit inconsistent with the articles on age of consent. For example, as per the article Age of consent in Asia, Vietnam has an age of consent of 16. However, the map shows Vietnam's age of consent as 18. Why is that?Sega31098 (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Presumably because no one has bothered to update the maps yet. I'll fix Vietnam now—please let me know if there are any other discrepancies. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The age of consent in the Phillipines is 12 (unfortunately) as per the article, whereas the age of consent in Trinidad and Tobago has recently risen to 18 (as per my edits). Sega31098 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Done and done. Let me know if there are any others. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. The article states that the age of consent in the Dominican Republic is 18, but the image shows it as 16. Sega31098 (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

REPORT OF INCORRECT INFORMATION IN ARTICLE

With respect to information of age of consent laws in the United States, the information is incorrect.[1] We must also remember that due to our Constitution's equal protection clause, as well as anti-discrimination case law, where a legislature sets a separate age depending upon sex, the courts are required to apply the lower age to both as a matter of federal law. This will particularly be the case when the instant case falls within the vein of Lawrence et al. V. State of Texas (2003), because states cannot use a law in such a way that attempts to circumvent otherwise valid case law. (i.e. The several states may not use an otherwise valid law, and attempt to apply it unfairly to target homosexuals, due to the Lawrence holding.) 72.192.72.19 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wordpress is not a reliable source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ (See reference for correct information.) https://globaljusticeinitiative.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/united-states-age-of-consent-table11.pdf

Saint Pierre and Miquelon?

Saint Pierre and Miquelon are French possessions in North America off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada. One assumes that the age of consent laws there are identical to Martinique. If somebody with an account could add Saint Pierre and Miquelon to the page I would be most appreciative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.112.124.20 (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2016

Gross simple error Corrector (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

given: The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts.

In Canada the age of consent is 12. Since in Canada at the age of 12, a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts. Even the article states that ages 12 to 16 can consent, only with added restriction on age difference.

Stating that it is 16 is grossly wrong. I live in Canada and I am aware of its laws. This is a disgusting and misleading logical error.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Federal law makes it criminal to engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you. Each state takes a different approach as the age of consent has ranged from 10 to 18.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAddman0 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@IAddman0: Per the info notice at the top of Talk:Age of consent (click on "show" to see the full text): "Where writing about legislation or other law, the appropriate statutes and similar must be cited." Without the statute, the citation provided is not valid for this article. On another note, I see that there's already a #Federal age of consent? section on this page. And on yet another note, this really belongs on Talk:Ages of consent in the United States. Fabrickator (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/statutory-rape-the-age-of-consent.html

This subsection incorrectly (according to the given link: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0014) that:

Any sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years of age is prohibited unless the defendant is less than 3 years older than the victim except when married to the person {§14‑27.2, 14‑27.4 & 14‑27.7A}.

(b) A defendant is guilty of a Class C felony if the defendant engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and the defendant is more than three but less than six years older than the person, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person.

According to the given source, four should be written instead of three.

"§ 14‑27.7A. Statutory rape or sexual offense of person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old.

(a) A defendant is guilty of a Class B1 felony if the defendant engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and the defendant is at least six years older than the person, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person.

(b) A defendant is guilty of a Class C felony if the defendant engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and the defendant is more than four but less than six years older than the person, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person. (1995, c. 281, s. 1.)"

-from http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-27.7A.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.105.30.117 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ages of consent in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ages of consent in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Mexico on the map - map needs changes

The map needs some changes.

Tlaxcala must be changed to 14. law:[9]

Sonora must be changed to 12. law[10] (art 219)

Querétaro must be changed to 12. law[11] (art 161)

Guanajuato must be changed to 14. law[12] (art 181) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btodd72 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

These states are currently shown on the map as having an age of consent set at puberty, but the laws set a clear age, they do not mention puberty.(Maybe the map is based on outdated data).

Can someone make the changes? 123username (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dominican Republic needs update and additional sources, along with Cuba

I think the Dominican Republic needs to be updated and added with additional sources. This information solely relies on one source from 2009 by the Human Rights Report.

I can think of https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/dominican-republic or http://chartsbin.com/view/hxj, but I don't know if they are reputable.

Here's a PDF report from UNICEF dated 2016, https://www.unicef.org/lac/2._20160308_UNICEF_LACRO_min_age_of_sexual_consent.pdf.

Also Cuba needs updating as well, it solely relies on the article from 1999.

2A02:C7D:1AAD:BB00:8059:DD3:8EC1:EE50 (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 54 external links on Ages of consent in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2017

2605:E000:904F:2000:7C8B:CCBF:41F4:DB58 (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The age of consent in the state of Alabama is 16. The map does not reflect this fact. It needs to be changed immediately. Thank you

Not done: it does show 16. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Ages of consent in South America be merged into Ages of consent in North America for a unified Ages of consent in the Americas. Most articles and pages that deal with specific topics like this usually have one Americas page instead of two separate one for both North and South America. This is just for consistency. AquilaXIII (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2018‎ (UTC)

  • Oppose. Keeping WP:ARTICLESIZE in mind (both articles being substantial in length) and that they focus on two different regions, merging would cause size issues (or at least table of content issues, unless trimmed or unless Template:TOC limit is used) and confusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment Not true, I have reviewed both pages and there would not be an issue with merging the pages as the links could always be fixed and tables could be updated. As for the length issue, it would no different than the pages for Europe, Asia, and Africa. In fact, some of them would be longer than a unified Americas page since they have more countries. AquilaXIII (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2018‎ (UTC)
I disagree, per my statements above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Response to comment Somewhere between having a small number of articles that are large and a large number of articles that are small, there is presumably a happy medium. Generally, I would err on the side of having a larger number of smaller articles (note that United States got moved off to its own page), but probably the more compelling issue is whether it makes it more or less convenient to find the information, and perhaps of greater significance, whether it makes it easier or harder to maintain. I would suggest that smaller articles offer some advantages in that respect.
But my point is a little bit simpler... just because some other articles in this set would still be larger than an "Americas age of consent" page, that doesn't mean that the "optimal" size isn't smaller. Most likely, it suggests that there nobody has decided the size is enough of an issue to figure out a good way to break those larger articles into smaller ones.
Perhaps you grew up someplace where the Americas were considered a single continent, and I certainly don't want to make this a case that one is right and the other wrong. Notwithstanding that issue, North America/South America is a convenient distinction, and it makes for articles that are probably closer to optimal size than a combined article would be. The most compelling argument we have for a combined article is consistency with some other (evidently unrelated) articles, and that just doesn't cut it as a compelling argument, when there's no indication that the existing "inconsistency" creates any significant problems. Fabrickator (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Flyer22. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Don't see why there should be two different pages when there isn't one for Central America or the Carribean. JAMendoza (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I rather see one big article on an important region than multiple smaller ones for smaller regions. Also, not all regions get their own article or are of importance which is why I prefer combining both pages. Unless you start making articles for East Asia, Southeast Asia, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and all the other regions then I'll be okay but I doubt that'll happen. KumaPanda (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
"... not all regions ... are of importance"? Are there any countries which are not of importance? Well, perhaps "micronations" don't count. Your position seems to be that "Americas" is a region, and that "North America" and "South America" are not continents. Because it doesn't really make much sense to split up recognized continents into unrecognized regions. Fabrickator (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Counter-proposal: My counter proposal (an extension of the implied suggestion by KumaPanda to break things into smaller regions) is that we should break this out into a separate article for each country. It is countries which define the jurisdictions (notwithstanding that the laws may be for subdivisions of a country), and countries are well-defined. Easier to maintain, unambiguous, and more flexible, since it would allow for having pages covering a continent or a region, either using links or by transcluding individual country pages. Fabrickator (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Mexico info wrong

The Associated Press called out this article as incorrect and outdated for Mexico. The age of consent is 15 not 12 for the country. https://www.tampabay.com/not-real-news-mexico-did-not-lower-age-of-consent-to--ap_national518ac07e80e54bae9b7154824d6f5780%3ftemplate=amp. Legacypac (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Tally of U.S. states by age

Somebody please include tallies with respect to reference of the 16, 17 and 18 age variations by state. Example, "As of August 2018, each U.S. state has set its age of consent at either age 16 (31 states & DC), age 17 (8 states), or age 18 (11 states)." or "As of August 1, 2018, the age of consent in each state in the United States was either 16, 17, or 18 years of age. The most common age of consent is 16 (in 31 states and DC), followed by 18 (in 11 states), and age 17 (in 8 states).[52]" - 97.123.10.53 (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Map text

"(several Mexican states are very outdated.)" ??? Based on what for what? I don't know if this is political propaganda or factual to the map being in error. 173.15.73.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

merger proposal redux

A prior discussion regarding a proposal to merge Ages of consent in North America and Ages of consent in South America to form Ages of consent in the Americas took place in the first half of 2018. See Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_North_America/Archive_2#Merger_proposal.

In that discussion, only 6 editors expressed an opinion, it came out 50-50, counting my counter-proposal as an "against" vote. The counter-proposal was to have separate articles per country, allowing whatever variations of "regional" articles that are desired, transcluding the per-country articles so that there is a single place to maintain the age of consent for a particular jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding my counter-proposal, I continue to believe that we should have separate AOC articles for "North America" and the "rest of the Americas". Here are my points:

  • These pages are of greatest interest to (English-speaking) people living in these regions, and the bulk of these people were taught in an educational system in which North America and South America are considered separate continents; it is thus counter-intuitive and a bit jarring to be directed to AOC in the Americas.
  • English WP has defined Portal:North America as well as a portal for the "rest of the Americas" (i.e.Portal:South America, which redirects to Portal:Latin America). In the absence of a pretty compelling counter-argument, we should prefer to be consistent about how we parcel up the regions of the world.
  • There is an argument that it's confusing or otherwise more difficult for people who have learned that North America and South America are merely subcontinents to be presented with the need to figure out which article they should go to, but this is a weak argument. If we were to accept this argument, then that would seem to challenge the idea of having such regional pages (i.e. there should be a single AOC page), but having one big article is cumbersome for a variety of reasons. I presume that those who have been taught that the Americas are two sub-continents are very accustomed to encountering the "Americas are two continents" model, but the converse is not the case, i.e. it is relatively unusual for English-speaking residents of the Americas to encounter the "Americas are two sub-continents" model.
  • For what it's worth, page views on Ages of consent in South America are somewhere around 10% of what they are for Ages of consent in North America or Ages of consent in the United States, thus a relatively large number of users benefit from a more focused page, while a fairly small number of users might be disadvantaged by the extra effort of determining which page has the information they are looking for.

Fabrickator (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request

The "Mexico" section needs updated to change the age of consent in its federal law to 15 from 12. Source is here.

The following need updated: (Strike is text removed, boldfaced is text added)

The federal law establishes the age of 12 15 as the minimum age of consent, while the age at which there are no restrictions for consensual sexual activities is 18 (sex with someone 12 15-18 is not illegal per se, but can still be open to prosecution under certain circumstances).

(it reads: Al que tenga cópula con persona mayor de doce quince años y menor de dieciocho, obteniendo su consentimiento por medio de engaño, translation: "Whoever copulates with a person over twelve fifteen and under eighteen years old, obtaining his/her consent through deceit").

Article 261 of the Federal Criminal Code (PDF) states that: "Whoever, without the purpose of reaching copulation, performs a sexual act in a person under 12 15 or in a person that has no capacity of understanding the meaning of the act or that for any reason cannot resist, or demands that the act is performed, will be punished with a term of 2 to 5 years in prison".

(This edit request is made on behalf of a helpee on IRC; I am not making the edit myself as I cannot understand the source provided myself due to a language barrier and would prefer a native Latin Spanish reader address and action the request.) —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Missed a few, same source:

Article 266 then states that: "It is equivalent to rape and will be punished with the same penalty: (1st Clause) – who without violence performs a copulation with a person under 12 15". The 3rd Clause of this article punishes with the same penalties also "the vaginal or anal introduction of objects, without violence and with lascivious goals", in a person under 12 15 or in a person that has no capacity of understanding the meaning of the fact, or for any reason cannot resist.

There is another crime in Article 262 for consented sex with adolescents aged 12 15 to 18, when consent is obtained through deceit.

Artículo 262 del Código Penal: " Al que tenga cópula con persona mayor de doce años y menor de dieciocho, obteniendo su consentimiento por medio de engaño, se le aplicará de tres meses a cuatro años de prisión." (Redundant)

Translation: Article 262: "Whoever copulates with a person over twelve and under eighteen years old, obtaining his/her consent through deceit" (redundant)

(This edit request is made on behalf of a helpee on IRC; I am not making the edit myself as I cannot understand the source provided myself due to a language barrier and would prefer a native Latin Spanish reader address and action the request.) —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done You could also use some sort of google translate Aaron Liu (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Cuba

It appears there is no age of consent in Cuba. If that is wrong please refer to the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisr35 (talk • contribs) 12:05, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Age_of_consent_in_North_America/Archive_2&oldid=1251685306"