▼ EDITORIAL
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
Steven Asbury
MANAGING EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
NIGHT EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
EDITORIAL EDITORS:
Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond
editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
DISPLAY ADVERTISING:
(541)346-3712
BUSINESS OFFICE:
(541)346-5512
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING:
(541)346-4343
Oversimplified statutory rape laws need revising
■ OUR OPINION:
Current statutory sex laws Jail to
deal with the complex nature of
most sexual relationships
■ 'v ecently, in Wisconsin, 18
] 3 year-old Kevin Gillson got
I ^ his 15-year-old girlfriend
X- Xpregnant. Gillson was pre
pared to drop out of school, find a job
and marry his girlfriend to support
her. His reward for his noble inten
tions: The possibility of probation
and 40 years of jail time.
The problem Gillson faces is that
he engaged in sex with a minor. Al
though his girlfriend said the sex was
consentual, in the eyes of the state,
she is too young io consent to have
sex. Even if he doesn't spend a day in
jail, his record will show that he is a
convicted sex offender, in the same
class with rapists and molesters. Had
his girlfriend been one year older, he
would have been in the clear.
Statutory rape laws state that it is
illegal for anyone to engage in sex
with a minor. Exactly who is consid
ered a minor varies from state to
state, usually between 16 and 18
years of age. While it’s hard to argue
with the law’s intent, its actual exe
cution raises some serious problems.
The idea of a statutory rape law
makes sense. The main goal is to pre
vent situations where 50-year-old
men are out at the local high school
preying on young, unsuspecting fe
males. Unfortunately, that’s not al
ways how the law ends up working.
The basic problem is the black and
white nature of statutory rape laws.
Every case is different, but with
statutory rape, all that matters is age.
An 18-year-old can go to jail for
sleeping with his 17-year-old girl
friend, but it is perfectly legal for a
50-year-old to be sleeping with a 20
year-old.
Sexual relations are too complicat
ed to be based on age alone. If the in
tent of statutory rape laws is to pre
vent manipulation, that should be
reflected in the law itself. The prob
lem is primarily one of coercion, not
age.
If it can be shown that an 18-year
old man used his age and experience
to manipulate a younger girl into en
gaging in sexual activities, then that
should be classified rightly as statu
tory rape. If a 22-year-old and a 17
year-old are deeply in love, while it
may be a little disturbing to some
people, they should not be persecut
ed solely because of the age differ
ence.
Another way to improve the effec
tiveness of statutory rape laws would
be to change how they are enforced.
In the case of Gillson, he was arrested
simply because the police found out
about the couple. No complaints
were filed by either of the families in
volved.
If the parents of a child want to al
low her to see an older person (and as
legal guardians of a minor they have
a legal right to make that decision as
hard as it may be to enforce), that is
their prerogative. If all the parties in
volved with the relationship are okay
with it, then the police should not
get involved.
Only if a complaint is filed by ei
ther the family or the couple should
what is basically a personal matter
become a legal concern. Those in
volved with the relationship can bet
ter determine if it is abusive than a
third party guided only by a set of ar
bitrary age requirements.
Statutory rape is not an easy issue.
On the one hand, it is important to
protect young people who may or
may not be ready to make mature de
cisions about sexual activity. On the
other hand, just because someone is
older than his or her partner doesn’t
mean that person will be any more
manipulative than two people who
are the same age.
While this tension cannot be com
pletely resolved, it can be improved.
By making statutory rape laws con
sider both age and intent and by
pressing charges only when one of
the parties involved files charges, the
murky waters of statutory rape can be
made considerably clearer — and
fairer.
This editorial represents the opinion
of the Emerald editorial board.
r
TM6 ATtOR^EV G>£MePA^5 OFPKE HA5 LOOKED /ntq
t The cmAHG^S A6A>*fr fMerA^y^MU A^jp DeC'OeQ
mot to i/srVE5T<6^ Pufrntffl «** pp*0$ecuTE,..
lie
Irani
Board
1
£R_. DO HfiMt fMAT
AUTMOP'Ty, Ml RENO?
y
In the April 28
“Overheard” sec
tion on page 2,
singer Jewel was
misquoted. The
quote (from the
May 15 Rolling
Stone) should
have read as fol
lows: “I’m just a
person who is
honestly living
my life and ask
ing, ‘How do you
be spiritual and
live in the world
without going to a
monastery?”
The Emerald re
grets the error.
LETTERS
Relative ignorance
In response to Trevor Miller’s letter (April
21, ODE), I do not enjoy being labeled as "ig
norant” by someone I do not even know. As
a member of SETA. Miller’s attack on the
education I received through this group
shows only his own ignorance.
To clarify Miller’s confusion, the “H” in
HIV stands for “human,” as HIV infects hu
mans. Rhesus monkeys, such as the ones
held captive on campus, contract SIV (“S”
is for simian), and if Miller knows the index
case, he should share that knowledge with
the rest of us.
Animal research does not, as Miller cor
rectly states, lead directly to cures simply
because the wrong species are studied. Un
derrated alternatives like epidemiology,
clinical investigations and human tissue
tests have led to advanced knowledge of
smoking/lung cancer correlation, epilepsy
and Alzheimer’s, keeping human research
directly relevant to humans.
SETA is committed to the 2,700 students
who signed a petition demanding to know
more about the tightly guarded animal re
search conducted at our University. SETA
offers extensive information on a large num
ber of diverse topics, which we would be
happy to educate Miller on so that he may
at least recognize his own ignorance when
judging our student group as “ignorant’ and
“non-educational. ”
Maureen Lynch
Anthropology/Philosophy
Benjamin P. Jenkins
Biology
Sound of silence
I was one of the scientists sitting at the
table that caused so much of a threat to
University activism, according to Kyla
Schuller's letter (April 22, ODE).
I’m sorry, but campaigning against
SETA’s budget increase request was sim
ply not a campaign of censure. SETA is in
no danger, with or without 12 cents from
every student, of being exterminated. The
"measly” budget (according to Ms.
Schuller) that SETA currently receives
from the ASUO is the same budget that
would be given to a student group in sup
port of medical research on animals.
The fact is that SETA is using the ballot
to request the special consideration of Uni
versity students for a budget increase,
above and beyond the fees it already re
ceives.
SETA’s stated goal is the elimination of
animal research. I personally do research
on animals and consider it a benefit to hu
manity. These are two views of a contro
versial subject. I thought a politically active
campus was one where people felt free to
make a public stand for their opinions.
Yet several letters on this page and com
ments from a few of the people who
stopped by the table suggest that it was the
researchers’ point-of-view that “should” be
silent and leave poor SETA alone.
Very democratic.
Kelli Lopardo
Institute of Neuroscience
HUD
Ballot
Measures
The Emerald's
Endorsements:
Raising Club
Sports incidental
fees will
make the YE&?
program |\£[
less ex
pensive and acces
sible to more stu
dents.
Footnotes:
Because Footnotes
is not a student ’j
money from pri
vate fund raising,
not student fees.
For students with
out a car and for a
cam
a park
ing structure, free
bus service bene
fits everyone.
Club
Sports:
group,
they
should
raise
Lane
Transit
District:
pus
without
Pocket i
Playhouse:
At only a $0.09 in- j
crease per year,
student theater
outweigh the
costs.
Saferide:
Saferide benefits
many women on
campus, and this
mea
sure
would
help make Saferide
wheelchair acces
sible.
Students
for the
Ethical
Treatment
of Animals:
Because SETA
doesn’t represent
the views of the
whole campus and
is already
well-fund
ed, an ad
ditional increase is
not needed.