Statuatory Rape

I'd like to start out by saying, most statuatory rape laws are a rediculus. However, they have gotten better. It used to be, in Indiana at least, that if someone over 18 had sexual relations with someone under 18, it was statuatory rape. It has changed to someone over 18 having contact with someone under 17, which is a little better, but could still be rediculus, depending on the situation.

Today, a friend pointed this story out to me. You can either click on the link...

http://boingboing.net/2008/11/24/women-may-lose-house.html

...or, just let me give you an overview. Basically, a woman has oral sex with her boyfriend. He was just under 16, she has just turned 17. A bit over a year apart. She got 10 years in prison, and is a registered sex offender. She cannot live within 1000 feet of "anyplace children congregate". The main problem, is that after looking around before buying a house, they missed a church that ran a small, unadvirtised day care, and recieved a letter saying that had to move immediately, which meant foreclosure.

So, we have a 29 year old, married woman. Because she had oral sex with her boyfriend who was a year younger, they are forcing her out of her house. Not to mention living with the title of sex offender for the rest of her life. Disgusted by this obscene situation, created by a terrible written law that should never have passed, I have been looking up different statutory rape laws, by state. Here are some interesting ones:

Massachusettes:

"Criminal inducement to get a person under age 18 of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse"

I was wondering, what do they mean by that. I mean, if they are successful, then "chaste" doesn't apply, and so does it no longer count as rape? Also, I guess they mean that if someone if not a virgin, then that person cannot be raped...

North Dakota:

"Corruption of minor is an adult engaging in sexual act with a minor"

Back to the basic, if one is 2 weeks older then ones boyfriend or girlfriend, and the two have sex, then the older one is a rapist. I'm sorry, but leaving aside the question of whether it's moral for a couple to have sex, a law that basically says, "if they are doing it when they are both 17, it's okay, but then when one turns 18, that one is raping the other, until the second turns 18, and then it's okay again", is wrong. Plain and simple. It's wrong.

It's rediculus, but, that's America. Yes, I find this country better than most others, but we still have a large way to go.

Quoted laws are from - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm