Is this news ("Teenager has sex with minor while on probation for similar offence", The Straits Times 29 Dec 2014) a mockery to statutory rape law? How the heck did Lee Sze Kiat escape jail and whip for having sex with a 16 yo? Would an adult doing the same act be given such leniency? Does it make sense that just because the perpetrator is a minor himself, he is "free" to commit the act?
In my opinion, the statutory rape law had failed to protect minors and allowed Lee Sze Kiat (16 yo, although technically a minor) to continue being a predatory "rapist". Remind me again please, what is the function of statutory rape law? Lee Sze Kiat was so audacious that he targeted another younger victim (12 yo) during his probation!
I'm dumbfounded. Did the law failed because it is selective? Is it selectively lenient towards minors committing the same/identical act (that would have landed adults in jail or whipping)? If that is the case, statutory rape law is not protecting minor per se. It is rather limited to protecting minors against predatory adults (those over the technical term "minor").
If the law is not selective, why was Lee not being punished similar to how adults would be have been punished, e.g. a jail sentence or whipping? If the court tried to be "rational" by suggesting that a jail sentence would have been inappropriate considering that jailing the minor would surely have destroyed his future and wouldn't have served to correct him (as compared what probation could do), what about the two victims (and probably the unaccounted for or future victims) that got DESTROYED? To save a life that will destroy more lives doesn't make sense. I'm not an economist, but I think the math doesn't add up right in this case. Do you? This is like being "penny wise pound foolish".
Also, if jailing minor destroys his future, wouldn't jailing adults destroy their futures too? If jail is not effective/efficient in correcting a person, why not send all statutory rapists (regardless of technical age) to probation too?
Also, if jailing minor destroys his future, wouldn't jailing adults destroy their futures too? If jail is not effective/efficient in correcting a person, why not send all statutory rapists (regardless of technical age) to probation too?
If statutory rape law can be interpreted in many ways (by discretion) to cater for different types of rapists and victims, I don't think this law can completely serve to protect minors from predatory sexual act on them.
Statutory rape law was implemented to protect minors. It is not for minors to commit the act and get away with it. If the law is selective as this Q&A statement from AWARE, it will not do any good to protect minors from predatory rapists (minor or not)
Q & A: "What if both parties are 15 years of age?
Technically, this still constitutes the offence of Statutory Penetration of a Minor under S376A, Penal Code. However, the police, exercising its discretion and taking into account the age of the parties, may not initiate any charges."
Technically, this still constitutes the offence of Statutory Penetration of a Minor under S376A, Penal Code. However, the police, exercising its discretion and taking into account the age of the parties, may not initiate any charges."
We were once (or are now) teenagers and minors too, for those who got educated with sex early knows that sexual urge and thoughts are normal sensation/feeling (i.e. only human). However, what is not normal is what LEE SZE KIAT did to the girls. If he can get away with being irresponsible with his sexual urge (or libido), what is the signal being sent to other minors with equally high sexual urges too? What makes Lee special?
Lee should not be selectively let off (especially after the second act on another victim) while those abstaining the act watch with contempt.
Keypoints
- Don't be selective in meting out sentencing for statutory rape. It gives wrong signals.
- Economy of letting off minor rapists is bad. One unrepentant rapist can destroy more lives and families than the court thinks.
- To have strong libido is normal, but to be a predatory sex fiend who targets multiple minors to satisfy one's sexual urge is not.
Posts
It's not clear cut here what's right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteIf an underaged female teenager initiates sex with a male teenager, is the female teenager to be punished ?
If both parties agree to consensual sex, are both to be punished?
If an under aged boy persuades an under aged girl to have sex without force or threats or deception, is it a crime.
If a boy falls in love with a girl and they are both underaged and they have sex, is it a crime?
Hi Stuly. IMHO, statutory rape law serve to protect minors from being taken advantage of (by considering their vulnerability to exploitation). "Love" can be misused as an excuse for such exploitation. If "consensual sex" among minors is allowed because of "true love", isn't it equally likely that minors and adults can be in love? If it is acceptable for minors to have consensual sex (due to relationship), why is it deemed illegal for minor-adult relationship? All-in-all, statutory rape law helps to protect minors from teen pregnancy, exploitation, prostitution, sexually transmitted diseases (due to lack of proper sex education and protection), among others.
DeleteAs for your question, technically all the examples you provided is a considered illegal. Marrying a minor and consummating the marriage is also considered technically illegal.
DeleteI would rather the law be revised or applied on a case by case basis. It's important in each case to ascertain whether there is deception and presence of malice.. In the case of the 60 singaporean men who had sex with a 17 year old prostitute, it does seem that she was a willing prostitute and not a victim. She has turned 18 since, and i hear she is still selling sex. The government is more keen on punishing these men even when the prostitute in question is profiting tremendously ( $500 per hour?) and shows no sign of being forced or being desperate for money. Who is the real victim? The prostitute who is getting rich, or the sixty men who had their careers and their marriages adversely affected?
ReplyDeleteThe law should be amended to only punish those men who are sexual cultures who prey on innocent girls and not patrons of willing prostitutes.
Nobody seems interested in saving the poor 'victim' , putting her back to school, and finding her a decent job. Counseling her. Etc They are not interested in that.
As for for two young kids having mutual sex, they shouldn't be dragged to courts or imprisoned or punished with probation, they should be counseled. It would be more traumatic then the sex itself, which may be a case of hormones or even love.
ReplyDelete