2 Cases Challenge Statutory Rape Law
July 14, 1992|By Jim Runnels of The Sentinel Staff
TAVARES — A circuit judge was asked Monday to strike down Florida's statutory rape law in two Lake County cases where the teens involved consented to sex.
Circuit Judge Jerry Lockett said during a hearing Monday that he will rule in writing within 10 days and decide whether Florida's right-to-privacy law gives teens the right to have sex when they want and with whom they choose.
Such a ruling would be a landmark decision in the state, because judges repeatedly - all the way back to a case heard by the Florida Supreme Court in 1901 - have ruled that consent is not a defense in statutory rape cases.
Under current law, any person over the age of 18 who has sex with an unmarried person under the age of 16 can be charged with statutory rape. If the juvenile is over the age of 16 and is of ''previous chaste character'' - meaning a virgin - the same law applies.
Statutory rape is a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
But in 1980, Florida voters approved Article 1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution that says each person in the state ''has the right to be left alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life.''
That didn't mean much until the case of a Lake County teen, identified publicly as T. W., reached the Florida Supreme Court in 1990. In that case, the teen wanted an abortion, and claimed that she alone - not her parents or the court - had the right to decide the issue.
In a stunning precedent, the state's highest court sided with the teen, ruling that every person in Florida has a right to privacy, whatever his or her age.
On Monday, Assistant Public Defender Bill Stone argued to dismiss two cases pending before Lockett that allege statutory rape.
''This is an unwarranted governmental intrusion'' into the intimate and private decisions of teen-age females, Stone said.
''The state does not have any compelling interest'' in interfering in the girls' decisions, Stone said, which it must have under the T. W. ruling.
In both cases, the girls have insisted that they do not want to prosecute and that they engaged in sex of their own free will.
One girl - who will turn 16 this week - said she went to bed with her 19-year-old boyfriend because she wanted to get pregnant so that the two could wed.
In the other case, the girl was 15 and the male was 20. She said she skipped school to have sex with him. The girl's parents filed charges, Stone said, when the man's parents ''were not appropriately responsive or concerned'' when told of their son's actions.
Stone said the state can't prove that it has enough of a reason to press the cases and override the rights of privacy of the teens.
Assistant State Attorney John Carnahan argued that the statutory rape law has nothing to do with the girls' feelings.
Instead, he said, the law is set up to prohibit adults from preying on children sexually.
Lockett interrupted Carnahan several times, saying that the cases he cited were out of date because they predated the T. W. decision.
''It was my understanding that the holding (decision) in T. W. was whether or not minor females were mature enough to give consent,'' Lockett said.
While the hearing went on in the courtroom, one of the victims sat with the suspect, her boyfriend, watching quietly from the rear of the courtroom. They left after the hearing and refused comment.
''All they want to do is get married,'' Stone said.
Minors Don't Have Right To Have Sex, Court Rules
April 11, 1998
SAN FRANCISCO — While acknowledging many teens are sexually active, a state appeals court has ruled that minors do not have a constitutional right to have sex. The 1st District Court of Appeals, in a 3-0 ruling, said this week that a state law making it a crime for minors to have sex with each other doesn't violate their right to privacy. A 16-year-old boy, arrested for having sex with a 14-year-old girl in 1996, had challenged the state's statutory rape law.