Gender Bias in Statutory Rape Cases

A helpful reader pointed me to an interesting article in the Daily Beast about gender bias in statutory rape cases:

After a 17-year-old boy had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend, he was charged with a felony for statutory rape. When a 17-year-old girl in the same town commited the same crime, she was charged with far less. Was the boy the victim of gender bias?
Alan Jepsen was playing videogames at his home in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, when the cops came knocking on his door. He was handcuffed in front of his sister and thrown in jail. In the words of his attorney, Jeffrey Purnell, “This child, this 17-year-old high-school kid, had to spend a week in jail—they locked him up and they put him in jail with grown-ups.”
His crime: Having sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend. And, perhaps, being a boy.
The day after Alan's arrest, Sheboygan authorities arrested Norma Guthrie, also 17, for having sex with her 14-year-old boyfriend. Norma, however, did not have to spend a single day in jail. She was released immediately, on signature bond, while Alan was held on a $1,000 cash bond, which his family could not afford. Sheboygan County Assistant District Attorney Jim Haasch is handling both cases.
The disparity in the punishment of these 17-year-olds, both accused of having sex with the 14-year-olds they were dating, goes much deeper. Haasch charged Alan with a Class C felony, which, according to court records obtained by The Daily Beast, carries a maximum prison sentence of 40 years. Norma, on the other hand, was charged only with a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of nine months in jail.
It should be noted that the gender bias in sex crimes involving minors extends beyond the statutory rape cases. As the various prosecutions involving female teachers with minor male children have illustrated, women receive far less sentences than men in similarly situated positions.

There are, however, reasons to not be troubled by such differences (assuming they are generalizable beyond the particular facts above). Female victims have a risk that is not comparable to male victims: pregnancy. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to punish men (even minor ones) more harshly in heterosexual situations. I think the developmental reasons for differential treatment are more mixed, but some would argue that the harm to girls is greater. 

With that being said, a lot of these cases seem to indicate a level of bias that is problematic. Even if female victims suffer a much greater risk of harm, that does not mean that female defendants with male victims should be receiving slaps on the wrist.

Regardless of your perspective on these issues, it's nice to see greater coverage as society really needs to come to better terms with adolescent sexuality in the criminal law.

Comments

[Anon]

"Female victims have a risk that is not comparable to male victims: pregnancy."

Exactly. All those male students risking the health of their teachers deserve 40 years too.

[JT]

I never thought of it that way. Great point though.

[Joe]

I would like to see a comparison with cases where both parties were of the same gender. My strong suspicion is that these are treated at least as harshly as female-victim heterosexual cases even though there is no threat of pregnancy. Also, do you honestly think a male would be treated more leniently if he wore a condom or had had a vasectomy (again pretty much negating the risk of pregnancy)?

[Daniel]

Corey. I honestly can't believe that you just said that. The risk of a pregnancy is not a harm. Period. I just can't morally support that notion. Now the fact that the risk way be an unwanted risk I can see as a harm. But how is that risk any less than the risk of of the boy getting an unwanted STD.

The notion that women suffer more harm than men in a rape situation is not substantiated by any valid scientific study I know of.

[George]

Daniel, there is some rational basis for Corey's view. In fact, the California Supreme Court found pregnancy to be great bodily injury.

http://publicdefenderdude.blogspot.com/2008/08/only-in-california-pregnancy-is-great.html

[Luchog]

George: Regardless of the legal findings regarding pregnancy, there is no rational justification for pregnancy to account for the grossly disproportionate response from prosecutors and courts. Court rulings are not necessarily rational; nor based on clear scientific evidence. They are just as often political decisions, or based on irrational beliefs (the article linked to in the previous comment is adequate evidence of that). Pregnancy is not a "great bodily injury", regardless of what a court says. A great bodily injury would be a chronic and disabling or fatal STD; such as herpes, drug-resistant syphilis, or HIV; which both sexes are equally at risk for. HIV rates among adolescents and teens have doubled since the early '90s, and rates for all STDs among minors have skyrocketed, particularly among non-Caucasian ethnic groups.

Yes, unwanted pregnancy is a substantial risk exclusively for females; but the "harm" is overexaggerated. The refusal to adequately acknowledge the true degree of medical risk of STDs, as well as the demonstrable psychological harm (or lack thereof), is clear evidence of bias in prosecution and sentencing.

[victoria]

victoria: Is u serious? I would like to see a fair trial.. Cause i dont see how thats statutory rape when girls mature faster than boys anyway.

[bakugan toys]

This is a Zoobles gift pack that contains five exclusive Zoobles representing the vibrant colors of the rainbow. Far away on the mysterious Isle of Zooble reside hundreds of adorable, little creatures with a magnificent ability they can magically transform into tiny balls hiding from the unknown, rolling to fun destinations or to go to sleep. Watch out though you never know when these mischievous Zoobles are going to pop open and surprise you. In the back, you get 5 Zoobles, 2 Double Happitats, 1 Single Happitat, and a Vinyl bag to keep it all safe.