Look, it's pretty straightforward. They said Tracy was sober. So, age concerns aside, she would theoretically be abe to give consent. But Michelle was drunk, to the point that even the article, which is an editorial in long form to free Genarlow Wilson, admits that the girl awoke terrified, unaware and immediately started claiming she hadn't consented. That's rape, regardless of how old she or her partners are.
Now, I personally would argue that the delta in age should be taken into account, but the law itself doesn't recognize it, and from the sounds of it, deliberately so. So in the eyes of the law (Georgia law, that is), being less than 16 precludes Tracy from giving informed consent either.
I think the following makes sense:
-Female less than 12: Is automatically sexual assault.
-Female between 12 and 18: If male is within 3 years, not assualt, otherwise, it is.
-Female >18: Can give informed consent, regardless of age.
However, informed consent in either the middle or the last statement assumes the person is in control of their faculties. Inebriation, duress, limited mental faculty for other reasons... all of these remove the consent question and move the act into the realm of sexual assault. Coma patients don't say no either, but do we want to give people the right to have sex with them?
As for the question of being a registered child molester or what have you, first of all, I think you should be registered for life for any sexual offense. But if we're going to limit it to attacks on minors, both the first and the second should apply. A 17 year old boy having sex with a 12 year old girl SHOULD be treated like a child molester.... There's a world of difference between the 2.
Bookmarks