Sennadar Forums

The California Penal Code currently defines unlawful sexual intercourse as sexual contact with anyone under 18. The penalties become more severe as the age gap widens.

Some news sources have reported that at the time of Polanski's crime, the age of consent was either 14 or 16. This is incorrect. California's first penal code in 1850 proscribed sex with girls under the age of 10. The age of consent was raised to 14 in 1889, to 16 in 1897, and finally to 18 in 1913, where it has remained since that time.

Polanski molested his victim more than 30 years ago. Hasn't the statute of limitations run on his crime?
No. The statute of limitations for a crime requires the state to make a formal charge against the defendant within a certain timeframe. Polanski was charged within a few weeks of the crime and pleaded guilty. At this point, he is a fugitive from justice who is awaiting sentencing. Once you're a fugitive, the statute of limitations clock stops ticking.

boballab wrote:GBLW the controversy at the time was the dropping of the more serious charge of Rape by drugging to Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. ...

Do WE PROSECUTE EVERY CASE?
No. We are evaluating each case independently to determine if
criminal charges are appropriate.

In re T.A.J. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1350 [73 Cal.Rptr.331]. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2.
From: (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/ch ... ncy-13.htm)

A juvenile court petition was filed alleging that a 16-year-old boy had sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old female. The
petition alleged the child engaged in statutory and forcible rape. At the jurisdictional hearing the only issue was
whether the sexual encounter was consensual. The juvenile court found that the act was consensual and that the
statutory rape charge was true, but made no finding with regard to the forcible rape count. The child appealed,
contending that Penal Code section 261.5 was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him. Specifically, he
contended that the statute (1) violated his right to privacy under the California Constitution and (2) may not be
constitutionally applied to him since he was a member of the class the statute was designed to protect. The Court of
Appeal rejected both contentions. First, the court held that American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16
Cal.4th 307, did not confer upon children the right to engage in consensual sexual intercourse. "While we do not ignore
the reality that many California teenagers are sexually active, that fact alone does not establish that minors have a
right to privacy to engage in sexual intercourse. We accept the premise that due to age and immaturity, minors often
lack the ability to make fully informed choices that take account of both immediate and long-range consequences."
The court further found that the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists for a child deciding whether to have an
abortion (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p.373), "cannot be imputed to their
decision to engage in consensual sexual intercourse." On the child's second contention, the court noted that the
legislative intent behind the statutory rape law was to make illegal sexual intercourse both between children and adults
and between children. Although children cannot be prosecuted for felony statutory rape (unlawful intercourse between
an adult and a child) because the child is the victim in such a crime, there is no parallel with regard to misdemeanor
statutory rape, which by its terms involves sexual intercourse between two children.

boballab wrote:GBLW the controversy at the time was the dropping of the more serious charge of Rape by drugging to Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. According to what is in Slate since 1913 the age of consent in the state of California has been 18. I believe the changes you cite in at least 2001 deal with the adding of the 3 years older and younger statues to make the law more lenient in cases of a 18 year old having relations with a 16 or 17 year old.

The California Penal Code currently defines unlawful sexual intercourse as sexual contact with anyone under 18. The penalties become more severe as the age gap widens.

Some news sources have reported that at the time of Polanski's crime, the age of consent was either 14 or 16. This is incorrect. California's first penal code in 1850 proscribed sex with girls under the age of 10. The age of consent was raised to 14 in 1889, to 16 in 1897, and finally to 18 in 1913, where it has remained since that time.

As to the Question about statue of limitations the answer is:

Polanski molested his victim more than 30 years ago. Hasn't the statute of limitations run on his crime?
No. The statute of limitations for a crime requires the state to make a formal charge against the defendant within a certain timeframe. Polanski was charged within a few weeks of the crime and pleaded guilty. At this point, he is a fugitive from justice who is awaiting sentencing. Once you're a fugitive, the statute of limitations clock stops ticking.

Explainer thanks Gerald F. Uelmen of Santa Clara Law and Charles D. Weisselberg of Berkeley Law.
http://www.slate.com/id/2229853/

And Phantom as you can see the age of consent hasn't changed in California since 1913 I don't think your age 14 marriage example holds up. It doesn't look like the morals changed all that much, even after the age of free love.

GBLW wrote:Personally, I'm going to say that I hate child abusers of any kind, but in this case there are too many things which were 'shady' to say the least. I do recall thinking at the time that the DA and the Judge must have worked hand in hand, along with the victim, to set the guy up so he had no chance of defending himself.