Is it illegal for a 16 year old male and a 17 year female to engage in sexual activity?
Full Question:
Is it illegal for a 16 year old male and a 17 year female to engage in sexual activity?
10/18/2007 |
Category: Minors |
State: Oregon |
#10485
Answer:
The applicable Oregon statutes are as follows:
163.315 Incapacity to consent; effect of lack of resistance.
(1) A person is considered incapable of consenting to a sexual act if
the person is:
(a) Under 18 years of age;
(b) Mentally defective;
(c) Mentally incapacitated; or
(d) Physically helpless.
(2) A lack of verbal or physical resistance does not, by itself,
constitute consent but may be considered by the trier of fact along with
all other relevant evidence.
163.325 Ignorance or mistake as a defense.
(1) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355 to 163.445 in which the
criminality of conduct depends on a child's being under the age of 16, it
is no defense that the defendant did not know the child's age or that the
defendant reasonably believed the child to be older than the age of 16.
(2) When criminality depends on the child's being under a specified age
other than 16, it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove
that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be above the
specified age at the time of the alleged offense.
(3) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355 to 163.445 in which the
victim's lack of consent is based solely upon the incapacity of the
victim to consent because the victim is mentally defective, mentally
incapacitated or physically helpless, it is an affirmative defense for
the defendant to prove that at the time of the alleged offense the
defendant did not know of the facts or conditions responsible for the
victim's incapacity to consent.
163.345 Age as a defense in certain cases.
(1) In any prosecution under ORS 163.355, 163.365, 163.385, 163.395,
163.415, 163.425, 163.427 or 163.435 in which the victim's lack of
consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less
than a specified age, it is a defense that the actor was less than three
years older than the victim at the time of the alleged offense.
(2) In any prosecution under ORS 163.408, when the object used to
commit the unlawful sexual penetration was the hand or any part thereof
of the actor and in which the victim's lack of consent was due solely to
incapacity to consent by reason of being less than a specified age, it is
a defense that the actor was less than three years older than the victim
at the time of the alleged offense.
(3) In any prosecution under ORS 163.445 in which the victim's lack of
consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less
than a specified age, it is a defense that the actor was less than three
years older than the victim at the time of the alleged offense if the
victim was at least 15 years of age at the time of the alleged offense.