The statute, Michigan Penal Code § 750.532, provides,On a snarky note, I thought it was southern rednecks who were supposed to be the bluenoses, but I digress. Volokh points out how this law is currently used (roughly 20 convictions in the last 10 years), and the problem with this:
Any man who shall seduce and debauch any unmarried woman shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 5 years or by fine of not more than 2,500 dollars ....
One story on the subject, John Schneider, It’s a Crime, Lansing State Journal, Feb. 15, 2000, at 1B, reports that,Make enough behaviors into felonies, and you can take away people's rights. A convenient transfer of power to the government here: not only does this make their job easier, but it makes everyone defer to government officials; after all, who wants to call attention to yourself that could result in a felony prosecution for a trivial act, based on the prosecutor's discretion?
[A]ssistant Ingham County Prosecutor Sam Smith ... explained that in the case that appeared in the newspaper, simple seduction wasn’t the original charge. The man was charged with a more serious offense. The seduction plea became, as Smith put it, the “resolution” to the case. That’s most often how it’s employed, Smith said — as a “reasonable resolution.”But this still strikes me as wrong. Say someone refuses to accept such a “reasonable resolution” and pleads not guilty, perhaps because he claims the sex was consensual and that he shouldn’t have to go to jail for it. Nothing in the law keeps the prosecutor from charging the person both with the more serious offense (presumably rape) and with seduction, so that even if the jurors accept the man’s story, they’ll still convict him of seduction.
Smith stopped short of saying that consensual sex between consenting unmarried adults would never be prosecuted as a crime, but admitted it would be rare. Of course if one of the parties is married, the crime becomes adultery, but that’s rarely prosecuted, either, Smith said.
I don’t think we should put our trust in the noblesse oblige of prosecutors when it comes to sex crimes any more than when it comes to speech crimes. Seduction shouldn’t be criminal just so that prosecutors find it easier to reach plea bargains in rape cases.
It seems that in a less degraded age of the Republic, the response would have been tar and feathers.
I've been wondering lately where the line of "Cruel and Unusual" lies. Is public degradation too much? What about burning in effigy?
ReplyDeleteHas society advanced, or are we just wimps?
There are so many problems with this it's hard to know where to start. Doesn't that law say that it's legal to "seduce or debauch" a married woman? Since it doesn't say it's illegal, then it must be legal? It doesn't say the offender has to have sex with her to have committed a felony, just "seduce", which literally means to "lead away". So simply leading an unmarried woman somewhere could be a felony. I don't care what they meant, I care what it says.
ReplyDeleteThat's but one more problem with current laws.
I swear you could throw out 90% of the laws in this country and not reduce the quality of life one bit.
Putting someone in risk of his life for the rest of his life qualifies as cruel and unusual in my book, but, more importantly...
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but they must have forgot to put the "except" clause in my copy of the Second Amendment. Y'see... my copy says the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Nobody. Nowhere. Noway. Nohow. The no-guns-for-felons law is unconstitutional.
M
Then you get into the truly miniscule crap. For instance, in Florida, singing in a swimsuit is a misdemeanor.
ReplyDeleteNow, misdemeanor crimes aren't basis for permanent restrictions on rights, but it's still something nobody wants on their record.
It reminds me of the old Arlo Guthrie song, "Alice's Restaurant", where he's charged with "conspiracy with intent to loiter".
ReplyDelete