outdated warrant

[DEPENDABLE]

What is the name of your state?California

Ok my friend was arrested and charged with statutory rape PENAL CODE
SECTION 261-269 code B which is....
(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years
older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is
guilty of a misdemeanor
But here is the catch we looked and searched the warrant database and there were no warrants found. The police said it was from the summer of 2003. Can they still follow through with it even though it was in 2003 and we're in 2005? I heard they only have 1 year to go through with the case is that true? Now he has to go to court and go through this horrendous ordeal from 2 years ago. Please help

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by DEPENDABLE

Ok my friend was arrested and charged with statutory rape PENAL CODE
SECTION 261-269 code B which is....
(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years
older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is
guilty of a misdemeanor

Actually, it is PC 261.5(b).

But here is the catch we looked and searched the warrant database and there were no warrants found.

I betcha YOUR warrant database is not the same as mine. If he was arrested and charged, then it has been served. Unless he fails to show at some future proceeding, there is no need for a warrant.

The police said it was from the summer of 2003. Can they still follow through with it even though it was in 2003 and we're in 2005? I heard they only have 1 year to go through with the case is that true? Now he has to go to court and go through this horrendous ordeal from 2 years ago. Please help

If he has been arrested and charged, then there is not a statute of limitations issue though their MIGHT be a speedy trial issue. However, I'm going to guess that he agreed to waive time at some point along the way. Or, that he had an attorney that did that on his behalf or kept continuing the matter.

The best thing you can do for your friend is help him locate a good attorney lest he become a registered sex offender.

- Carl

[DEPENDABLE]

What about the fact that it was 2 years old? Can they prosecute him on a charge that old i thought the DA had one year to follow through and if they didnt the case was dropped?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by DEPENDABLE

What about the fact that it was 2 years old? Can they prosecute him on a charge that old i thought the DA had one year to follow through and if they didnt the case was dropped?

The SOL applies to the time from the commission or discovery of a crime to the point where some action is taken (i.e. charges are filed in court). If the warrant was applied for within the SOL of the offense, then the SOL stops and is no longer applicable.

Depending on the ages and the EXACT CHARGES involved, the SOL could be as long as TEN years for 261.5 and related charges.

In general, a misdemeanor prosecution must be filed within one year of the offense. But various lewd and sexual acts with children have an effect on the SOL. If the case was filed under a relevant related section but subsequently dropped/changed to a lesser one, than it is still validly charged and the SOL does not apply.

The age of the warrant is irrelevent. The key issues are the specific charges alleged, when they were discovered, and when they were filed with the court. If his attorney is not dancing with joy screaming that the SOL has tolled, then he should prepare for a defense.

- Carl

[DEPENDABLE]

Let me jus say thank you for all of your help CdwJava I really appreciate it... but what does SOL mean?

He was 19 and she was 17 but she told him she was 18 when all this happened! But there is no way to prove it unless she admits it, but she also had intercourse with other friends of ours and she told them she was 18 as well. He hasnt even talked to the girl since around that time what do you suggest i told him to try to get her to say she told him she was 18 at the time via online and that way it can be used against her is that legal.

Thank you again,
Dependable

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by DEPENDABLE

Let me jus say thank you for all of your help CdwJava I really appreciate it... but what does SOL mean?

Sorry - it means Statute of Limitations.

He was 19 and she was 17 but she told him she was 18 when all this happened!

What she TOLD him is not relevant. What would matter is how old she REALLY was.

But there is no way to prove it unless she admits it, but she also had intercourse with other friends of ours and she told them she was 18 as well.

We had names for girls like that when I was that age.

He hasnt even talked to the girl since around that time what do you suggest i told him to try to get her to say she told him she was 18 at the time via online and that way it can be used against her is that legal.

Even if she admits to telling him she was 18, that would not absolve him of the crime. If it were that easy, then we could get rid of the statute as everyone would use that claim. Hence, that defense has been effectively eliminated.

If it goes to a jury trial, it MIGHT get some sympathy ... particularly if she admits to it and if she looks older in any photos of her at that time.

I'm surprised that they are actually prosecuting the case. It may be that they have to do something with the case because of the warrant. It may ultimately come down to a matter of the prosecution asking for a plea agreement.

He really needs to talk to an attorney.

- Carl

[CaRenter]

What is this "warrant database?" Is it online? What is the web address? I was just curious! Thank You!

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by CaRenter

What is this "warrant database?" Is it online? What is the web address? I was just curious! Thank You!

It's on line ... sort of, but it requires a direct connection to the CA Department of Justice.

We call it CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) and it connects to the national system called NCIC.

It's for law enforcement only.

- Carl

[aquaticmami]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

What she TOLD him is not relevant. What would matter is how old she REALLY was.



We had names for girls like that when I was that age.
- Carl

Most adults have names for girls like that too. "MISDIRECTED CHILDREN" And most adults would not relate to the names that juveniles attach to young girls who obviously need counseling for self esteem.

I can't falt the boys, even the 19 year old for acting like his age, but please, if you are a police officer, could you please act yours?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by aquaticmami

Most adults have names for girls like that too. "MISDIRECTED CHILDREN" And most adults would not relate to the names that juveniles attach to young girls who obviously need counseling for self esteem.

Okay - she needs counseling. That certainly doesn't mean that there are not derogatory terms for girls that behave in such a way. The fact that you don't like the fact that labels can be applied to some people doesn't mean that they aren't. Sorry you took offense to the comment.

I can't falt the boys, even the 19 year old for acting like his age, but please, if you are a police officer, could you please act yours?

Well, I CAN fault the boys for acting on their hormones rather than their brains. God gave us a brain to counteract the natural urges of hormones and biology ... and the essence of what is right and what is wrong.

I DO fault the adult boys (and incidentally, so does the law in California). If they say they didn't know or didn't suspect, they were almost certainly lying. I KNOW! ... I WAS a boy of that age once. The only difference was I had something that seems to be lacking from far too many youth today - morality, and a sense of self respect.

I am acting my age. I don't know what you think I did, but I think you are a little too sensitive to a comment I didn't even make.

- Carl

[aquaticmami]

Okay - she needs counseling. That certainly doesn't mean that there are not derogatory terms for girls that behave in such a way. The fact that you don't like the fact that labels can be applied to some people doesn't mean that they aren't. Sorry you took offense to the comment.


Yes, there are derogatory terms for police officers too, but does that mean we need to remind everyone there is wholesale ignorance out there? I didn't take offense to the comment, I was amazed that a grown man would inflict this into a discussion about statuatory rape of a child. Especially a police officer. It was simply an observation.

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Well, I CAN fault the boys for acting on their hormones rather than their brains. God gave us a brain to counteract the natural urges of hormones and biology ... and the essence of what is right and what is wrong.

I DO fault the adult boys (and incidentally, so does the law in California). If they say they didn't know or didn't suspect, they were almost certainly lying. I KNOW! ... I WAS a boy of that age once. The only difference was I had something that seems to be lacking from far too many youth today - morality, and a sense of self respect.- Carl

Given Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development and the fifth psychosocial crisis (adolescence, from about 13 or 14 to about 20) I would say it's wise not to fault the boy for not using his brains, since they really may not be fully developed yet. I'm not condoning his behavior towards the girl. I'm simply stating his emotional and cognitive development may not have been the same as yours. Whether or not California determines it was is what may or may not have him serving time.

But you have indeed reached the state of cognitive development that one would expect a more significant answer than bringing up the fact that society has labels for misguided girls or boys. Generally, when we reach adulthood, we don't value those labels, nor would most adults answer the way you did. I found that fascinating. Just an observation though as a scientist. Because the morality you make reference to is questionable when you remind us that girls lacking self esteem have labels attached to them. And that observation would fall under the last stage of development. The eighth stage - Integrity Versus Despair (Wisdom)

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by aquaticmami

Yes, there are derogatory terms for police officers too, but does that mean we need to remind everyone there is wholesale ignorance out there? I didn't take offense to the comment, I was amazed that a grown man would inflict this into a discussion about statuatory rape of a child. Especially a police officer. It was simply an observation.

Okay, it was an observation. And since I don't intend to walk on eggshells, I will speak my mind on the matter.

The truth is that there were and are terms for girls of any age that possess such loose moral standards. I do not use them, but my pointing this out in an off-handed (and likely quickly forgotten prior to this sub thread) manner is hardly an issue of great concern to the topic at hand.

Given Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development and the fifth psychosocial crisis (adolescence, from about 13 or 14 to about 20) I would say it's wise not to fault the boy for not using his brains, since they really may not be fully developed yet.

Well, we could get into discussions on Piaget, Freud, Erikson, Vygotsky and others, but let's keep this out of the lecture hall and into the realm of the understandable and real-world application.

And while I fully understand WHY the boys would make a decision to sink their wicks into the first willing target, they DO have the ability to resist and to make knowing and correct choices regarding this act. If they could not, then we would have nothing but rutting teens in the streets.

I Do fault the boys. As well as the girl. Unfortunately for them, in CA the adult male will be the one held accountable regardless of any lie the girl might have told.

I'm not condoning his behavior towards the girl. I'm simply stating his emotional and cognitive development may not have been the same as yours.

Maybe not. But even my 11-year-old knows the difference between right and wrong.

Whether or not California determines it was is what may or may not have him serving time.

And in CA it is a crime for an adult 19 year old to have sexual relations with a minor of age 17. It is a misdemeanor.

But you have indeed reached the state of cognitive development that one would expect a more significant answer than bringing up the fact that society has labels for misguided girls or boys. Generally, when we reach adulthood, we don't value those labels, nor would most adults answer the way you did. I found that fascinating.

I am glad that you found it fascinating. And I find it fascinating that out of all the things on this forum, you find my innocuous comment worthy of such attention. I don't know whether to be flattered or perplexed.

Of course, please note that I pointed out only that said label existed. It was you that made the issue of my off-hand comment that such a label existed into a topic almost worthy of its own thread. And labeling is convenient even if inaccurate and often inappropriate. Like it or not, it is used by each of us every day in one form or another whether we want to admit it or not. We ascribe certain characteristics to people in varying roles or appearance based upon our experiences. It happens all the time.

As a note, I would never refer to a woman or a girl using the derogatory terms that do exist for them ... even when they are deserving of the term.

Just an observation though as a scientist.

Okay ... the point being??

And if I make an "observation" does that make it any less insightful than yours because I am NOT a scientist?

Because the morality you make reference to is questionable when you remind us that girls lacking self esteem have labels attached to them. And that observation would fall under the last stage of development. The eighth stage - Integrity Versus Despair (Wisdom)

And, if you may recall, there are tendencies for elements of each stage to be present within the others. And, of course, there is the possibility of your misinterpreting the data at hand.

And your references to the theories of Piaget and then Erikson is interesting, but really of little value to the status of the law in question - that being PC 261.5 (unlawful sexual intercourse).

- Carl

Now you are going after Carl? Carl is one of the consistently kindest posters on this site. If his posts don't meet with your standards then perhaps you need to grow up a little bit yourself. There is nothing offensive in his post unless you are trying to be offended.

[aquaticmami]

Obnoxious, you are a riot. Please. Keep entertaining us. Are you Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dee?

His post espoused the view that calling children vulgar and derogatory names is acceptable when they are deserving of the term. Perhaps it is to you. I woudn't find that entirely surprising given the nature of your other posts. But to the average adult, it's a little ill-minded.

Anyone as confused as to say this, As a note, I would never refer to a woman or a girl using the derogatory terms that do exist for them ... even when they are deserving of the term. probably wouldn't understand that children never deserve this behavior. Much less would they understand how their attitude contributes to things like rape, be it statuatory or not, by endorsing the sexist behavior that gives birth to it.

But okay, so you don't believe me. Here's something to back up what I'm saying. Hope it's not too much for you.

[url]http://personal.law.miami.edu/~iglesias/rapediscourse.html[/url]

Originally Posted by aquaticmami

Obnoxious, you are a riot. Please. Keep entertaining us. Are you Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dee?

His post espoused the view that calling children vulgar and derogatory names is acceptable when they are deserving of the term. Perhaps it is to you. I woudn't find that entirely surprising given the nature of your other posts. But to the average adult, it's a little ill-minded.

Anyone as confused as to say this, As a note, I would never refer to a woman or a girl using the derogatory terms that do exist for them ... even when they are deserving of the term. probably wouldn't understand that children never deserve this behavior. Much less would they understand how their attitude contributes to things like rape, be it statuatory or not, by endorsing the sexist behavior that gives birth to it.

But okay, so you don't believe me. Here's something to back up what I'm saying. Hope it's not too much for you.

[url]http://personal.law.miami.edu/~iglesias/rapediscourse.html[/url]

You have a case of "Waaaaah! I gotta be a victim" syndrome