The Volokh Conspiracy » Recent Michigan Prosecutions for “Seducing an Unmarried Woman”*

[ACW]

Via theagitator.

http://volokh.com/2010/06/08/recent-michigan-prosecutions-for-seducing-an-unmarried-woman/

Reader Jeff Semenak, who lives in Lansing, reports that the Lansing State Journal courthouse notes occasionally mention that someone has been convicted of “seducing an unmarried woman.” I checked and indeed found over 30 such notes from 2002 to 2008.

The statute, Michigan Penal Code § 750.532, provides,

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,

[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.”

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.

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.

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. Otherwise, why not just make all sex — or for that matter all breathing — a crime? That will make it even easier for prosecutors to reach a “reasonable resolution” plea bargain whenever they think a defendant is guilty of a crime (a sex crime or otherwise) but doubt that they’ll be able to prove it.

What a terrible law. Not to mention nonsensical. If it's rape, there's no seduction. If it's seduction (of an UNMARRIED woman, so no adultery), it's consensual and thus not rape.

[Madison Redskin]

Meh, this kind of stuff happens all of the time. The prosecutors think that a defendant committed a serious crime, but aren't confident that they will be able to prove as much beyond a reasonable doubt. So, what do they do? They negotiate a plea bargain which entails the defendant entering a guilty plea to a lesser offense. In the prosecutor's mind, it's better to get him for something than to risk letting the defendant walk away with no punishment at all.

[Chachie]

Meh, this kind of stuff happens all of the time. The prosecutors think that a defendant committed a serious crime, but aren't confident that they will be able to prove as much beyond a reasonable doubt. So, what do they do? They negotiate a plea bargain which entails the defendant entering a guilty plea to a lesser offense. In the prosecutor's mind, it's better to get him for something than to risk letting the defendant walk away with no punishment at all.

Yes but why make a law prohibiting consensual sex between two single people? I think that's the point here, that the charge even exists to be used against a defendant.

[ACW]

Yes but why make a law prohibiting consensual sex between two single people? I think that's the point here, that the charge even exists to be used against a defendant.

Exactly. Hell, I don't even think adultery should be ILLEGAL, much less between two SINGLE ADULTS.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It's a silly law, but as long as the charge is never brought before a jury to decide, it's not really relevant. It basically exists as an option in plea deals.

[Madison Redskin]

Yes but why make a law prohibiting consensual sex between two single people? I think that's the point here, that the charge even exists to be used against a defendant.

My guess is that it was adopted back when people thought single women should be "virtuous" and not defiled by immoral men. It just seems so funny now because our society has changed.

[Larry]

It's a silly law' date=' but as long as the charge is never brought before a jury to decide, it's not really relevant. It basically exists as an option in plea deals.[/quote']

So, you'd support a statute that criminalized "Breathing"? As long as it's only used so that prosecutors can get people to plead guilty to it?

[twa]

My guess is that it was adopted back when people thought single women should be "virtuous" and not defiled by immoral men. It just seems so funny now because our society has changed.

What's up with all ya'll Yankees moralizing?

Woman caught having sex in park, charged with adultery - in New York

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/08/2010-06-08_upstate_woman_charged_with_adultery_after_lewd_act_in_a_public_park.html

[Larry]

I could get behind society punishing people for adultery.

(At least, the cheating married people. The people who the cheating married people are cheating with, to me, may be lesser criminals. And even then, only if they knew their partner was married.)

Although I could also see the argument that prosecuting The Cheater isn't going to make The Cheater's Marriage get any better.

[twa]

I could get behind society punishing people for adultery.

(At least, the cheating married people. The people who the cheating married people are cheating with, to me, may be lesser criminals. And even then, only if they knew their partner was married.)

Although I could also see the argument that prosecuting The Cheater isn't going to make The Cheater's Marriage get any better.

Don't sound like the marriage is gonna get better

According to court papers obtained by WHAM 13, Corona told police at the time of her arrest, "I know what I did was inappropriate and I apologize, but you'd understand if you knew what my life was like."

She told officers her husband is "transgender," and that the two "never had sex."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/08/2010-06-08_upstate_woman_charged_with_adultery_after_lewd_act_in_a_public_park.html#ixzz0qOuFI49A

[Larry]

Don't sound like the marriage is gonna get better

According to court papers obtained by WHAM 13,

[Darth Tater]

My guess is that it was adopted back when people thought single women should be "virtuous" and not defiled by immoral men. It just seems so funny now because our society has changed.

Your guess is wrong, this law is relatively young and has nothing to do with any moral concept. Such laws exist to allow prosecutors to get plea deals and stay out of court, to create a situation where felony prosecution can be threatened to get one guy to roll on another or increase the criminal element to where almost anyone is a criminal.

[Hubbs]

Your guess is wrong, this law is relatively young and has nothing to do with any moral concept. Such laws exist to allow prosecutors to get plea deals and stay out of court, to create a situation where felony prosecution can be threatened to get one guy to roll on another or increase the criminal element to where almost anyone is a criminal.

Well, when you put it like that....

[AzSkinsFan63]

I personally love the correlation between sex and breathing in the article..

This doesn't mean that I agree with the law...It's just an observation of the article.

[Madison Redskin]

Your guess is wrong, this law is relatively young and has nothing to do with any moral concept. Such laws exist to allow prosecutors to get plea deals and stay out of court, to create a situation where felony prosecution can be threatened to get one guy to roll on another or increase the criminal element to where almost anyone is a criminal.

Uh, when the law was passed, you couldn't drink alcohol...at least legally.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(trc34uezwffu3d3wfwfpkc55))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-532

[Larry]

Your guess is wrong, this law is relatively young and has nothing to do with any moral concept. Such laws exist to allow prosecutors to get plea deals and stay out of court, to create a situation where felony prosecution can be threatened to get one guy to roll on another or increase the criminal element to where almost anyone is a criminal.

Ignoring the fact that your first sentence appears to have been shown to be wrong . . .

Recall reading a book by Solzhenitsyn (The Gulag Archipelago?), in which he talked about the repression of the Soviet Government.

He explained that, contrary to popular opinion in the West, that no, the Soviet government isn't constantly looking for people who say bad things about the government. That speaking out against the government isn't a crime in the USSR.

Rather, he said, what they've done in the USSR was to create a system where everything is illegal.

And then, if you anger the government, they enforce the law.

One example he gave of this involved the chronic shortages of things in the USSR. He said that, because of price controls, the price of meat in the "workers" grocery stores might be only 5 cents a pound. But, the store only gets 10 pieces of meat, every two weeks.

There are severe penalties for the butcher in the grocery store to have deals worked out with others, whereby, when meat comes into the store, he'll set the meat aside, and call his network, and tip them off. If you do that, then you're causing Food Shortages.

But

everybody

in the USSR does this. If you don't, then your family will

never

get a single piece of meat.

Another example he gave was of some hypothetical person who published an anti-government newspaper.

He pointed out that, in the USSR, it's a crime for any person to fail to work as hard as he can at his job.

It's a serious crime. You can be put to death for it. Because, if you aren't working as hard as you can, then you aren't contributing your fair share to the team. You're taking the products of other people's labors, but not contributing your own. You're literally stealing from your teammates.

Therefore, if the government finds someone printing an anti-government newspaper, they won't haul him off and ask him "Did you say these mean, nasty, things about the government?"

They'll haul him off and ask him "How much time did you spend, writing this? Couldn't you have been working overtime at the tractor factory, those hours?"

I reflect on those words, when I see what appear, to me, to be attempts in this country to criminalize large numbers of people. That a law that is broken by huge numbers of people, is selective enforcement waiting to happen.

[mbws]

What's up with all ya'll Yankees moralizing?

Woman caught having sex in park, charged with adultery - in New York

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/08/2010-06-08_upstate_woman_charged_with_adultery_after_lewd_act_in_a_public_park.html

Just because Batavia is in the state of NY, doesn't make it less redneck than Podunk, AR.

It can get pretty backward when you get into upstate NY.

[twa]

Just because Batavia is in the state of NY, doesn't make it less redneck than Podunk, AR.

It can get pretty backward when you get into upstate NY.

I know I got in-laws there

added

I was pleasantly surprised