Below is today’s column in USA Today (which will run in paper form next week). It appears that the police will look into the possibility of statutory rape and someone should be brushing up on defamation law as well.
The news this week that a 20-year-old woman had accused teen idol Justin Bieber of fathering her child sent tabloid reporters into collective hyperventilation.
For lawyers, however, the most interesting aspect of this claim was that it could only be made by Mariah Yeater confessing to statutory rape. The problem is that Bieber was just 16 years old in California where the age of consent is 18. Thus, Yeater would only prevail by establishing that he is a rape victim and she is a statutory rapist.
While Bieber denies any sexual encounter with Yeater (and indeed ever meeting her), Los Angeles Police Commander Andrew Smith has said that, given the publicity, “Of course we’ll look into it.” In the meantime, her attorney insists that they will go forward despite any statutory rape charge to secure paternity liability against Bieber. It is true that paternity laws focus on fatherhood rather than adulthood in determining such liability.
Certainly, if history is any measure, the threat of a statutory rape charge has not been a major deterrent in celebrity circles. The sad truth is that statutory rape is nothing new in Hollywood. Errol Flynn was well known for his preference for under-aged girls, which he referred to as his “San Quentin Quail.” He was prosecuted for statutory rape in 1943 but acquitted after jurors learned that one of the girls had had a prior abortion.
Likewise, Charlie Chaplin was also repeatedly accused of affairs with under-aged girls and actually married two 16-year-olds in successive marriages in 1918 and 1924.
It was a surprise to many, not the least of whom was Roman Polanski, when prosecutors charged the director in 1977 with statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl. After all, in Hollywood, Polanski was the ultimate alpha male in a city built to glorify and serve celebrities.
The Bieber case is a type of Roman Polanski case in the reverse. Here the celebrity is allegedly the victim and the groupie is the aggressor. Of course, the notion of a celebrity as a victim can seem counter-intuitive. After all, celebrities of any age are viewed as powerful — the top of our food chain in a star-obsessed society. Moreover, the mystique surrounding celebrities makes them seem ageless as if a Justin Bieber or a Macaulay Culkin are simply playing children. They are members of a monolithic genus of humans who transcend age or notions of propriety.
In the case of Bieber, his alleged adult paramour insists that he was a willing participant and that they were mutually attracted to each other when she asked to meet him after a concert on the night of October 25, 2010. That instant connection, according to Yeager, led to a 30-second tryst in a bathroom. What is most striking is that there is no indication that she views herself as pursuing a child for sex. Perhaps the thinking goes, he is not a child, but a celebrity. By extension, she is not a child rapist, but a type of sexual celebrity tourist.
The law, however, views it differently. There is a reason why the age of consent and the age of majority are set relatively high. At age 16, state law does not view a young person as having the maturity to make decisions of consent. This is the point of statutory rape. While consensual, one party does not have the capacity to consent. In California, someone more than three years older than a sexual partner who is under the age of consent can be charged with a felony. In this case, Yeater’s attorney insists that she was within three years of Bieber’s age — making her crime only a misdemeanor.
Historically, prosecutors seem reluctant to bring actions under the celebrity-as-victim theory. For example, in 2007, there was extensive media coverage of the pregnancy of then 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears, sister of Britney Spears and a television star in her own right. Few seemed to note that the father, Casey Aldridge, had fathered a child with a child.
The problem is that prosecutors are not so reluctant to prosecute other alleged statutory rape cases of non-celebrities. While some states have passed “Romeo and Juliet” laws that exclude teenage lovers, other states continue to prosecute minors who have sex with other minors. Often it is the boys who are prosecuted and given records as sex offenders.
For example, in 2005, Genarlow Wilson, 17, was tried for the rape of a 15-year-old girl in Georgia. While he was ultimately convicted of aggravated child molestation, he was given a 10-year sentence and served two years before a court struck down the sentence.
Regardless of whether Bieber is a deadbeat dad or a rape victim or neither, this controversy could have a positive impact if it leads to a reexamination of statutory rape laws for celebrities and non-celebrities alike.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
30 thoughts on “Celebrities and Statutory Rape: Is Justin Bieber A Victim of Statutory Rape or Defamation?”
Justin is a very fine
‘BOY’ and should be given full support by his fans and a second chance. He is young and bound to make some mistakes. His fans will be the losers. I wonder what she did to get him into this. It’s not something he would dream up on his own. Why destroy a promising career from which we all wil lose. He already has my forgiveness if this did happen
Justin was 16. a BOY! The years between 16 & 19 are very important growth and maturing years. If her allegations are true then she should be jailed and the child given to Justin. He had a very good upbring and the child would have a marvelous chance in life.
and i am with Anon
so not true im on justin bieber’s side my friend told me about this today and this is what she said “so the girl was bored and so she chose to frame Justin bieber by saying he raped her but she is lying”.
It turns out the woman was lying.
Will anyone charge her with fraud?
Actually, Chris, this case shows EXACTLY why statutory rape should be applied to male victims. In male cases as much as female, the minor is viewed as incapable of consent because he does not fully grasp the potential consequences of the act, such as children he will now be responsible for. Assuming Yeater’s accusation is true, she seduced someone who wasn’t yet able (under the law) to realize he might be facing a paternity suit down the road. He only saw the immediate reward, not the cost.
Of course, one could argue that by 16 any educated individual understands these consequences, but then one could also argue that men don’t think about consequences until well into college or later…
Statutory rape is sometimes a strict liability crime. I don’t know the exact statute in California, but regardless of whether or not the Biebs actually consented, as Mr. Turley states, the woman broke the law by having sex with an underage person. I think the law is kind of silly too, but our opinions are irrelevant.
What is really messed up, is the woman can go to jail for rape, since the sex is legally considered non-consensual, but Bierber will be forced to pay child support to his rapist. Absurd.
Most of these posters obviously were never 16 year old boys. A 16 year old hooking up with an older women has just gotten very lucky, not raped. The law as it stands is reflective of who wrote it – dowdy, sexually repressed single-partner pseudo-virgins.
Yes, under the law this may constitute statutory rape, but is this really the situtation that the law was intended to apply to, a 19yr old and a 16 yr old, having consensual sex? Did Ms. Yeater have any influence over Mr. Beiber becuase of her age? I do not think so and respectfully disagree with those that think the rape charge should be prosecuted.
Comments are closed.