Your first sentence, Cerulean...
Jambalaya and Roselina fail to grasp that and keep wanting to differentiate between a 14 year old who "consents" and one who doesn't. There is NO differentiation. NONE. A child CANNOT consent. PERIOD.
Also, Jambalaya, I noticed in some of your recent posts that you have started to change 14 and 15 to 14.5 and 15.5. Again, there is NO differentiation there. A child is a child is a child, and Again- CANNOT give consent.
I'm also not trying to be mean. I'm just trying to be clear about this important issue to protecting children.
Now hold the horses for a moment. I am not failing to grasp anything here. I was asking a question from a legal point of view, which I am, as a trained (but not practicing) lawyer, but not US-based, interested in.
A 14 year old can have a sexual relationship. They do it all the time - or so I'm told. If this relationship is consensual or not might differ from case to case. When statutory rape law is applicable the question of consent is absolutely irrelevant and the act becomes a crime, the older one a perpetrator, the younger one a victim and the judge is obliged to pronounce a sentence. Now as for my question, which I might have not put clearly, since English is not my first language: Can the fact, that the victim states in court that she was in love and happy and did not consider the respective relationship as wrongful have an impact on the sentence? Here I am neither implying that she was happy, nor am I implying that she suffered from some sort of Stockholm syndrome. Non of us actually can. My question was: if the judge concludes (for whatever reason and not related to the case in question) that the victim did have a consensual relationship, does it have an impact on his or her sentence? Again: I am not saying that I consider this relationship as being consensual or not. It was an abstract question. Does the judge take (positive or negative) witness statements into consideration when he sets the punishment? Or does he have not discretion whatsoever since "consent-questions" are irrelevant. Having done my research in the meantime I got my answer.
As to Cerulean's statement, which you refer to: "What is concerning is that you are failing to appreciate that the victim could not give consent. Their attitude about it, especially as you think you understand it, is irrelevant. You are in no position to truly assess the damage that was done (or to play devils advocate, lack thereof)."
It is correct, that the victim could not give consent, since statutory rape law is applicable. But the question remains: does or can their attitude about it (as you put it) have an impact on the sentence itself or not?
We are ALL in no position to assess anything. Be it a possible damage that has been done, be it to assume that the victim suffers a Stockholm syndrome, be it that she was indeed happy. This was the duty of the experts the judge might had called to evaluate this question and at the end his responsibility when judging based upon what he concluded from the evidence presented.
I hope I made myself clear this time.