• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • My Social Media
  • About
    • About Mark Draughn
    • Testimonials
    • Other Authors
      • About Gary Olson
      • About Ken Gibson
      • About Joel Rosenberg
    • Disclosures
    • Terms and Conditions

Windypundit

Classical liberalism, criminal laws, the war on drugs, economics, free speech, technology, photography, sex work, cats, and whatever else comes to mind.

A Challenge For My Crimlaw Readers

September 11, 2008 By Mark Draughn 7 Comments

If you’re a criminal defense lawyer or a prosecutor who likes to interpret other state’s statutes or even just an ordinary person like me who’s fascinated by legal stuff, I have a small challenge for you.

When I was writing the post below on some strange questions of law and morality, I read at Classically Liberal that it’s illegal in Illinois for an 18-year old boy to have sex with a 17-year old girl. That sounded wrong to me, so I checked what Wikipedia and ageofconsent.com have to say, and they both agree that a 17-year old girl can consent to sex.

I was planning to include this correction in my post, but I wanted to link to a more authoritative source, so I went to the online version of the Illinois’s laws. That’s where I hit a snag: It appears that the Illinois Criminal Code has been written by monkeys.

I don’t know what other states are like, but the people who say that ignorance of the law is no excuse have never trield to read the Illinois Compiled Statutes. I mean, really, we’re supposed to understand this stuff so we can obey it, right?

So here’s my challenge: Imagine you’re a young man somewhere between the ages of 15 and 20 living here in Illinois. You have a girlfriend somewhere between the ages of 13 and 18. You both want to have sex, but since you plan to run for office some day, you want to make sure it’s legal.

For what combinations of the age ranges I listed would it be legal to have sex in Illinois? Are there any complications or variations—family, position of authority, etc—that our young lovers should know about?

To get you started, my guess it that you want to look in chapter 720, specifically in the Criminal Code of 1961 in 720 ILCS 5. I believe the answer is in Article 11 (Sex Offenses) or Article 12 (Bodily Harm).

You won’t be graded because I have no idea what the correct answer is. If you try this and come up with one, tell me how long it took you.

(If you’re an actual Illinois criminal defense lawyer with actual knowlege of the right answer, hold off a day or two before posting it in case anyone else actually picks up the challenge.)

Share This Post

Filed Under: Legal

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Gideon says

    September 11, 2008 at 8:48 pm

    17 and over you’re okay to have sex. 17 and under – nope. Can’t find a Romeo and Juliet exception.

    Also, fornication seems to still be an offense. So…all you Illinoisan (?) unmarried people having sex – you’re all criminals.

    Reply
  2. Gideon says

    September 11, 2008 at 8:51 pm

    Also, no sex with brother, sister, parent, step-parent.

    However, apparently, it is open season on step-siblings.

    Reply
  3. Mark Draughn says

    September 11, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    Wow, Gideon, thanks for taking the time. Those sections of the code just seemed absurdly complicated for what should be a simple matter. Is it always like that?

    Also, the fornication statute says something about “open and nororious” doesn’t it. That sounds like you can do it but you just can’t live together or brag about it…

    Reply
  4. Gideon says

    September 11, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    Open AND notorious. So you can be open or notorious, but not both.

    I’m not looking for the definition of either, but they should be in there somewhere.

    Reply
  5. Mark Draughn says

    September 12, 2008 at 1:25 am

    Hah. Thanks you for reading. If you ever need help understanding some computer-related jibberish, feel free to ask me.

    Reply
  6. Analysis says

    September 13, 2008 at 10:47 am

    17-and-older can have sex with those 17-and-older, unless they hold a position of trust, authority or supervision with those under 18. So, for example: two 17 year-olds can have sex, unless one is tutor, team captain, mentor, driving a car, or numerous other hypotheticals.

    Another problem is where they live in the same household (which is one of the definitions of family member). Consequently, half / step siblings: no. Also, 17-year-old elopers would face prosecution for living in the same household and therefore being “family members.” There appears to be a time component to this (1 year residence) -so if they only temporarily eloped together they might be able to avoid prosecution. Those who are in a committed relationship living together after eloping, would face prosecution (two teenagers who got pregnant and decided to raise the baby together). Also another thing to consider: pregnancy is considered “bodily harm” in Illinois for purposes of increasing penalties.

    What it boils down to in Illinois is that the law is drafted so that there is room to prosecute those 17-and-under at the whim of the prosecutor or the request of an angry parent. The real age of consent in Illinois, therefore is 18.

    Reply
  7. Mark Draughn says

    September 13, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    Thanks for the detailed explanation. I’m glad somebody can read these things. It sounds, however, like you know more about this law than just what’s written in the Code. You a defense lawyer? PD?

    Reply

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search

Recent Posts

  • Yes, It’s a Bribe
  • Talking to my fellow libertarians about DOGE
  • Late night thoughts on the current crisis
  • Joining The Cult
  • Trump’s dumb attempt to define sex
  • Some advice for my transgender readers in the new year
  • Decoding Economics: Happiness and Taste
  • Decoding Economics: The Real Economy

Where else to find me

  • Twitter
  • Post
  • Mastodon

Follow

  • X
  • Mastodon

Bloggy Goodness

  • Agitator
  • DrugWar Rant
  • Duly Noted
  • Dynamist
  • Hit & Run
  • Honest Courtesan
  • Nobody's Business
  • Popehat
  • Ravings of a Feral Genius

Blawgs

  • a Public Defender
  • appellatesquawk
  • Blonde Justice
  • Chasing Truth. Catching Hell.
  • Crime & Federalism
  • Crime and Consequences Blog
  • Criminal Defense
  • CrimLaw
  • D.A. Confidential
  • Defending Dandelions
  • Defending People
  • DUI Blog
  • ECIL Crime
  • Gamso For the Defense
  • Graham Lawyer Blog
  • Hercules and the Umpire
  • Indefensible
  • Koehler Law Blog
  • Legal Satyricon
  • New York Personal Injury Law Blog
  • Norm Pattis
  • not for the monosyllabic
  • Not Guilty
  • Probable Cause
  • Seeking Justice
  • Simple Justice
  • Tempe Criminal Defense
  • The Clements Firm
  • The Trial Warrior Blog
  • The Volokh Conspiracy
  • Underdog Blog
  • Unwashed Advocate
  • West Virginia Criminal Law Blog

Bloggers

  • Booker Rising
  • Eric Zorn
  • ExCop-LawStudent
  • InstaPundit
  • Last One Speaks
  • Leslie's Omnibus
  • Marathon Pundit
  • Miss Manners
  • Preaching to the Choir
  • Roger Ebert's Journal
  • Speakeasy Blog
  • SWOP Chicago

Geek Stuff

  • Charlie's Diary
  • Google Blogoscoped
  • Schneier on Security
  • The Altruist
  • The Ancient Gaming Noob
  • The Daily WTF
  • xkcd

Resources

  • CIA World Factbook
  • Current Impact Risks
  • EFF: Bloggers
  • Institute for Justice
  • Jennifer Abel
  • StrategyPage
  • W3 EDGE, Optimization Products for WordPress
  • W3 EDGE, Optimization Products for WordPress
  • W3 EDGE, Optimization Products for WordPress
  • Wikipedia
  • WolframAlpha

Gone But Not Forgotten

  • Peter McWilliams

Copyright © 2025 Mark Draughn · Magazine Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress

Go to mobile version