Question Mark

Kennon-Green & Co. Fiduciary Financial Advisor, Wealth Management, Global Value Investing

Eight years ago, a 14 year old boy in Arizona was statutorily raped by a 20 year old woman.  Under the guidelines of the state in which the rape occurred, no one under 15 years old, under any condition, can consent.

As a result of the rape, the rapist got pregnant.  She never informed the victim.  The boy grew into a man, graduated from high school, went to college, and became a medical assistant.

Two years ago, and eight years after the crime, the state sued the rape victim for “about $15,000 in back child support and medical bills going back to the child’s birth, plus 10 percent interest.”  In addition, the state, “seized money from his bank account and is now garnisheeing his wages at $380 a month.”

The rapist has not been arrested nor has she faced any sort of legal consequences for the crime.

If you want to read the long version, here is the story that hit the news today.

This has now happened in Kansas and California, as well.  The theory is that the needs of the child come first and it is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to provide for the offspring of someone who is capable of doing so.

Thoughts?  How should society handle a situation such as this?  If given total power over the civilization, how would you devise a system that would most rationally resolve the conflicting interests here as well as make sure justice was done?  If the situation were reversed, would we, as a society, tolerate requiring a woman to send money to her rapist?  Is it different?  Think it over then leave a comment.  I’m curious as to how some of you would rectify the damage.