The infamous attorney defended an op-ed from the 90s where he also argued for the abolition of statutory rape
Infamous Jeffrey Epstein lawyer and regular Fox News guest Alan Dershowitz defended a controversial op-ed from the 1990, in which he called for the lowering of the age of consent to 16, and said that “statutory rape is an outdated concept” while arguing that there should be “Romeo and Juliet exceptions” to the current legal understanding of rape laws.
As recent documents were unsealed, revelations that Dershowitz was accused of having sex with an underage girl facilitated by Epstein amid the recent Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandals following Epstein’s former girlfriend and confidant, Ghislaine Maxwell, arrest by the FBI. One prominent accuser, Virginia Giuffre, claims that he was coaxed into having sex with the prominent lawyer at Epstein’s behest.
In the column, originally written for the LA Times in 1997, unearthed in a “hit piece” by the New Yorker, Dershowitz points out how “if a 16-year-old can choose abortion, she should be able to choose to have sex.”
He then broaches the prevalence of sexual encounters in girls before their 15th birthday, before arguing for a Constitutional case to lower the age of consent.
“It is obvious that there must be criminal sanctions against sex with very young children, but it is doubtful whether such sanctions should apply to teenagers above the age of puberty, since voluntary sex is so common in their age group,” Dershowitz writes.
Dershowitz then entertains lowering the age of consent to 14 years old, before offering a compromise of 15 with a staggered punishment increasing in severity with each subsequent year away from the revised age of consent.
Last year, when Epstein controversy was reaching fever pitch, Dershowitz came out in defense of his then 22-year-old op-ed.
“I stand by the constitutional (not moral) argument I offered in my controversial oped,” he tweeted. “[If] a 16 year old has the constitutional right to have an abortion without state or parental interference, how could she not have the constitutional right to engage in consensual sex?”