You still don't get it. It's willful ignorance. You are so attached to your moral outrage that the intellectual disease of cognitive dissonance won't allow you to acknowledge that there is nothing to be outraged about. It is true that Article III, Section 5 requires "influence, " but influence is presumed. No law defines the age of consent to have sex with an adult as 12 years old. You made that up. The fact that one statue defines sex with an 8 year old as "rape" and another statute defines sex with a 17 year old as "sexual abuse" does not mean sexual abuse is legal or that children can agree to be abused.
It is illegal for anyone to have sex with a child 11 years or younger. It is illegal for adults to have sex with children. If the child is 11 or younger, the prosecution will proceed under one statute, Article 266 A. If the child is 12-17, the prosecution will proceed under another statute, Article III, Section 5. In both cases, it's illegal.
You cited a case that proves this. Caballo had sex with a willing partner 17 years old. If his partner consented, and consensual sex is legal, why the fuck did he lose at the RTC, the Court of Appeals, AND the Supreme Court and go to prison?
The Supreme Court says in the plainest language, which you pathologically refuse to acknowledge, that the 17 year old child "cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person."
To reiterate for dimwits, the court goes on to say, "Consent is immaterial. The mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child (17 years old) constitutes the offense. It is a malum prohibitum, an evil that is proscribed."
The last sentence means "influence" is presumptive, and the story you made up about money and drugs is bullshit.
The court went to great lengths to make this point clear to hysterical wingnuts: "A (17 year old) child should not be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity.
Again, influence is presumed.
The court said it AGAIN: "In other words, a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse."
You are ridiculous to keep blathering on about Caballo going to prison for something that's legal. The fact that he went to prison proves it is a crime.