is there ANY reason to suspect that women would NEED to wait until 30 to vote while men could vote at 18? any evidence that 29 year old women as a group are incapable of making that decision? your hypothetical creates an UNDUE hardship for women. can you show the same for minors?
i am also wondering how long your scenarios would work when we start getting minors cross-examined as adults for being the victims of sexual offenses. whose interest does this serve? or Jimmy junior and his gun…how many trials like this do you think it would take to shut down your system?
btw- my son will be ready when he’s ready, whether that is next year, or 10 years from now…but until then, i am happy that we have recourse of law should someone take advantage of him.
do you know any children personally? this is a serious question.
i am also unsure as to your age. if you don’t mind, it might help me understand your position better. (for full disclosure, i am 25, and father of 3 boys, 2 stepsons and 1 of my own)
Let’s say Mr. Smith is being charged with a “inappropriate sex act” with 10 year old Jane. This act was caught by Jane’s parents as it was taking place in a neighbor’s basement. According to Jane, Mr. Smith was molesting/raping their daughter, and according to Jane, she was being molested/raped. Mr. Smith, on the other hand, contends that Jane consented to his affections and appeared to demonstrate a mature understanding of sex and all of its biological sequela. He also maintains that the only reason why Jane is crying rape is because she is ashamed of being caught with her pants down.
When Jane is tested for competency (as you have described), she fails. She is shown to be incompetent. The defendant is still allowed to show why he had good reason to believe the girl was competent enough to screw. “Look, your honor, she acts mature for her age and dammit, she looks it too. How do we know she didn’t purposely fail her competency exam?!?”
This is just one of the problems inherent to your competency test solution.
No, I meant passed. Let’s say Jane did indeed pass her competency exam being the bright, all-star little lass that she is. So now her case rests upon her words versus his. If physical evidence is absent, then she really has nothing but sworn testimony to go by. Since the test ruled her as competent, it stands that she will be treated as an adult in this court situation. No holds barred.
Imagine, if you will, the defense doing a cross-examination on this girl. What if she really was raped and was confused about the details, thereby hurting her case? The trauma from reliving the event, fear of reprisal from the defendant, shame, and guilt…these are emotions that grown women struggle to deal with. I don’t think a child juggling all those feelings on the witness stand would represent a fair match against a man desperate to prove his innocence. I really don’t think its fair for a child (certifiably “competent” or not) to prove that she didn’t ask for it simply because a pedophile says she did. But that’s what your idea will allow to happen.
But why? You’re making the number of rights one has accrued determine how adult they are. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
The rest of your responses won’t be rebutted by me because apparently you don’t believe adults should be held to different standards than children, and there’s probably nothing I can say that will change your mind.
No, just like there’s no evidence that 17 year olds as a group are incapable of making that decision. Maybe it’s based on historical precedent, or maybe just a few hundred legislators’ “observation” that 29 year old women aren’t seem mature enough to be voting.
But since the restriction is lifted with time, it shouldn’t matter to someone who supports age restrictions, right? They’ll still get to vote… eventually.
Ah. So, in other words, you don’t know how you’ll be able to tell, and you’re going to rely on a gut feeling? Or do you mean whenever he tells you he’s ready?
Yes. I used to be one myself, in fact. I knew a lot of children back then and I still know a few children today. Most of them I wouldn’t trust with firecrackers, but even those kids surprise me sometimes.
I’ll be 21 in a few months. Not much of a drinker, though, so I’m not as excited about it as you might think.
OK, that certainly is a part of my proposal. But how is it a problem?
“She acts mature for her age” is a meaningless statement unless ‘mature’ is objectively defined. “She looked older” is irrelevant when competence isn’t defined by age. The defendant must show that he had good reason to believe she knew what sex was, what it could lead to, and whether she wanted it.
If she can consent to sex, she can testify in court about that consent.
How would you decide whether an individual is capable of testifying?
Not by age, I would hope; a 17 year old isn’t likely to be any more capable of juggling those feelings than an 18 year old.
Ah, but the number of rights one is able to accrue is determined by how ‘mature’ they are with regard to those activities. Someone who is ‘immature’ across the board won’t have any ‘adult’ rights, and therefore won’t be handled by the adult justice system.
And how is he supposed to show this? “Your honor, she said she knows what sex is and what it can lead to, and she practically begged me for it!”
This is the second time I’ve observed you stating an argument with an age rather conveniently close to the legal age of adult-hood. If you’re trying to prove the workability of non-age based restrictions, it would behoove your case to use an age that doesn’t hover so closely to the legal cut-off age for minor status. That way, if you show it can work with a pre-schooler then it’ll be a foregone conclusion that it can work with a 17 year old. Right?
AFAIK, 17 year olds aren’t handled the same way that eight and nine year olds are in court. It’s easy for a precocious 17 year old to dupe a man into believing she’s an adult, but * a lot * harder for a 10 year old. But let’s go to a more extreme age: Do you think a six year old is a formidable opponent to an adult in court? Do you think a six year old who passes a competency exam (that tests a basic understanding of sexual anatomy and consequences… nothing “subjective”) should prove that they were not “asking for it” from a pedophile? Then, should that six year old have their incompetency thrown into question because the defendant believes they deliberately flunked the test?
According to you, maturity doesn’t exist because it can’t be tested. So what would define the characteristic tested by your hypothetical tests? It definitely has nothing to do with maturity.
I imagine it would be his word against hers, as in any rape trial with no tangible evidence, unless he happened to get her statements or actions on tape, or she bought condoms and the clerk recognized her, etc.
Of course, the same question comes up in other similar laws. My state already allows “reasonable belief” as a defense when the victim is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless (RCW 9A.44.030). It’s even allowed as a defense when the alleged victim is below the age of consent, if he can prove that she said she was old enough.
Any time you have an age restriction, you’re going to end up with difficult cases around that age. I think those are the most interesting ones, because the people who are most arbitrarily oppressed are the ones closest to the age.
If a six year old passes the test, then either she really is capable of consenting and testifying, or something’s wrong with the test. Limiting it to basic anatomy and consequences is probably too restrictive; it should cover the legal issues that are likely to come up in a rape trial, just as written driving tests cover the legal issues surrounding driving.
OTOH, I wouldn’t mind puberty as a cutoff for sexual consent (or at least a prerequisite for the test). It’s obvious from a distance, it isn’t arbitrary, and it has a valid medical basis: sex with prepubescent children is likely to cause physical damage.
I assume this isn’t the same six year old who just passed it.
If the defendant can show that he had good reason to believe she gave informed consent, then it doesn’t matter whether she failed the test later.
That’s why I didn’t use ‘maturity’ in my definition.
The tests measure the capability to responsibly handle each activity that’s being tested; they aren’t necessarily related to each other at all. But the results of those tests are a convenient measure, and tying the balance of rights to parental support and criminal liability (youth vs. adult justice system) reinforces the idea that rights and responsibility go together.
I’m now going to go back to a point I brought up way earlier , that nearly every adult a 9 or 10 year old knows is in a position of authority to that child. How many children under 14 do you know? Where do you know them from? It’s extremely unlikely that your circle of friends includes a couple of ten year olds.It’s far more likely that any children you know are either relatives, younger siblings of your friends, children of your friends ,or children you have encountered through your job
And again, there’s no reason there can’t be a gray area around that age, for example, allowing some 14-16 year olds to consent under certain circumstances without allowing 5 year olds to consent ever. I don’t think anyone has said the age of consent should absolutely remain at 17 or 18, or even said there should be no gray areas. But you are essentially arguing that since the distinction between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is arbitrary, we should also not distinguish between a 6 year old and a 17 year old. That’s where you are getting the disagreement. And again, you speak of the person who cannot effectively cosent as being oppressed. Explain exactly how the minor is being oppressed. It is not illegal for a fourteen year old to have sex with a thirty year old , it’s illegal for a thirty year old to have sex with a fourteen year old. So the minor is not being oppressed because he or she might be jailed. If the thirty year old won’t have sex with the fourteen year old because he or she fears being arrested, how exactly does that affect the minor differently than if the thirty year old won’t have sex for fear of social disapproval , or because the thirty year old has no interest in fourteen year olds, or even just because the thirty year old has no interest in this fourteen year old? They are not having sex, regardless of the reason.
That’s true. But that doesn’t mean I’m in a position of authority over them, except perhaps for the fact that I’m twice their size. I can’t discipline them or offer anything special.
How would you do this without simply moving the problem to a different age? If only 14-16 year olds are allowed to consent under “certain circumstances”, you haven’t solved the problem, only moved it from age 16 to age 14. Capable 13 year olds are still excluded.
We should distinguish between the 6 year old and the 17 year old, although the important difference is not their age, but the changes the 17 year old has gone through in the past eleven years.
Granted, it’s a safe assumption that the 17 year old has gone through several changes that the 6 year old has not. But the inherent flaws in setting an age are going to be there no matter which age you set.
Let me use one more analogy here.
Suppose my state decides that people younger than 30 shouldn’t have gasoline, so they make it illegal for stores to sell gasoline to anyone under 30. It’s not illegal for me to buy gas, but no reputable stores will sell me gas because of my age. A few stores will sell me gas under the table, but they don’t treat me as well as their older customers, because they know I won’t report them for fraud: they’d get shut down for selling to me, and I wouldn’t have anywhere to buy gas. I’m oppressed even though the law doesn’t directly apply to me.
That describes the situation in states like California, where it’s illegal for anyone to have sex with a minor, even another minor. The situation is slightly different where it’s legal for minors to have sex with each other:
Now, suppose the law only applies to certain gas stations. I can buy gas from the Shell down the street (i.e., they can legally sell it to me), owned by an incompetent slacker my own age, but not the Texaco next door, owned by a middle-aged man who has owned a gas station for 20 years.
The Texaco manager always has a kind word for customers when they walk in, and takes a look at their cars when something goes wrong… not like the guy at Shell, who sees me as just another buck, and can’t wait for me to leave once our transaction is complete. The law forces me to settle for his inept service, when I’d prefer to buy gas from the other guy, simply because of my age; again, I’m oppressed even though the law doesn’t apply to me.
Sure, it’s possible that Texaco would have turned me away anyway. The gas stations all reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. But I have a bulging wallet and a shiny new car, and the Texaco manager has always seemed happy to see me when I run into him in other situations. I figure I have the same chances at his store as at any other.
Doesn’t have to be 14. Surely, you admit that there is some lower limit regarding consent- no five year olds are capable of consenting, no ten year olds are capable of consenting, but perhaps some twelve year olds are capable in certain cicumstances ( not involving relatives, coaches, teachers, etc). Then start the gray area at 11. Won’t be a problem if in fact, no ten year olds are capable of consent.
Sure, you can’t discipline them. But I’d be willing to bet that they would potentially be disciplined by their parents for not obeying you (at least in certain circumstances) , and you could offer at least some of them something special.For example, when I was between 17 and 21, my boyfriend and I used to bring my much younger cousins to the circus, hockey games, etc and they were expected to obey us. If they didn’t, their parents would have disciplined them. And they would not have been allowed to go places with any random 17-21 year old.