First Mr2001, did I miss the post where you explain WHY it would be a good idea for more young teens to be having sex with no fear of legal consequences?
Mr2001
Better to test each individual’s ability? Well, that’s one solution to unemployment.
Even if there were reliable standards for determining the level of maturity in any given adolescent (given some magical model when the route to maturity was a straight line, instead of a sine wave with dips and peaks if and until it finally levels out), when and where does this testing take place?
Right now, we have a system, the legal system, that does the testing when there seems to be a problem. (Given the rate of teen pregnancy in this country, a country with condoms at every convenience store, I’d suggest we have evidence that teenagers are having a little trouble using their information about the sex act in their life.)
Mr2001
We can say that adult can’t consent - although these adults or the exception. Instead of spending time and money proving all adults competent, we spend time and money on the few adults who may not be.
(http://www.guardianship.org/whatis/index.htm)
We effectively have exceptions to age on consent - John Law and his pals in the system, in general, have some leeway on which charges are filed and, of course, the adult may be found not-guilty. Sure, that’s unlikely, but it’s there.
It’s unlikely that his reasoning was based on this, but I’ve hard a couple of cops say the timing of her return works out with the pregnant runaway scenario. It’s not unheard of. And they accurately predicted that the family would avoid any charges that would require physical evidence of rape.Of course, people will say anything while watching TV in a sports bar.
I think the ability to handle consequences of actions do not determine the ability to consent to those actions. “Informed consent” seems fairly easy to interpret. “Consent” indicates intentional action or agreement. “Informed” means, in this context, roughly “knowledgeable”. Thus I would read “informed consent” as “reasonably knowledgeable about the situation and explicit acceptance, if not initiation, of it.”
I cannot handle or “deal with” or “address” my own death. Nevertheless I can consent to beign a passenger in a motor vehicle.
And that has nothing to do with the level of information they have, nor the character of their affirmation.
I don’t see what that has to do with consenting.
Please restrict your response to the definition of “consent” first. Then “informed”. Then tell me where “an ability to handle the known consequences” comes in in this union, other than from your own mind.
And why are they deluded? Because they can’t handle it. Why can’t they handle it? Because they cannot address the consequences of their actions. Why can’t they address it? Because they can’t hold a job. Why can’t they hold a job? Because they can’t meaningfully enter into such engagements. Why can’t they give informed consent for such contracts? Because they can’t handle it. Why can’t they handle it? Because they can’t [etc]…
Tell me when I come full circle.
Real live people that are well passed the legal age of consent cannot afford a child. Will you choose to claim that they cannot meaningfully consent to having sex?
I think the economic angle is a huge distraction. The real issue is informed consent. Do children have the information, emotionally and intellectually, to make informed consent?
In the case of pubescent children, I think we should decriminalize statutory rape. Much as in the case of the Dutch decriminalizing drug use, we should instruct policemen to not prosecute. However, the laws should remain on the books for cases of when police are pretty sure there was coercion involved but cannot prove it. I think that in many cases, this is the de facto situation, but it would be nice to codify it.
In fact, it would be possible to have a society where consensual sexual acts between all ages is decriminalized. However, we are not in such a society because:
– Most of us have hangups about sex, especially sex acts concerning children, and communicate our unease about it, mostly subconsciously, to our children. So, if there WAS coercion involved, the child will most likely feel “Dirty” about it because we have TAUGHT them to, thus more likely to not tell.
– Ditto for our adult-driven society. Granted, we have greatly increased our perception of children’s rights, but we still have plenty of people who basically think adults have the right to completely control children’s life. So, there would be children who would go along with unwanted involvement out of “obedience” of elders.
Would it be GOOD to be in such a society, where we dont have any hangups about sex and where children are completely recognized as having the freedom from adult coercion? That’s another debate, but the U.S. is not there.
I forgot to add the criteria of informed consent of prepubescnet children. We are also in a society wherein a lot of children are ill-informed about the emotional and physical consequences of sex (again, despite vast improvements lately). Would i LIKE to be in a society where that was different? I think my other two criteria have more pros than cons, but a FULLY informed prepubescent child population is not 100% desireable IMO.
On the other hand, we could very well find ourself there by accident. Heck, I think a lot of 13-15 year old have enough information to make informed consent.
I think age of consent should be 18 generally, but there should be a 2 or 3 year allowable age difference between over 18s and under 18s so that an 18 year old High School Senior having sex with a 17 year old Junior doesn’t get thrown in prison.
No one is claiming that the minor didn’t agree to it. A minor can agree to do lots of things. A minor can agree to buy a car, to have surgery, to go on a class trip, to waive liabilty at a ski resort, to pay back a credit card , etc. And anyone who relies on the minor’s agreement in those situations is taking a big chance. Because the fact that someone agrees does not mean they have the legal capacity to consent or sign a contract. And a big part of the reason that minors can’t consent in most cases is their immaturity. In fact, the few things minors can consent to are sex related- some can consent to sex where the age of consent is lower than 16, and in some cases, they can consent to STD treatment, the provision of prescription birth control and abortions. The average 13 year old may know that sex can lead to pregnancy and STD’s, but there are a million things they don’t know (such as it’s difficult to go back to holding hands if you’re not comfortable having sex, or that people sometimes lie to get sex), or think they know (like you can’t get pregnant standing up). And in my experience, 13 year olds are more gullible and are more likely to believe that bad things won’t happen to them than are teens just a few years older.
There has to be some sort of line drawn. Even if a system of indivdual assessment leading to a license to consent to sex were practical, there would still be the issue of who would need the assessment. Would it be only those under a certain age, and if so what age? Or would a twenty five year old also have to have their abilty to consent determined?
I do have some issues with ASFAR’s positions though. And it is an issue that really bothers me. On the one hand , they say
They then go on to state their position on a number of issues, some of which aren’t related to any laws or government policies that I can see.And eventually in the FAQ, they state
So it seems they do support at least one difference between children and adults- the right of a child to be suported by the parents as long as the child wants the support. They don’t mention a right of the parents to force a minor who is capable of supporting him or herself to do so.Their proposal for age of consent laws seems completely unworkable- if the capacity to consent is determined after the fact by a jury, the adult can’t know if he or she is about to commit a crime.Maybe the minor is able to consent or maybe not- the jury will decide. Which means the case has to get to a jury. To prevent the admittedly ludicrous example they give of an 18 year old being prosecuted for having sex with someone a few days shy of 18. there is a much better model. In my state, as long as both partners are over age 11, if there is less than a four year age difference no crime has been committed. So an 18 year old commits no crime by having sex with a 15 year old , and a twenty one year old commits no crime by having sex with a 17 year old.
The same consequences that any pregnant woman faces. Is this so hard to understand?
The first issue is dealing with the pregnancy - she’ll have to decide whether to have an abortion or carry it to term. If she carries it, she’ll have to decide whether to put it up for adoption or care for it herself. The latter is only a responsible choice if she has the financial means (and time, etc.) to devote to raising a child, which is pretty unlikely; so I would hope that a responsible young girl would choose abortion or adoption. As you mention, though, no one can force her to do either of those, so I’d expect her to be treated exactly as a pregnant 18 year old girl would be treated.
How many successful black golfers are there? Is it appropriate to ban black people from golf tournaments simply because most golfers are white?
How many women are strong enough to be firefighters? Is it appropriate to ban women from that field of work?
Asked and answered. Please try to keep up with the thread.
Of course. They knew what was involved, they knew what it could lead to, and they decided they wanted to take the risk anyway. That’s informed consent.
So does a youth; that’s what informed consent means. They aren’t stupid. Who else would they expect to support the child?
If, heaven forbid, contraception fails and a child results through a string of bad choices, I would expect the same from the young parents that I would from adult parents. If the law prevents them from supporting a child, that indicates a problem with the law, not the parents.
I’d rather err on the side of too much liberty than too little. If the 11 year old is unconsenting, then it’s rape… just like an unconsenting 16 year old, 18 year old, or 30 year old. Age is irrelevant.
Indeed, the quality of sex education in some areas is simply appalling. I don’t understand how a school can devote more effort to, say, memorizing events of the Civil War, than to teaching important health concepts that affect every student (some sooner than others).
Yes, I am. The law must recognize the reality of mature youth - that although many or most people of a certain age may not be knowledgeable, experienced, or otherwise “mature” enough to hold certain jobs or perform certain activities, many of them are, and their rights and liberties deserve respect.
A fundamental strength of our society is that we judge people as individuals, not as members of a group. Very few women have the physical strength and endurance to break down doors and carry people out of burning buildings, for example, but if a woman wants to be a firefighter, we give her a chance and hold her to the same standard as a man.
Having said that, though, I wouldn’t eliminate all “protective” laws overnight. In fact, I’d support keeping most of those laws exactly as they are, if it were reasonably possible for young people to apply for exemptions. The driving age could simply be eliminated: anyone who passes the written test and driving exam gets a license. Other age limits would be trickier to test, but I don’t think they’d pose a significant problem.
Sexual consent is a little different, because age isn’t questioned by the law until someone’s already been charged with a crime. I’d require the state to prove the minor’s incompetence, or alternatively, keep the current laws but implement some kind of “sex license” so minors can become exempt after proving their own competence.
Maturity isn’t a single factor… different knowledge is required for different activities. Someone who can responsibly handle alcohol isn’t necessarily ready for sex. There’s no one answer to your question.
My thoughts exactly. Thank you, Ludovic and erislover.
No, you said it yourself - the reason minors can’t (legally) consent is that the law prevents them from consenting. They may have the mental and emotional capacity to understand exactly what they’re getting into, but the law says “To hell with it, you’re under 16 so it doesn’t matter what you think.”
Immaturity may be the justification used by some people who support age-based laws, but without any evidence to back it up, it’s nothing but a baseless assertion. Similar arguments and generalizations have been used to deny rights to blacks and women, and they weren’t accurate then either.
In principle, an assumption about the 25 year old’s ability to consent is just as inaccurate as an assumption about a 15 year old’s ability. In practice, though, I wouldn’t be opposed to keeping our current laws and allowing youths to apply for exemptions, at least as a stepping stone to future reforms: “guilty until proven innocent” is still better than “guilty by definition”.
Interesting. On one hand, it’s clear that children come into this world unable to support themselves; although they become able to support themselves eventually, they do need to be supported by their parents until then.
On the other hand, how would you prove that a minor is capable of supporting himself, when he might have an incentive to prove the opposite? It’d be like forcing someone to take a driver’s test when he doesn’t want to pass - unlikely to get the result you want, and probably a source of embarrassment for everyone involved.
So I’d tie parental support to the minor’s other rights, and let the minor decide for himself when he’s ready to give it up. That is, he can choose to stay at the “child” end of the spectrum, unable to give legal consent, drive a car, vote, drink, etc.; or he can move toward the “adult” end at a pace he feels comfortable with, able to exercise more of those rights but also held more responsible for his own actions and livelihood.
I believe minors would make the right choices for themselves in a situation like that, where rights and responsibilities are earned at the same time.
The same is often true today. If you meet a young MOTOS in a bar, do you assume she’s over 21? After all, she’s in a bar. Maybe you ask to see her ID and it looks valid… but is it really? If it turns out to be a convincing fake, you can get in trouble, even though you did everything in your power to ensure she was “legal”.
It doesn’t really solve the problem, though. A 17 year old can consent to a 21 year old but not a 22 year old? That doesn’t make sense. She can understand the implications of sex with one person of a certain age, but not another person only a few months older? Why would the implications be any different?
You can jockey the specific ages around, but any age limit will always break down in borderline cases, because the notion of age-based laws is fundamentally flawed.
And with adults, their “informed consent” comes with adult expectations. Like being forced to pay child support. How do you think that will happen? An 18 year old boy can be forced to pay support, but how will it work with a 12 year old? Will they garnish his paper route money to pay child support?
And an 18 year old girl can keep her child, and report who the father is, and he ends up paying child support. ::shrug:: I’d like to see how well that works with 12 year olds.
Uh, well, since they are still being supported by their own parents, maybe they assume that mom and dad will take care of their little “oopsie” as well?
And you never answered—if a 12 year old thinks he or she can support an unexpected child, are they also automatically expected to support themselves as well? Even though they have parents who are still legally obligated to support them?
So the child labor laws prevent them from earning a living, or working full time. So that means that they can’t drop out of school and take that full time job and McDonald’s. Boy, those damned laws are all screwed up.
Amazingly enough, I think this concept is actually holding some promise. So how long does a child have to “prove” that he or she is up to being on their own? Because even though I see some promise in this premise (try saying that five times fast) I can see a lot of teenagers saying that they want to be on their own in the heat of the moment, and then later on regretting their decision when they fully comprehend all that it entails. Like, a 12 year old boy or girl may think that they can drop out of school and support a kid on their own, but after a few months (or less) they change their minds. Will they be forced to stick with their decision, or can they “opt out”? And if they can opt out, who will pick of the pieces for any debts, obligations or contracts they got into during the time that they decided they could be independent and “responsible”?
And I go back to this again: in the case of a young boy who thinks he is mature enough to have sex and risk getting someone pregnant. Will he be forced to pay child support, no matter what? He made a choice when he was 12, and as you have lamented in previous threads, he’ll have to live with that decision for the next 18 years. But that’s OK with you, I guess?
I conclude then that you are, here, promoting an Utopia.
You believe that giving minors anything less than all the legal rights of an adult means depriving them of their (constitutional) freedom. Which is (stripped away of the screw thirteen year-old implications introduced by you) a nice thought. But the practical consequences should be pretty clear to anyone:
There are no state funds to finance any system for evaluating the maturity of every child. Therefore any child will be able to access, apply for, pursue, work at, do anything an adult can today. Any child can by booze. Any child can by a gun. Any child can test drive. And so on. In every single case, we would be dependent on the judgement of the person selling booze, guns etc.
So Mr2001, are you really, really sure about this?
I don’t really have a problem with this - a self-supporting minor is likely to understand the implications of sex and few enough will want to be emancipated that individual determinations won’t be impractical. I still have a problem with the returning to childhood part of ASFAR’s position. Who gets stuck for the credit card bils that this person ran up? What happens when the minor who signed the liability waiver at the ski resort gets hurt and decides she wasn’t mature enough to make that decision on her own?
Just to use a personal example, when I was in high school I was earning as much as my adult coworkers, some of whom were supporting themselves on that job alone. Obviously I was financially capable of supporting myself, although not at a living standard I would have wanted, and I would have remained capable even if I quit the job. My parents could have made me try to get a job, and maybe could have made me turn over my pay, but under neither the current law nor ASFAR’s proposal could they have refused to suppport me on the grounds that I was capable of supporting myself if I wanted to.
I said can’t know, not doesn’t know. With current age of consent laws, an adult might end up sleeping with someone who is close to the age of consent who lies about their age and has a fake ID. The adult didn’t know that the minor was under the age of consent, but would have known if the minor hadn’t lied or probably even if there had been more of a time gap between meeting and sex. If some minors can consent and others can’t, with the determination made after the fact by a jury, the 20 year old who has sex with a known 14 year old cannot know (unless the adult is psychic) whether that 14 year old is capable of consent until after the jury decides. The determination of ability to consent would have to be made ahead of time.
(and I wouldn’t assume that anyone in a bar was 21, since I was in them at 16)
I’d like to see how well it works with 18 year olds. I know when I was 18, I wouldn’t have been able to support a child.
You never answered either, so we’re even.
I suppose it would be treated like bankruptcy, impacting their future credit and perhaps their ability to apply for “adulthood” in the near future.
He knew that was a risk and he chose to accept it.
Implications introduced by me? Reforming the age of sexual consent is a natural implication of youth rights, just like the driving age or the voting age. I’m sorry you can’t get over the thought that 13 year olds might be able to give consent.
Obviously those funds would be allocated if changes like this came to pass.
Many countries don’t have a drinking age, and they’re doing just fine. I don’t see why a child who can pass a handgun safety course shouldn’t be able to buy a gun, or why a child with a driver’s license shouldn’t be able to test drive a car.
Only as a compromise for practical and political reasons. In principle, I think the state should have the burden of proving that a minor is incompetent, but since that’s a drastic and costly change, I’d settle for exemptions and “opt in” adulthood.
It’s not an economic activity like selling beer, and it doesn’t involve public property like driving. The only legitimate time for the government to decide whether someone is competent to consent to sex is during a rape trial.
I’d probably support a “sex license” as a compromise for the reasons above, though.
Rephrasing for clarity: Discussion of “youth rights” through the framing context of screwing thirteen year olds as a topic was introduced by you.
Evaluation of a childs maturity for consumption of booze requires a professional psychiatrist. So does evaluation for the purchase of guns. So does evaluation for the flying of a jet plane.
A professional psychiatrist means serious bucks. One psychiatrist per american child is ludicrous. No such funds will ever be allocated. Your changes won’t come to pass.
Which countries?
Why should the child have to pass a handgun safety course? Shouldn’t the child have all the rights of an adult. After all there is also adults that are not mature enough to own a handgun.
What you seem to ignore in your pursuit of provocation is that the present law is already a compromise for practical and political reasons. It works economically. It is supposed to rid society of gun-toting, boozing pilot kids. It is supposed to rid society of middle aged men legally boozing and taking advantage of thirteen year olds. It is the compromise most people find acceptable.
Furthermore a thirteen year old can legally make the choice to have sex. It so happens though that a 50 year old can not legally make the choice to have sex with a thirteen year old. It is immensely more accurate to say that the 50 year olds freedom is compromised. If you wan’t to have a debate over this freedom, why not simply say so?
But you’d still be expected to, right? That’s what child support is all about. That’s why they garnish the father’s wages. That’s where the term “deadbeat dad” comes from—men who won’t pay child support. (Or women who won’t pay child support.) Can a 12 year old be a “deadbeat” parent because they won’t cough up their paper route money? Or will they be off the hook?
Cute. At least I’ve tried to comprehend your logic, but with you, just just cutely evade the question yet again—how can a 12 year old be responsible for supporting someone else (their child) when the 12 year old’s parents are still legally responsible for supporting them?
Oh, that sounds like a complete nightmare. I can see kids lining up to be “responsible” for a few months, having some fun, getting into debt, and then when things get too difficult they bail out. They know they’ll only be having a “slap on the wrist” bankruptcy. So what? They can’t apply for “adulthood” soon (meaning their parents will still be supporting them—what a hardship). Do you realize how impractical this sounds? How many 12 or 13 year olds will opt for this because they know they can bail out? And if (God Forbid) the “bankruptcy” policies for kids were considered “too strict”, we know that many bleeding hearts would cry about the youth of the person being forced to be responsibility. So I don’t see any “bankruptcy” for kids getting too strict. (Of course, I don’t see kids getting to choose to be “responsible” at age 12 either…)
And so 12 year old boys will be paying child support on their own? Without the state or their parents helping them out? How can we enforce this? Or do you think he can do the psuedo “bankruptcy” thing and bail out?
In a way, I’d almost be OK with this. As long as the child knew that they could not bail out on their responsibilities. Meaning, NO “bankruptcy”. That even if they are broke now, they WILL have to live up to any responsibilities they have decided that they are “informed” enough to undertake. No going back, no one else bailing them out, no cushion, no back-up plan. Once they make that choice, they must live up to it, like an adult is expected to live up to it. But the thing is, I doubt that many 12 year olds could really do this. They’d think they could, but they couldn’t. And then we’d pity the poor little tykes for their bad judgment, and try to bail them out anyway. And that would not do. It would be a huge impractical mess. And all of this hassle because maybe, just maybe, a scant few kids could actually handle it.
Ok. I’m a minor, first of all. The only problem with the age laws, as far as I’m concerned, is the level at which they’re set. 18 is a bit much. I wouldn’t mind something around 14 ish. Maturity comes with it’s expectectation. As a teen myself, and watching the few other teen friends I have (most of my friends are older), it’s apparent that age isn’t a good way of measuring such things. In MD, the sex age is 16. Oh, and you can get your drivers permit at 15 and 9 months. Which means technically a 15 year old can drive, as long as their parent (or other adult person) is in the car with them. Personally, I think people seem to forget that other countries have lower age levels, hence proof that the problem isn’t age. If you expect someone to act immaturely, they will do so. That has been proven time and time again by studies done with schools. It’s just plain logical. People, in every age group, do as well as they’re expected to. The argument that teens (young ones) can’t raise children, isn’t true. We haven’t taught them to, and yet some still do, and successfully. Don’t blame them for the rest of society’s errs. Now, that being said, the basis of the 18-consent law, is that you have to be 18 to make legal decisions. Generally, there are exceptions. This, purely without the interference of related logic, is perfectly reasonable. However, this is at fault, because it is based on the idea that teens can not think on their own. I, btw, like to think on my own, and do believe I am reasonably successful at it. Regardless, the problem with this law is still the same. Maturity should be based on exactly that, maturity. Not age. Oh, and don’t get me started on how the fact that we need laws to govern morality has shown the weakness of our society. That’s a very very very long rant.
if: The problem is the difficult task of estimating maturity. Age is one (quite imperfect) estimate. All other forms of estimate are expensive, and also with high probability subjective.
I do support the 15 year limit for consent practiced in my home country. No problem over here. Still 14-year olds may happily screw eachother (and are, i’m certain). But such cases are never brought to court. Still the law regulates what we don’t wan’t: the mature taking advantage of the immature.
Of course it’s difficult. But. 15 is relatively reasonable. Obviously, some will (and do) ignore that sort of law. My problem with it, is that it takes the wrong thing into consideration. The number of unwanted and uncared for children birthed by over-18 people shows this. Kids here, in the US, are not taught responsibility. Not to hijack, and I really don’t want to, but I can’t leave it out of this argument… there’s an important question about society, in this debate. There is an obvious connection between laws and maturity. If people don’t have to make decisions, because the laws handle it, then they will no longer bother with making the decision. Generally. But. Do the laws control the people, or do the people control the laws? Are laws based on what we are, or what we don’t want to be? Maybe it’s a mix of both.
Now... on another point. If the true aim of the law was to keep the mature from taking advantage of the immature, who's to decide who's mature and immature? That's kind of immature in itself, to judge someone else's maturity without knowing them. And, if that was the true aim of the law, it's not working. Course, that theory could end up removing half of the laws currently on the books. That may be a good idea, but I'll try not to hijack.
Ok. The most important part. It isn't the gov't's job to dictate the morality of children, it's the parent's job. Now, you can say that the parents haven't been doing that. Why not? Just because you don't agree with their morals means that the parents aren't teaching them? I find that sort of silly. Maybe teens should be having sex. But that goes to above, maturity should be expected, and it's not, hence many of the problems in society. (in my opinion it's a main cause, obviously that could be debated, as I said above).
Anyway, I guess both sides could just agree that 18 is a bit too high. It is, really, think about it. Society trusts a teen to drive, risking other's lives, quite directly, but not to have sex, which really only affects others if they let it. And making the parents take care of the child is sort of logical, though personally I think it's wrong for the gov't to dictate morals in that sort of situation. However, if the parents raise a child who gets in trouble, they're responsible, it's their fault. Relatively, and generally. There are exceptions, and I'm not trying to make parents feel bad, it's hard raising children, especially teens (lord knows my mother is lucky, my brother and I learn well, and she taught us to make good decisions). So I'm not trying to bash, I'm just saying, you get what you ask for, and you should take responsibility for it.
