I’m thinking I would swap gods. God made the path, he must have made the bump.
The libertarian in me agrees with you. However, as a matter of law, our society has decided that a 14 year old cannot give permission. Therefore, in my mind, she should be punished.
As a matter of law, Indiana almost decided that pi was equal to 4. Something tells me, however, that the shape of Indiana’s circles wouldn’t have changed if that law had passed.
I don’t see how it benefits anyone to punish her for violating a law if that law is wrong to begin with. I certainly wouldn’t vote to convict her if I were on that jury.
Do you agree with any age of consent?
Conduct the experiment for yourself: find a hard-partying guy, get him to talk about his experiences with women while drunk, and if he’s had sex he can’t remember, ask him if he feels violated. It would certainly be legitimate for him to feel that way, but chances are he doesn’t. For whatever cultural, social, or biological reason, men tend to handle that sort of thing differently. Similarly, if the group of 14-year-old boys that I hung out with as a teenager discovered that I was having sex with a 25-year-old woman, they would have worshipped me as a god. Ethically speaking, the victim’s consent makes a huge difference.
With all that said, the difference shouldn’t factor into sentencing. It’s not reasonable to expect rape victims to explicitly testify that they felt abused, and it’s not appropriate to let victims make sentencing decisions. If a man is convicted of stealing my wallet and the penalty is a year in prison, it is not and should not be up to me to decide whether that’s too harsh. It puts an undue burden on the victim, especially when the perpetrator is able to exert influence on him (whether with threats of violence or with authority figure status).
And, of course, the age difference isn’t the only problem with student/teacher sex. It’s never appropriate to have sex with someone who’s under your authority to that degree, and it was her responsibility* to recognize that. In short: I wouldn’t shun her as a rapist or a pedophile, but she’s done wrong and if she goes to jail, I won’t weep for her.
*Assuming she did it
Mr. 2001: There are lots of things that there’s no way to legally give consent for. For instance, you cannot legally agree to sell yourself into slavery or work for less than minimum wage. Is your disagreement with age-of-consent laws specifically, or with the general idea that not every act can legally be consented to?
Sure, and a number of 14-year-old girls who get themselves a much older boyfriend figure they’re gaining status through the deal, too. And Mandy Smith only went where uncountable numbers of 13-year-olds would have considered themselves richly blessed when she got herself banged by a Rolling Stone. This made it all right? :dubious:
Jury Nulification is grounds for having you removed from the Jury. That said, children can not consent to sex, no matter how much they ‘want’ it, and I see nothing wrong with that law. If you are arguing the average 14 year old is bright enough to choose to have sex (esp with an authority figure) you need to fight to have the age of consent adjusted (and frankly I don’t think there are many people who will agree the average 14 year old has the ability).
Only if you admit to it.
Is lying to a judge (while on a jury) considered perjury? I don’t know, I do know it is grounds for a mistrial. That said, it is still grounds for removal.
Not if it fails to account for the fact that everyone matures at a different rate. I’d rather see some standard that could be applied to individuals, whether physical (the onset of puberty) or psychological (understanding what sex is, what it can lead to, and how to prevent or deal with those consequences).
Failing that, however, I wouldn’t complain about the age if it were lowered to the point where most teenagers who would pass those standards were above the legal age, erring on the side of giving minors more freedom, rather than less. I just don’t believe many 14 or 15 year olds would fail them.
Who says I’d be lying to a judge? I’ve never been on a jury, so I don’t know much about how the process works, but how much justification could I really be required to give for my “not guilty” vote?
Without going through an intense process (like divorcing your parents) there is no way to ‘figure out’ (legally) if someone is ‘mature enough’ prior to having sex with them. How would that system work exactly? What about (assumed) fact that women mature faster then men, can we now go pilliage all the 13 year old girls?
Either you are not far removed from that age (and thus have a different persective than I) or you don’t know many (again having a different persective); I know quite a few 14-15 year olds, and I would lay odds that they don’ t pass your test.
You are required to attempt to come to a consensis in the jury room, which means debating and discussing the crime. If you hold out, while agreeing that the person did or did not do it, that would indicate you were attempting jury nullification. The members of the jury could then report that to the judge (as they really just want to finish the business at hand and go home, they aren’t going to hold out for long with someone going against the grain).
A little of both. I think a masochist should be able to consent to being beaten up or even disfigured, someone who wants to die should be able to consent to being killed, etc.
In this case, though, my disagreement is greater, because this person’s consent is being ignored simply because of his age. You can’t legally consent to sex until you’ve orbited the sun X number of times, regardless of how informed your consent really is. I think it’s enough to know what sex is, what it can lead to, and how to deal with those consequences, and any teenager can learn those facts easily enough.
Some people argue that giving informed consent to sex requires all kinds of vague life experience and emotional maturity, but since they can never put into words just how anyone would know whether someone else has those things, I can’t believe the test can be summed up by a simple age limit, or that it’s a valid thing to base the law on. If they can’t even prove to me that they have the qualities they’re looking for, why should I believe them when they say everyone under a certain age lacks those qualities, or even when they say those qualities are necessary for giving consent?
Well, you tell me… what does “mature enough” mean? What exactly does someone need to know in order for you to accept their informed consent? I’ve already explained what I think it means, and I think the standard I gave is objective enough for anyone to test.
I love it. Every time I talk about youth rights, somehow the subject always drifts to my age. When someone discusses gay rights with you, explaining how gays can do X, Y, and Z just like straight people, do you wonder if they might be queer?
Really? That’s interesting if true. Do they not know what sex is, or do they not know it can lead to pregnancy and disease, or do they not know how to protect themselves from those consequences?
Well, there is a much easier way for them to finish the business at hand and go home. I don’t want to be there any more than they do, I just want to leave without the shame of knowing I helped send someone to jail for having consensual sex with a member of an oppressed minority.
I suppose I could come up with some BS story about how I didn’t trust the cop’s testimony because his eyes were too shifty, and the other witness looked like she didn’t really want to be there so maybe she was coerced into lying somehow, blah blah… but man, what a hassle.
I could teach a 3 year old to parrot the criteria you are looking for, would that qualify under your definition?
They must be capable of understanding the consequences of their action. To that end, repeating what the consequences are, is not the same as understanding them (and why minors can’t enter into contractual agreements, unless emancipated).
I was addressing perspective, and yes I would have to say that someone who was gay would have a different persective than I do. I was 14, and I believed that I knew what was what. Looking back, I know it that it wasn’t the case with me, my perspective changed.
Honestly? They can TELL you what the sonsequences are, but they dont UNDERSTAND them, there is a difference (in my mind).
Oppressed Minority? Come on; they have protections above and beyond anyone else, including automatic sealing court records.
If 11 people agree with one stance, and you with the other; unless you can convince them all of the ‘BS story’ (your words), you will get a mistrial (and the judge will not let you go for quite a while, just because you don’t agree in the begining).
If you could show that they really understood them (I doubt a 3 year old would be able to discuss those criteria any further than just repeating memorized phrases), and they wouldn’t be physically harmed by sex. Good luck with that. 
OK, so tell me how you’d know the difference between someone who can say “sex leads to pregnancy” and hold a conversation about what acts are sexual and what pregnancy is, and someone who understands that sex really does lead to pregnancy. If there’s no way to tell them apart in real life, it seems to me that the distinction has no place in law.
How would that even work? If they got a girl pregnant, would they say “Whoa dude, I thought that was just some BS I kept repeating so this would be legal. I didn’t think it was true! I thought babies came from the stork!”
Heh. One man’s protection is another man’s prison. If you weren’t allowed to leave your house because there were dangerous things outside that might hurt you, would you consider yourself lucky for being so well-protected?
The fact is, most of those “protections” boil down to ignoring what minors want because We Know Better. Some of them can’t even be considered protections under any stretch of the word: we’re not really protecting minors by forbidding them to vote or run for office, for example.
I suppose some might call the existence of a separate juvenile court system (with sealing of records, etc.) a protection. IMO it’s just the least we can do if we’re going to hold them responsible for following laws they have no say in. If they don’t have a voice in government, it’s hardly fair to punish them for disobeying that government to the same extent as someone who does have a voice.
That’s fine. I’m not going to abandon my principles just so I can go home sooner.
Come on, you read my whole post and only came away with that? Having sex with a 13-year-old girl who’s eager and happy is less evil than dragging her into an alley and forcibly having your way with her. That’s all I said, and in the next paragraph I elaborated that the difference in evil should not be reflected in sentencing. Also, note that you’ve switched genders as part of your effort to make the victims sympathetic. It’s an effort I agree with, but it illustrates the OP’s point.
Mr2001: I don’t think anyone’s claiming that everyone under 18 (or whatever) is unable to consent to sex, any more than anyone claims that everyone who’s now in prison deserves to be there. Rather, the argument is that an age line makes sure that most of the people who can meaningfully consent are allowed to, and that most of those who can’t aren’t. Some emotionally capable teenagers get the shaft, yes, but all they have to do to solve the problem is wait. Given the seriousness of the converse problem, that seems like a reasonable trade.
Interesting that you chose that analogy. People in prison, even the ones who are innocent, are at least there because they were judged as individuals. I think a better analogy would be locking up everyone who fits some “likely criminal” profile, just because there are unsolved crimes out there and those people are more likely than anyone else to have committed them.
Not to me. Is there some epidemic I haven’t heard about of kids saying “yes, let’s have sex” without knowing what that means, and then not saying “no” when they find out? Seems to me the real problem is nonconsensual sex.
Furthermore, what does “emotionally capable” even mean? What emotional capacity is needed to consent to sex, how do you know whether a person has it or not, and what reason is there to believe this emotional capacity usually arises in the mid-teens instead of, say, age 5, or age 30? (This is what I was referring to in the third paragraph of post #33.)
There were two points in your post, one about guys who get drunk and have sex they regret, and one about being the envy of your 14-yo peers because you got a piece of tail. I chose to address the latter point. It’s not like they were joined at the hip, and stand or fall together. Yes, I switched genders. Maybe we should say “For fourteen-year-old boys, getting laid is an image booster, and so we should wink at it. For fourteen-year-old girls, getting laid is an image booster, but we should ignore this and prosecute the perp with the utmost rigour of the law”, but I just want to highlight the inconsistency and ask why this should be so.
Right. *Some * 17yo minors are mature enough to give a considered consent (and some 19yo 'adults" aren’t). But here’s the other point, a 20yo man sleeping with a consenting 17 girl, or a 2oyo woman sleeping with a 17yo boy is a normal desire- even though it is illegal. So, although I have no problem with the fact that these people have broken the law, they are not IMHO “sex offenders” that we have to keep track of becuase they are dangerous. And, padding the sex offender database with those people- *and * dudes peeing in public, strippers busted for “public lewdness”, gay dudes having sex in their cars, “flashers” or similar crap- makes the database nearly useless. Not that peeing in public, ect should be legal, but it sure as hell shouldn’t be a “registered sex offender” crime. A Female teacher seducing her 17 yo student *should * lose her job and be criminaly penalized- but I don’t think hard time and “sex offender registration” is right.
In fact, that may be the telling argument against making registered sex offenders wear GPS devices (a new law proposed for California)- most of the dudes on the databases are no danger to anyone. Thus, a database that is supposed to *protect the children * has been made worthless.
REGISTERED sex offenders should be limited to: Forcible rape, and having sex with children under 16. (someone might add something to this list, I am sure I have forgotten something). Let us make the database useful, so that it can do what it’s supposed to do- protect us from dangerous sickos, not drunks peeing in the alley.
I’m sorry, I lost the ball about half way through your post. Are you saying that this 26 year old having sex with a 15 year old (and her student, and her second offence; while on probation); should or should not be put on the list?