So, you are not in favor of any age distinctons in any “legal” relationships? 17 year-olds ought to be able to vote, 20 y-os drink, 14 y-os drive, etc.? Or do you propose a different and better system than the current legal age of majority?
If the 18 year-old wishes to maintain that he is not an adult for the purposes of liability in this instance, is he willing to forego any and all benefits he enjoys due to his age? The ability to enter into contracts, vote, drive, have sex with other adults, buy smokes, etc.? And if he is not an “adult” at 18 - then when (if ever) is he?
Yep. I was a good deal older than most of my classmates. My parents made the decision not to send me to kindergarten when I was four and so held me back by a year. As a result, my numerical age was usually one year older than my peers. For those in the class behind me, I may have been two numerical years older. For all intents and purposes, though, we were the same age.
I never claimed any such thing. I’m saying that there is a two year difference, which is not a huge difference. To say that he is a fully grown adult who took advantage of a tiny tiny child is just plain dumb. They are practically the same age.
There’s no question in my mind that the young man needs an asswhooping, if not in fact an old fashioned horsewhipping.
Speaking as a teacher, I’d enforce it under whatever rules in that school system’s rules cover any kind of simple assault.
Do you propose a etter alternative than the current sysem which provides that an individual experiences certain rights - and obligations - on the day they attain a particular age than they did the dayprevious?
Yes, any number of factors could be considered as mitigating.
And I believe aggravating factors may lead to minors being tried treated as adults in certain cases.
But no matter how immature you may wish to be, I am not sure why one ought to be excused from the legal implicatons of their chronological age.
Whether she’s a MINOR or not doesn’t change the fact that they’re both high school students. Mentioning her minor status and his (barely) majority status doesn’t really change the outcome.
And until more details are found out, labeling this event as some kind of assault is going over the line.
What’s the logical fallacy being employed here? No True Scotsman? Slippery Slope?
The argument being put forth is along the lines of “When did you stop beating your wife?” It really has come down to “So you think it’s OK for an adult male to sexually assault a minor?!?” I works on a level of shock value.
I suppose that we could turn this around, just for the sake of fairness. “So are you saying that gang rape is no worse than a high school prank?”
I’m now getting confused. It is a British/American English thing.
Are we talking about the pulling down of just the trousers or the underwear as well?
Just the trousers is, well, in the long run not really something that huge. He’s a dick and need disciplining so as to teach him a lesson but nobody needs a permanent criminal record. I’d say a few days suspension.
If it includes the underwear, so the genitalia was exposed to anyone around, then I’d say expulsion with possible police action depending on the circumstances.
I wonder if some here would have the same reaction if it was boy on boy or girl on girl?
If we treated every person at school like an adult, especially those that just scrape over the magic age of 18 where you suddenly, overnight, mentally mature, half the males in just about every western country would have some kind of assault charge against them.
It factually IS a sexual assault of a minor by an adult. There’s no way around it, and it IS a big deal. All sexual assault is a big deal. It would still be a big deal if the offender was a minor, but the fact that he’s an adult means he has to take adult responsibility. Under the letter of the law, he sexually attacked a child. Statutory exceptions have no relevance here, because there was no consent. The proximity of their ages is just as meaningless as it would be in any other kind of physical assault. Statutory rape exceptions do not have any application to assault and battery.
I’d still like to know what those defending this dude think would happen if he did this to a child at the mall.
It is fatuous to complain about the arbitrary nature of an age of adulthood. Of course it’s somewhat arbitrary. It has to be. Nobody thinks the line is “magic,” but it has to be drawn somewhere. If you’re going to agree that there has to be a legal distinction between adults and children, then you have to draw a line. There’s no way around it. 18 is actually a pretty generous place to draw the line. It gives quite a buffer betwen the onset of puberty, and the legal responsibilities of adulthood. It isn’t really that sudden or capricious. The individual has several years to comprehend that this line is coming and what it will signify. It isn’t like they’re playing hopscotch one day, then suddenly discover they’re adults the next. They have a preparatory period of 5-6 years to come to grips with it. There is absolutely no reason an 18 year should not be held accountable as an adult for his own behavior.
The complaint that a 16 year old isn’t really a “child” is somewhat intuitively valid, but the complaint that an 18 year old isn’t really an adult is simply inane.
Declaring something as indisputable fact does not, by default, make it indisputable fact.
I’d like to know what those condemning him would think if space aliens came down to earth, then had a tea party, then killed everyone in Walla Walla Washington with laser guns, then sang some Jonas Brothers songs, then put on some French perfume.
It’s a perfectly valid question. There’s nothing silly or off-point about the hypothetical. If you want to assert that the location of the assault changes its legal nature, you have to explain why.
An 18 year-old (adult) male forcibly pull[ed] pants off an unwilling 16 year-old (minor) female.
to be the equivalent of this one?
*[H]e is a fully grown adult who took advantage of a tiny tiny child. *
(Minor edits taken to have them read as comparable statements.)
If you do consider them equivalent, then we are not speaking the same language, and have little hope of effectively communicating on this or most other matters.
tdn avers To state that he is an adult who did something to a minor is – while technically correct – just plain dumb.
You may personally consider it “dumb”, but I and some others believe it accurately reflects a legal distinction with significant potential implications. And I believe that such well-established legal conventions are of some benefit. And you steadfastly refuse to suggest a better system.
Do you have a list of additional long-established legal conventions that you consider dumb and believe ought not be respected?
Not at all. I’m asking you to prove that it is specifically what you claim it to “indisputably” be. Don’t play shitty little games; if it is indisputably a sexual assault you must be able to cite under which law.