Unrepentant pair of 14 year old humpers face jail. Fair or not?

Great Debates
221

Let’s see the instant replay on that, Alex…

ONE more time?

Now, I live in Texas, a place notorious for being rather unsympathetic to lawbreakers, very much a law-and-order state.

…and you know what? THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE, even in Texas. It isn’t simply a matter of the judge banging his gavel, and allovasudden, Little Johnny and Li’l Susie are on a chain gang because they got to playing doctor a little too vigorously.

THIS IS NOT HOW IT WORKS.

So how DOES it work?

When a minor breaks the law, a decision is made to try him as a minor, or as an adult. This decision is usually a pretty easy one; I’ve never heard of a minor being tried as an adult for any nonviolent crime, and hardly ever when a murder is not involved.

We may therefore presume that Johnny and Susie will be tried as children.

Any sane judge is going to take one look at them, and NOT SEND THEM TO FUCKING GODDAMN JAIL!

One more time, Alex…

Juvie jail, or otherwise.

Only a psychotic sadist judge would do that, and we have very few of those, even in Texas. And even the rabid ones wouldn’t do more on a first offense than recommend probation. More likely, the judge would scare the shit out of the children involved, and then find a way to throw the case out of court or suspend the sentence… with a stentorian rumble of “Now, I don’t ever want to see you two in my courtroom again…”

Want me to cite it? If I were legally allowed to, I could. Seen it happen a hundred times, for a dozen different crimes, ranging from sex offenses to shoplifting. It WORKS, too.

THIS is why I support the laws. Because most judges are sane human beings who won’t turbofuck the lives of two teens just because they got a little overheated on the couch in the day room. Even if their parents are shitheads who turn their asses in to the cops.

Now, if they start doing some weird-assed “Three Sexual Incidents And You’re Out,” mandatory sentencing bullshit, I might change my opinion. But they don’t.

That’s why they call them “judges.” They exercise “judgment.” They are expected to dispense “justice,” not a buncha goddamn arbitrary penalties.

Most teens who are arrested for a first offense never serve more time than they spent in the holding cell waiting for someone to come and bail them out. Jail is counterproductive for most teen offenders. The system would far rather bounce 'em back to their parents. Almost always, the system ONLY gets involved when the parents won’t or can’t handle their kids. Believe me, we have lots of better things to do than take Johnny out and string him up for wanting to get his dick wet.

So… um… precisely what teens DO go to juvie jail, then?

Well, I’ll tell you. Generally, they’re the ones who got two or three or five warnings, scored probation, and STILL DIDN’T LEARN ANYTHING, and whose parents did not or could not or would not contain them.

And goddamned if I can think of a better way to work it than that. If you are proposing that we simply let the little monsters run wild, then you are nuts. I have seen what you GET when you do, and I am here to tell you that William Goldman very much understated the point when he wrote Lord Of The Flies…

Oh, yes, one other thing. Errata made an interesting point, re: victimless crimes… the question being, “When Do We Bust 'Em?”

Well, this is a good statement. Nicely thought out. A damn good point.

…except that it does not reach its logical conclusion.

Teen sex, in and of itself, does not violate anyone’s rights, assuming it’s consensual. Its POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES, on the other hand, DO violate someone’s rights.

The parents’.

If my kid comes home from school every day and boinks madly on the couch in the rumpus room with her boyfriend… is it really any business of mine?

NO! She’s old enough. She’s made her decision.

…all the way up until one of two things happens:

(a) pregnancy
(b) STD.

Whoopsie. Now, instead of being the parent of one child, I am the parent of one, and soon to be the grandparent of another. Now I am going to have to make a bunch of decisions. Now I have been confronted with a major situation, NOT of my making, NOT my fault, and NOT my call! MY LIFE HAS BEEN DISRUPTED!

…and that’s just the BEGINNING. My kid is in no position to have a baby. Leave school? Get a job? Pay her own bills? Hah. This will fall in MY lap, folks. We’ve been over all this before. This also sets ME up to find out who the daddy is, and sue HIS ass off… oh, wait. I can’t. He’s a minor. You can’t sue a minor. Well, fine. Some states have child support laws that INCLUDE minors, so he’ll have to start making payments as soon as he gets a job, and cover back payments, starting then. In the meantime, I’m going to sue his parents into financial oblivion for being irresponsible enough to let THEIR kid get MY kid into this…

…and now, we’re in a legal nightmare, your kid, my kid, your family, my family. So much for OUR rights.

And don’t even get me started on STDs. I’ve watched sixteen year olds die from complications from AIDS. I don’t EVEN want to get into what it does to the parents to watch that happen to their child.

…so yes, someone’s rights are potentially threatened here, I think. And that IS a matter for the law.

222

Okey Dokey as you wish…
quote:

Originally posted by CanvasShoes
Whatever the reason they ended up getting in on in mommies bed, if they’re underage, and the law states what a previous poster says it does, I’d say, throw the book at them.

I do not see where I advocate prison. No child is going to go to prison regardless of their “crime” or misdemeanor, except perhaps in the case of a “tried as an adult” murder.

Regarding “throw the book at them”…Sorry, I wasn’t clear enough. I meant insofar as the appropriate sentence for a child in this case. If it’s a 30 day program (which is likely, imo) or other sentences as appropriate for kids.

223

No and yes. If they need to work full time to support their kids, then school will have to take a back seat. If they can work part time and go to school part time, or work full time and take classes at night or on the weekend, that’s great too. But working to provide for their offspring is far more important, and their legal obligations should reflect that.

That’s up to them. If the grandparents want to arrange for their kid to live somewhere else, they can do so–just as if their kid weren’t a parent. They can write her a check for rent and for her own food and clothing, and let her pay for her offspring.

The same way any parent takes care of a baby without disrupting its grandparents. She can leave the baby with her SO, or a friend, or a day care. She could take it to work if her job provides child care.

Well, you’ve repeatedly–and as far as I can tell, intentionally–misrepresented my words and claimed I’ve said things that I haven’t said. I’m not one to call names in GD, but that word certainly fits those actions.

Argumentum ad numerum. God forbid I should hold an unpopular opinion!

Good job, you’ve managed to fit an appeal to the presumed majority and a strawman into the same sentence. Your continued insistence that minors would “not really be held to adult standards” doesn’t do much for your credibility, when it’s clear from my posts that I haven’t suggested such a thing.

Terrific! Neither do I. I guess we’re on the same side after all.

I’d rather not trust my kid’s liberty to the assumption that the judge who hears his case will be “one of the good ones”. If it’s legally possible for a judge to send kids to jail for having sex, you can bet it’ll happen to someone.

So do the potential consequences of skiing, skateboarding, or crossing a busy street. Of course you don’t want to watch your kid die from AIDS, but I’m betting you also don’t want to watch him die from slamming into a tree on the slopes. You don’t want to make the heavy decisions when your kid becomes pregnant, but neither do you want to make the heavy decisions when she misses a jump on her skateboard and becomes a paraplegic.

No matter what your kid does, no matter what anyone does, there’s always the potential for disaster. He could hit a tree while skiing, he could be hit by a bus while crossing the road, he could slip and crack his skull in the shower, he could be shot by a disgruntled student while sitting in class, or he could become a parent after having sex. You can’t criminalize everything that has potential negative consequences, especially when there are plenty of ways to mitigate those consequences.

224

The grandparents take care of their child’s baby until the teen parent turns 18, then the responsibility is shifted.

225

You know what? If that’s ALL you were doing, I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the people in this thread would have a lot more respect for you.

If you for instance said something to the effect of “I feel that this law is wrong because it’s unfair, I feel that I am(was) mature enough to have sex at 14 and here’s why…” Or some such.

But what you’ve actually BEEN doing is using unbelievably farfetched, melodramatic, “what ifs” such as the “scary pedophile who might film and blackmail” teens trying to have sex".

Or that it would “increase teen pregnancy”. (RRUUUUuuuuHH???).

And so on.

Sheesh, next thing you know you’ll be claiming this law was responsible for the war on Iraq (it wasn’t WMD it was kids DOIN’ IT:D).

You know something? Cut the crap. If you think it’s unfair because you yourself are a teen and want to have sex, OWN UP TO THAT!!!

And then argue from a mature position of why you think you should, or why this law is unfair related SPECIFICALLY to that. NOT all these pathetic strawmen.

If you think it’s unfair because when you WERE that age things were tough for you regarding wanting to have, or having sex? OWN UP TO THAT.

Quit throwing all these patently absurd suppositions into the mix.

226

First of all, not all teenagers who have sex are being “willfully, determinedly stupid.” If they are using multiple methods of contraception, and are not opposed to abortion or adoption, there is almost no chance they will have a baby. In fact, I would like you to provide one cite of teenagers using multiple methods of contraception, who talked about how they would have an abortion or adoption, and still ended up with a kid. You see, you still have provided no evidence at all, I thought I’d give you an easy chance to provide something.

You are still obsessed with the need to convict kids of sex crimes for consensual sex. Of course, sex crime convictions will make it hard for them to apply for jobs or colleges. You know, why don’t we make every crime an honorary sex crime? Sex crime convictions for everyone.

All right Wang-Ka, here is another golden opportunity for you to provide your first bit of evidence.

Provide evidence that “this is what we have.” I want to see that 14 year olds having consensual sex with each other are charged with sex crimes. And not just the ones in this case. How often does this happen, and where?

And now I realize it is pointless to argue with you. You STILL want to criminalize all consensual sex between teens. Despite the fact that you have admitted it does not reduce teen pregnancy, and despite the fact that it would result in much more secrecy and hiding things from parents.

My point was that not EVERY parent feels the way you do. Not EVERY parent wants their kid to be commiting a “sex crime” when they have consensual sex. Not EVERY parent thinks it is “no big deal” if their kid has a sex crime conviction on their record.

That is why I said that I would consider a law in which the kids must first be warned about possible legal consequences. Because not EVERY parent wants those legal consequences. If there is going to be a legal mechanism, there needs to be a safeguard for those kids who are having consensual sex with multiple methods of contraception, and whose parents do NOT want them to be convicted of sex crimes. Maybe you can’t believe such parents exist, but they do.

Once again, provide evidence that this is how current laws work. Where are all the many cases of 14 year olds being convicted of sex crimes for consensual sex with someone their own age?

FINALLY. This is what I have been saying this whole time.

The law in question criminalizes ALL consensual sex between teens. There needs to be a legal safeguard so that only those teens who are unwilling to obey any other kind of structure are convicted by this law.

You have ignored this, presumably crossing your fingers and merely HOPING that only those who deserve it get sex crime convictions.

But at the same time, by criminalizing all consensual sex between teens you encourage teenagers to be sneaky about it. I believe this would result in more pregnancies, just as currently illegal relationships involving adult fathers result in most of teen pregnancies.

Therefore there needs to be a way so that only those teens who are truly uncontrollable without resorting to the law are criminalized by the law. My suggestion was that parents could warn any teen under age 16 that they would face legal consequences if they had sex, and then they would be subject to going to the half way houses, or residential treatment centers, that you have described if they still tried to have sex. I am open to other suggestions that would accomplish the same goal.

If you, as a parent, are simply too lazy to warn your kids that you will seek legal consequences if they try to have sex, too lazy to try anything other than “sex crime” convictions, then quite frankly you do not deserve to throw all your responsibility onto the government. Sorry.

227

quote:

Originally posted by CanvasShoes
At any rate, the cites I cite (sheesh ) aren’t going to “prove teenagers are unable to understand the consequences of sex”. What they do is outline the various stages of development psychologically (which has always been one of MY biggest concerns as the parent of a girl), emotionally, physically, (another big concern, as girls bodies that young are NOT quite ready for the rigors of pregnancy.

Let’s go back to what you said on page 3…
quote:

There are studies from such longstanding books as “The Kinsey Report,” “Masters and Johnson,” “Human Sexuality,” and even good old “Dr. Ruth” just to name a few, that line out psychological, emotional and physiological fact after fact regardaing young teens not being ready for sex at such a young age. Meaning sex on ALL levels mind you, not just the “can they physically accomplish it and get away with it” level.

You got me there. Unfortunately AS parents it is the consequences; physical, physiological, emotional and psychological that concern us and create the need to protect our children. (PS, the very FIRST, before you), question on this (that I remember, it’s that time of month and I have the stupids), was that of Ryle Dup’s asking me what MY reasons were for not wanting my teens to have sex. Unfortunately, several other posters opposed to this law, took that to mean that I was saying that those were valid reasons for this law (and I may or may not believe that, but I was NOT, at that time correlating my answers to the law, merely stating MY reasons as a parent).

quote:

People who are adults have reached the age of consent. To say "why should it be legal, (since your argument is they too can have children and not take care of them), is that they, until they “trip up” are operating within the law. Once they break that law, by neglecting their child, they are subject to other laws.

[quoteThis isn’t really an answer at all.[quote]
I’m sorry, I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to ask.

I understand what you’re trying to get at. But the two separate cases are too different, for too many reasons to be adequate comparisons for your argument.

(I’m trying to get these posts down to UNDER a page and a half :D).

But, FOR instance. It’s not just the fear that kids will have babies, refuse to give them up etc etc, that the law is thought to be in place. And remember, NONE of us know what the research was that the lawmakers of Wisconsin used as their basis for enacting this law. In the following, I’m just guessing based on what MY reasons as a parent are.

That aforementioned not believing that a child is “ready” for sex (no, not the act, the consequences). The fear for the child for him/her to view sex in “jaded” fashion if begun at too early an age, possibly resulting in other undesireable activities. STDs. etc etc.

Asked and answered above.

quote:

One reason (again, IMHO, remember I am NOT a lawyer and I didn’t make these laws), that there is a difference is that with a 14 year old who has a baby, is that she isn’t legallly responsible, mommy and daddy are.

AHA!!! They’re FINALLY starting to “get” it. But you see??? Currently there’s NO law which does this. Like ** yosimetebabe** said (paraphrased) “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” OR “don’t do the ‘crime’ if you can’t do the time”. If you’re going to give parents of recalcitrant teens THAT option, then perhaps teens might find that this law and other like it would either be less used, OR abolished altogether.

But then many of us have said a MULTITUDE Of times in this thread “if you don’t LIKE the law, work to change it”. It’s here now, and it’s all we’ve got. (so to speak).

quote:

Yes, that’s true. But, for one, what a heartbreaking thing [abortion] for a child to go through.

[quoteIt’s no more heartbreaking than for anyone else… just another reason to use birth control properly.[/quote]

I heartily disagree. I think (note the “THINK” part, this is an opinion granted one born out by "school of hard knocks and having raised two children of my own, IN addition to much, MUCH person study of human relations and psychology, BUT, JMHO).

At any rate, I disagree, I think children are hit VERY much harder by things that adults have learned to deal with, and live with. As some members have shown, teen years can be an excrutiatingly difficult, even deadly time of life.

Something like that added to an already stressful phase of life? The need to protect their children from such a thing is part of what causes us to MAKE these laws and/or other ways of protecting kids from themselves.

quote:

That’s sad. What happened to childhood? Kids are in too damn big of a hurry to grow up. Then they get here, and like the rest of we adults they’re saying “what the hell was I in such a rush for”???

Slightly flawed analogy. First swimming is a learned skill, sex is a natural biological response. I doubt that any human alive, even without benefit of MTV wouldn’t be able to figure out “tab A, slot B” with no training WHATSOEVER.

Second, who says keep them absolutely in the dark? If you’ll remember, several of us have advocated age appropriate sex ed for our kids, and most of us have DONE that sex ed ourselves. I started my kids off at about age 5 or 6, and should have started earlier.

But. ya don’t take a 10 year old to see Deep Throat, and a 14 year old does not “NEED” to have actual sexual intercourse to learn about sex and take that learning with him/her into adulthood.

228

I am arguing against the specific law which is the basis for this thread, a law which criminalizes all consensual sexual contact between teens (even non-intercourse sexual contact), with NO requirement that the parents tried ANYTHING else.

I have made reasonable suggestions, which even yosemitebabe has considered reasonable, that parents be allowed to at least WARN the kids that they could seek legal consequences if they try to have sex. You have yet to make such a suggestion.

Until then, you are arguing that parents can be as indolent and lackadaisical at they wish, basically lazy lumps who lie around the house not talking to their kids, and then have their kid convicted of sex crimes for consensual sex with someone their own age. What can I say? Your argument is specious and irresponsible, as befits someone whose idea of debate consists of listing their fantasies as to the opponent’s age in lieu of any intelligent discourse.

229

And here is another suggestion:

Only legal guardians of the kids could warn them, and then have them arrested if the persisted.

Now, I’m sure you will say “Oh, nobody else would ever report them!” But forgive me if I am not persuaded by your faith in the effectiveness of “crossing your fingers.”

230

quote:

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
And how do you propose that these children (some could be as young as 13-14 years old) be “responsible” for their own children, while not bringing their parents OR TAXPAYERS into the mix at all?

How do you propose this? Do these kids work full time and go to school full time in order to support their offspring? Yes, or no?

Or would it be OK if the kids took some “night classes” (or alternative form of education) while they worked full time in order to support their offspring? Yes or no?

But they DON’t “reflect that” Instead, mommy and daddy are CURRENTLY responsible, which is why laws like that are CURRENTLY available to assist parents who are unable (READ FOLKS!! “unable” meaning "HAVING ALREADY EXHAUSTED EVERY OTHER OPTION), to prevent their child from, in other poster’s great words “boinking on the couch every day” with the potential consequences of pregnancy, STDs, falling into the wrong crowd, etc.

quote:

And would their offspring be in the house of their parents (the grandparents of the offspring)? What interaction would you expect the grandparents to have with this offspring?

That’s the whole PROBLEM, “it’s up to THEM, the child” at this point. The parent of the child has no choice, if jrette decides to have the baby, mommy and daddy are responsible. They, the parents, don’t GET to decide that they might want to “arrange for the kid to live somewhere else”.

quote:

Who will look after the offspring when this teenaged parent is at work? Not the parents (baby’s grandparents), surely? How will this teenager take care of this baby without disrupting the lives of his or her parents, who should not have any responsibility for the baby?

Oh, HONEY, are YOU living in a dream world!!! Her SO??? Are you talking of the baby’s father? Please. And even supposing he actually is staying with the mother to help her, how can he watch the baby if He’s working???

A friend? What friends of hers aren’t going to be in school, except perhaps other teen mommies, and what about THEIR jobs/school/obligations???

Do you know how much daycare costs per month??? HINT: A job at Mickey D’s DON’T cut it!

Sure as hell looks like what you’re suggesting to me.
quote:

Originally posted by Wang-Ka
We may therefore presume that Johnny and Susie will be tried as children.

Any sane judge is going to take one look at them, and NOT SEND THEM TO FUCKING GODDAMN JAIL!

The whole point is that the kid in question has BLOWN his chances to prove his behavoiur to mom and dad, the whole POINT is that all other options have been exhausted. Not ONE single person here is advocating a knee-jerk, quasi-religious, morally outraged slapping into jail of kids “merely” for having sex.

quote:

Teen sex, in and of itself, does not violate anyone’s rights, assuming it’s consensual. Its POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES, on the other hand, DO violate someone’s rights.

And as was discussed earlier, laws actually HAVE been either introduced or brought into being regarding just those types of things (skiing, extreme sports etc).

231

Oh, really? So you’re OK with them forsaking school?

So, they make a choice to have sex, and now they have a kid. So, in order to support that kid, they’ve gotta have a job. And as we know, supporting a baby, (including health insurance, day care, and so forth) is not cheap. So how can they afford to do it and go to school too? Unless you think they should drop out of school?

Funny, you sang a different tune on that old thread we have been discussing. Here, I’ll dredge it up.

The context was somewhat different (we were discussing minors petitioning for “adult” rights, and on the flip-side, parents petitioning to have their kids declared “adults”) and there was some discussion about kids working and going to school at the same time:

OK, there are some differences here, but it’s clear that you don’t think a kid should have to work fulltime and go to school full time. And you don’t think that a kid should be forced to attend a GED program or a different school.

Now, if a kid has a baby and the parents don’t want to look after that baby, and they want the baby out of their house (you’d agree that that baby—their grandchild—is not their responsibility, right?) then how is this teenager going to fulfill all their obligations and still work and go to school?

You didn’t think they’d be able to manage it before, so why do you think they could manage it now?

Unless it’s suddenly “Okay” for them to go to school part time (thus keeping them behind all their peers) or just giving up on school for the time being? Do you remember Suse’s links on a previous page? It’s bad enough for teen parents now, without forcing them to support their own kid. Imagine how many children would be woefully left behind if what you expect were made into law.

But you prefer this over the parents having some last desperate stab at stopping their kids from procreating?

Why do they have to “arrange” for anything? That baby isn’t their problem. Let the teenager make all the arrangments herself. The parents (the baby’s grandparents) only are obligated to the teenager. Let her fix her own messes in regards to the baby. (It sounds heartless, I know, but why should the teen’s parents have to life a finger to help?)

Boy, are you living in a dream world. Just start a thread asking if it is universally easy and convenient to find day care for a baby when you have to work full time, can’t rely on your parents (if they are not willing to help) and what about the SO? Can’t count on him to be diligent or careful taking care of the baby. Especially if he would have preferred abortion instead of a baby. And they certainly can’t count on the SO’s parents—they are under no obligation either.

Sure, it might work some of the time, but it’s no guarantee. And day care is expensive. There was a thread about it just recently.

I think people can peruse that nightmare of a thread and decide for themselves.

Lame is more like it, but I’ll let everyone else decide for themselves.

No, there isn’t much evidence of that at all. Your plans still assume that the parents of the teens will “help out.” That’s not at all what I’ve had in mind.

Actually, upon further reflection, I think that the age 17 (not 16, which I was somewhat ambivalent about before) would be better for children to be “exempt” from such a “last ditch” policy. (But I actually think 18 is the best.) At least at age 17, if the kid gets knocked up or knocks another kid up, the baby will only be a few months old (at the most) before they turn 18. And we’re not even getting into the STD thing yet…

But I get the impression that you would not want any such policy for any child of any age? So a 13-year-old would be expected to support their child? Or a 14-year-old? How? Bear in mind, they need to provide health insurance, day care, and all other support, all without the help of their parents. Even at age 13 or 14. How do your suppose that such a young teenager will pull this off?

And also, as far as I am concerned—I want the parents well out of it. Completely out of it. If they aren’t allowed (if you had your way) to use a mechanism such as the one Wang-Ka described, then why should they not be able to wash their hands of the whole mess? They’ve exhuasted all other efforts and they made it clear that they did not want any grandchildren yet. And of course they can’t use the “last resort” that Wang-Ka suggests, (because you don’t want that) so the hell with it.

232

NO ONE has said ANYTHING of the sort!!

CITE!!!

We have REPEATEDLY said “AFTER ALL OTHER OPTIONS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED”.

Do learn to read.

233

Ack!!!, that post look maniacal! Sorry, it was meant to look outrageous and silly!

Sorry nightime. Regardless of whether I agree with you. I’m not meaning to “yell”.

234

You say that, but does the LAW say that?

I’ll take you through it slowly.

You believe that this law should stand, because it is a necessary last resort.

However, I am arguing against this law for many reasons, including the fact that there is no way to be sure it will only be used as a last resort, nor to believe that only the legal guardians of a teen could have them convicted of a sex crime.

You are “crossing your fingers” and hoping that the law is only used in cases where “all other options have been exhausted.”

I am saying that parents should be required to, at the least, WARN their kid that they will seek legal consequences if they try to have sex. This would help ensure that the law is only used as a last resort.

You are “crossing your fingers” and hoping that nobody other than the legal guardian of a teenager turns them in for the “sex crime” of consensual sex with someone their age.

I am saying that there needs to be a legal safeguard so that nobody else CAN have them arrested for consensual sex with someone their age. If the parents are willing to take the chance of having another baby in the house, then they should not have to worry that their teenagers might get convicted of a sex crime!

You are “crossing your fingers” and hoping that teenagers who are convicted of sex crimes under this law were not planning on applying to jobs or colleges before the charge was erased.

I am saying that they should not HAVE a sex crime on their record at all, not only because it is ridiculous and insults victims of real sex crimes, but because they may very well still want to apply for jobs or colleges before the charges are erased.
In other words, you are supporting a law which indiscriminately criminalizes all consensual sexual contact between teens of the same age (even non-intercourse sexual contact), without regard to whether anything else was tried first, and without regard to the possibility that the PARENT themself may not want their kid to have to worry about conviction for a sex crime.

You don’t speak for all parents. They don’t all consider their kids getting convicted of sex crimes as “no big deal.” Some might consider it quite a big deal, in fact.
Your cries of “after all other options have been exhausted” are meaningless, because they are not part of the LAW. The LAW you are supporting allows lazy lumps of parents to never talk to their kids, never do anything, and then get them convicted of sex crimes for consensual sex.
So here are my suggestions:

  1. A parent must warn their below-the-age-of-consent kid that they will seek legal consequences if they try to have sex. This law should not be a way for extremely lazy and uninvolved parents to throw off their responsibility.

  2. Only a teen’s parent can have them arrested for consensual sex. This would avoid the possibilities of blackmail or malicious people turning them in, and it would also allow for the fact that some parents might be willing to support another child.

  3. The teens should not have a sex crime on their record. This is counterproductive, as it makes it harder for them to apply for jobs or colleges.

235

Let me try again… the question is: Is the potential that a teenager might not be able to responsibly raise a child really a valid reason to outlaw teenage sex?

If it is, one would expect some attempt to outlaw sex between people who aren’t teenagers, but are clearly unable to responsible raise a child. But that hasn’t happened.

How do you figure?

In the blue corner, you have a teenager. Let’s say he’s a sophomore in high school (age 15-16). He lives with his parents, doesn’t have a car, and works part time at McDonald’s. He has no expenses and earns around $600 a month, of which he spends 1/4 on various luxuries, and saves the rest. He’s been working for a year, so he has around $5000 in the bank.

In the red corner, you have an adult. He’s 25 and dropped out of high school as a freshman. He lives in his car. He works at the same McDonald’s earning $600 a month, of which he spends 1/3 on cigarettes, beer, and cocaine, 1/6 on gas and car maintenance, and 1/2 repaying his debt. He has no savings and owes the bank $10,000 between his credit cards and car loan.

If either one of them should be prevented from having sex, in order to prevent them from fathering children they can’t afford or raise responsibly, then surely it should be the 25 year old! How are they “too different” to compare?

Sounds good to me.

Heh… not quite what I meant. :wink:

I was referring more to the other things that kids are in a hurry to grow up for, for example drinking. A person who has diligently waited until age 21 to drink alcohol will have no idea what his limit is, or how alcohol will affect him. But if he’s gradually been exposed to alcohol over several years, he’ll be able to handle himself much more responsibly, and less likely to drink a fifth of tequila and leap off a balcony on his 21st birthday.

Likewise, a person who diligently waits until age 18 to have sex will have no idea how his emotions and judgment are affected in the heat of the moment, or how sex changes a relationship, or how lust is different from love. He may view his first sexual relationship with too much attachment, or perhaps too little attachment. But if he’s allowed to experiment gradually over the course of his teenage years, he’ll have more experience and better judgment in all those areas.

236

I’m aware of that. The current laws are unjust, I’m suggesting ways to make them better.

Yes, that’s the problem. The fair solution is not to outlaw teenage sex, but instead to make the teenagers responsible for their own offspring.

This is news to me. What law says your kids have to live in the same house as you?

Well, if she can’t come up with a way to care for the kid while she’s working, and she doesn’t want to be charged with child neglect, then she shouldn’t have kids. Same as with anyone who can’t afford child care.

How can you be sure that judges will only send kids to jail when all other options have been exhausted? Are you 100% sure that no judge will ever want to “send a message” to teens, or improve his chances for re-election by making an example out of someone?

What I’m saying is if you don’t want kids to be sent to jail just for having sex, you better make sure it’s not legal to send them to jail just for having sex… because if someone has the power to do so, he eventually will.

Everything that could possibly kill or injure a teenager is illegal? You must be joking.

Yup. Let me break that into two parts:

  1. Kids shouldn’t have to work full time and go to school full time. That’s exactly what I said here: “If they need to work full time to support their kids, then school will have to take a back seat.”

  2. Kids shouldn’t be forced by their parents to attend a GED program or a different school. As you noted, that was in a different context: parents kicking their kids out into the adult world. I have no problem with teenagers making their own choices that require them to change schools or get jobs.

Exactly… they’re obligated to the teenager. They have to provide certain necessities, including food and shelter. If they don’t want her living in their shelter and eating their food, they can give her the money to get her own shelter and buy her own food.

I haven’t made any such assumption. Why do you think I have?

I suppose that the vast majority of young teenagers who have sex won’t have children at all, because they’ll realize that they’re incapable of supporting a child. The few who do will either work their asses off or be charged with neglect.

237

You consistently ignore one other very important factor.

Percentages.

Please, give the percentages of 15 & 16-year-olds who are holding down part time jobs, has $5,000 saved up, don’t drive, and are living at home.

I’d say that percentage is actually kind of low, because I truly don’t see that many teenagers having $5,000 saved up. I worked (true, not McDonalds) all through my teen years, and my parents made me save 50%, and I never had near that amount at age 16. (Even accounting for inflation.) But, let’s be generous and say that some kids have saved that money up at age 15-16.

On the other hand, I’d say that quite a few kids at age 15-16 are not holding down a part time job, and don’t have that much money saved up. I don’t know the percentages today, but I’d guess that the percentage of 15-16 year olds don’t have $5,000 in the bank and don’t work part time is not insignificant.

And I’d say that almost all of these 15-year-olds are being supported by their parents, and (this is the part you consistently ignore) HAVE THEIR PARENTS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM. And I’d say that almost all of these children attend school full time.

On the other hand, what percentage of 25-year-olds are drugged out losers living out of their cars? What percentage of them HAVE THEIR PARENTS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM? What percentage?

And, what percentage of them have some level of education, (graduated high school)? If they are drugged out losers, probably not 100%, but I think more of them would be high school graduates than, say, your average 15-year-old. who hasn’t had time to graduate yet. (Unless they’ve skipped a grade.)

The percentages don’t even remotely compare.

I think it seems obvious to a lot of us that the law often looks at “percentages” and “odds.” And in this case they did. In a lot of cases they do, I’ll warrant. They don’t base laws on the rather unusual 25-year-old living out of his car, and they don’t base it on the sort of responsible teenager who has already saved up $5,000.

And we aren’t even getting into the parents being legally responsible thing, either, which is a big part of the equation.

238

Nice dodge.

You said that you thought the teen’s parents could arrange something for her.

But why should they have to do anything? They are obligated to her, sure, but not the baby. So they don’t have to arrange anything, other than tell her that her bed, and her bed alone is open. Let her arrange everything else.

But you expected the parents to arrange an alternate living situation for her.

This is another dream world scenario. You really think a child is going to think that far ahead?

How many laws and policies do you want changed so that this girl won’t be able to avail herself of government aid? Would you make it a policy that teenaged mothers can’t get government assistance?

And what about health insurance? How can a 13-14 year old get a full time job and afford health insurance for her child? She’s not legally allowed to work full time yet, is she?

So, by default, it looks like no 13-14 year olds could actually be able to support their own children, no matter how clever and capable they are. Unless you want to change child labor laws too.

239

Ah, but yosemitebabe, you are conveniently ignoring a very important percentage yourself.

The percentage of young teens who have babies with someone their own age VS the percentage of poor adults who have babies.

True, teens who have sex with someone their own age are on average less capable of supporting a child. But adults who are incapable of supporting a child have EXPONENTIALLY more children and cost WAY more money.

Just a thought.

240

Ah, I understand your thought, but the fact remains is that this is still mostly about the parents of unruly teens, and the parents are legally responsible for these teens.

The parents don’t want their lives disrupted with all this worry about babies and STDs. The parents’ job is to look after their teens.

The adults are responsible for themselves. They are not going to drag mom and dad into it, unless mom and dad volunteer.

I thought of another possible scenario that could happen (not common, but could happen and I’m sure already has many times) and I’d like to know the “solution” y’all would come up for it:

Let’s say a 15-year-old boy is living on a small one bedroom apartment with his single mom who is barely making ends meet. This boy is quite the player, and even though mom tries everything she can (barring boarding school :rolleyes: ) she can’t keep him in check.

Two of the girls this boy had sex with end up pregnant. Both, for various reasons, decide to keep the babies. Both have parents who are marginally willing to help their girls with the babies, but both sets of parents expect the father (this boy) to contribute his share. He will have to pay child support, and he will also have to help out with health care and day care. For both kids.

The babies are going to stay with their teenaged mommies—that’s been settled. The girls’ parents will allow it. But they won’t let this 15-year-old player off the hook. He’s got to cough up the dough for all this support, and it can’t be delayed—no waiting until he’s older and can bestir himself to get a job—he’s got to cough it up now.

His mom, the single mom in the one room apartment, she saw this coming. And she wants nothing to do with it. He can still live at the apartment and she’ll still feed him, but the babies can’t come there for “day care.”

So, what does this boy do?

He can’t expect government assistance, because as Mr2001 already concedes, that’s out.

Is it really preferable that this boy be saddled with this much debt, when perhaps, just perhaps had his mom been allowed to “reign him in” sooner, with legal means (like how Wang-Ka describes) all of it could have been avoided?

Oh well, I’m sure there will be some “spinned” canned solution for this, but I thought I’d toss it up for discussion.