Originally posted by JanusRook
However, this is how the laws
created by society try to balance resisting sexual predation and also
allowing those with sufficient maturity the freedom to enjoy consensual
sex
I
would agree with you except under most laws two 15 year olds can have
sex with each other and no repercussions can be taken. Are those 15
year olds sufficiently mature? How about a 17 year old the day before
their birthday and a girl who just turned 16? Does he gain that much
more maturity the next day? |
The system is not perfect, to be sure. On the one hand you have a
highly subjective philosophy which will usually differ from one
individual to the next - people should have consensual sex when they
are mature and we should also stop psychological predation. There are
no objective measures for either of these things, so instead the law
determines an arbitrary objective measure (age) which approximately
translates into a way of judging these two things.
The alternative would be to have every single judge pass judgement on
every case brought before them on the basis of its individual merits.
However, magistrates are only human too and are subject to their own
biases, life experience and personal attitudes - they are bound to come
to decisions which will simply enrage the community. The justice system
would break down under such conditions, and people would demand a
consistent measure to determine correct behaviour. No, I don't think a
person is much more mature the day they turn 17. But the alternative to
a somewhat imperfect arbitrary measure (age) is a far more vague and
impossible to abide by measure (the individual judgement of a
magistrate). The system has its imperfections, but I don't see what
would be better instead.
By the way (I know this is hijacking
the point of the thread but...) I feel that the philosophy behind age
of consent is more important than the laws created. And that age of
consent should be up to the individuals participating whether than
society as a whole. |
If that were the case, a bond between a 12 and 20 year old would be
permissable. Infact, why stop there. A 50 year old and a 12 year old
should be perfectly fine. I think that on a subjective level, this is
just going too far by almost everyone's standards.
Back on topic, how about this scenario a
15 year old boy molests his 11 year old cousin. Now under your
definition the 15 year old isn't mature enough to make decisions based
on sex so how should that situation be treated? Is he to be punished or
is he not guilty by reason of immaturity? If he's to be punished than
he obviously knew enough to do the act, so therefore 15 year olds can
make informed decisions on sex (just not good ones). |
Well, I didn't define responsibility and consent in binary like you are
suggesting (they either are, or are not, able to make the decision and
take responsibility). How I explained it was as a continuum, where as a
child matures they are incrementally given greater decision making,
responsibility and choice. So while the 15 year old may not be
considered mature enough to be fully subject to the advances of a much
older partner, on the continuum they are mature enough to realise that
doing what you outlined to your own cousin is wrong.
The legal system reflects this continuum. Think of what punishment a 10
year old, 13 year old, 16 year old and 19 year old would receive if
becoming sexual with an 11 year old cousin. The 10 year old would
likely receive a heavy punishment from their parents, and otherwise be
subject to "re-education" regarding what is and is not acceptable. The
13 year old would be expected to receive a tougher punishment,
reflecting the expectation that they have advanced on their maturity
continuum enough to really know that that molestation is wrong. A 16
year old could face juvenile detention, depending on the nature of the
molestation. The 19 year old could very well face jail. So I think it
is important to view this as being part of a continuum, rather than
"is" or "isn't".
Also if
child molestation is defined as anyone under 18 I'd say a lot of high
school girls that make poor decisions fall under that umbrella, for
example.* |
Where I live, age of consent is 16, though in many parts of the US it
is higher. I think anything above 16 is really pushing it in expecting
16-18 year olds to behave like saints.
As for high school students, well anyone who attended a co-ed school
quickly realises that consensual sex goes on quite early with a few of
the more adventurous students. And no one went to jail or got taken to
court, in my experience. The answer to why is that the law itself,
being imperfect, is moderated by people simply not taking recourse to
it. So a 13 and 14 year old have sex; the only circumstance in which
this will be reported is if an enraged parent finds out and goes to the
cops, or if one of the pair feels especially jilted and decides to get
one back on the other by going to the police.
This is evidence that while an arbitrary law exists which is not
perfect, the law does not always apply because people don't invoke it.
And this is just how it goes. People who are sufficiently enraged
(either because what happened was awful, or because the person is
hyper-sensitive) will bring the law into it, but the vast majority of
the time the law plays no part. And so the high school girls keep on
partying.
Edited by Constantine XI - 28-Sep-2007 at 01:38