Age Of Consent - 13?

[Johnnypenso]

No, I'm not saying that. That's up to a judge.👍

Why would the mother need contacting, The daughters 18?

What I'm saying is, no matter how you slice it. 14 and 18 cannot consent, so there is no "consenting relationship" (by law). It's a moot point.

If it were a guy! We would take the plea deal, Get community service and be done with it. Because it's a woman it's plastered on the news, And made into a ACLU case. Go figure?

Maybe it's just me, but that same 14 year old is no more able to consent when her boyfriend/girlfriend is 17 years 11 months and 29 days, than she is when the boyfriend/girlfriend is 18 years + day. One is legal, the other is not. The age of the younger half of the consent process doesn't change so how is she more able to consent to one or the other, when the age difference is 1 or 2 days? It's a stupid law.

 

[Keef]

What I'm saying is, no matter how you slice it. 14 and 18 cannot consent

We know what you (and many others) are saying. The thing is, we don't care because we think it's nonsense. We've already established that there's little logical merit to our current laws as have decided that the system needs to be changed. The law is not a reason for anything; conversely, they should exist because of reason. So far we've not been able to establish any logical, universal reason why a 14 and 18 year old can't consent. That's why I proposed that instances like these should be evaluated on an individual basis by psychiatric professionals who can determine if these young people were consentual.

, so there is no "consenting relationship" (by law). It's a moot point.

If it were a guy! We would take the plea deal, Get community service and be done with it. Because it's a woman it's plastered on the news, And made into a ACLU case. Go figure?[/QUOTE]

 

[SagarisGTB]

I agree with those who think the high age of consent is nonsense (if not the whole thing in general). It should be 12 or 13 and above that rape is rape and consent is consent. Maybe that would cut down the number of these bogus statutory rape cases and perhaps it would force parents to educate their children about sex instead of hiding behind age of consent laws.

 

[playnthru]

We know what you (and many others) are saying. The thing is, we don't care because we think it's nonsense. We've already established that there's little logical merit to our current laws as have decided that the system needs to be changed. The law is not a reason for anything; conversely, they should exist because of reason. So far we've not been able to establish any logical, universal reason why a 14 and 18 year old can't consent. That's why I proposed that instances like these should be evaluated on an individual basis by psychiatric professionals who can determine if these young people were consentual.

, so there is no "consenting relationship" (by law). It's a moot point.

If it were a guy! We would take the plea deal, Get community service and be done with it. Because it's a woman it's plastered on the news, And made into a ACLU case. Go figure?

[/QUOTE]

Ok don't care then.

What should I send in your commissary, Soap on a rope?

Seriously though, you've not established anything. All you've done is state your opinion.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ok don't care then.

What should I send in your commissary, Soap on a rope?

Seriously though, you've not established anything. All you've done is state your opinion.

The age of consent is a purely arbitrary number. It's not based on logic, that's self evident, because logically, not all people are the exact same level of maturity at the exact same time.

 

[arora]

perhaps it would force parents to educate their children about sex instead of hiding behind age of consent laws.

This.

There is more to it though, lessons of life and the results of your decisions. It's also a very good idea to weave yourself into the child's life so you can guide them or at least give advice they can listen to. Ultimately they choose what they will but being an integral part of it is not a bad idea.

I think in the case of this story the younger's parents are grasping at straws to excuse themselves, kinda what you where getting at 👍

 

[Zenith]

Here's a question. With medical science making the leaps and bounds that it has, could there be a method to measure mental maturity in the foreseeable future? Something similar to an MRI or DNA test. What could be some of the moral questions that come from using a more logical metric for maturity?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Here's a question. With medical science making the leaps and bounds that it has, could there be a method to measure mental maturity in the foreseeable future? Something similar to an MRI or DNA test. What could be some of the moral questions that come from using a more logical metric for maturity?

Anything is possible, but I still think a lot of these types of conflicts can be resolved by sitting everyone down in a room and hashing it out. It's easy to pick up a phone and let someone else do all the dirty work when you feel you've been wronged, a lot harder to do it face to face.

 

[Famine]

In this case, "mental maturity" is simply a byline for "passably controlled hormonally driven desire".

Think about it as an adult. Being ready for sex simply means you want to have sex. Why? Because it's damn good fun, makes you feel great afterwards and your hormones are going SEX NOW SEX NOW SEX NOW. You don't have to give any thought to pregnancy or disease nor the emotional rollercoaster of sex - you just feel like having sex and you have sex. And why do unwanted pregnancies occur and STIs persist in the general population? Precisely because adults go round banging each other without any thoughts for the consequences because SEX NOW SEX NOW SEX NOW.

Now apply that to whatever age you think qualifies as a kid. They want to have sex, but they're told they can't because they're not old enough to understand the consequences. And they see a bunch of 18-30 year olds nailing anything with the right shape genitals and a pulse, abortions all over the shop and people walking funny because of itchy bits and think "I don't understand the consequences?".

Better still, we tell them they can't have sex with people too much older than them because that classes as those people using their seniority to take advantage of them and they only think they're giving consent because they've been coerced into believing that... But someone with a 30 year age gap (and remember, age and experience trumps youth and exuberence) over a 30 year old isn't using their experience to take advantage?

What about having sex with your wife because she thinks she ought to as your wife? Is that truly consensual or a form of coercion? In fact what about just being smarter than the person you want to have sex with? Are you not using your intelligence as an advantage?


Like speed limits, the actual purpose of the age of consent is a defined number by which you can claim to be protecting people, ignoring actual safety, simply so you've got a clear edge to prosecute people who transgress by an infinitessimal amount.


The right age to start having sex is when you want to have sex. The right people to teach you how to do it safely and how to make the right decisions are your parents.

 

[eran0004]

Better still, we tell them they can't have sex with people too much older than them because that classes as those people using their seniority to take advantage of them and they only think they're giving consent because they've been coerced into believing that... But someone with a 30 year age gap (and remember, age and experience trumps youth and exuberence) over a 30 year old isn't using their experience to take advantage?

I'm sure a lot of youths are able to articulate their consent or denial, but the law is there to protect those who can't say no to an older authority. And a lot of youths aren't able to do that.

 

[Northstar]

And a lot of youths aren't able to do that.

From what I have seen, neither are people in their early 20's. Does that mean we should raise it to 30?

People are stupid and no matter how hard you try you can't protect them from everything(especially if they want to do whatever the stupid thing it). I think that sometimes it makes it worse as it puts a social stigma on it.

 

[Famine]

I'm sure a lot of youths are able to articulate their consent or denial, but the law is there to protect those who can't say no to an older authority.

No, it's there to provide a line to allow easier prosecution of the "older authority".

And a lot of youths aren't able to do that.

From what I have seen, neither are people in their early 20's. Does that mean we should raise it to 30?

Bingo.

People are stupid and no matter how hard you try you can't protect them from everything (especially if they want to do whatever the stupid thing it).

Double bingo.

It shouldn't matter what the ages of the parties are. Coercion to do something is coercion, whether you're an alleged adult or a kid. Sex is no different.

What an age of consent does is stamp on personal freedom (the freedom to decide for yourself) - and personal responsibility (the responsibility for the consequences of your decisions and actions) - to make it easier to prosecute in certain instances. It's the line I talked about in my first post in the thread - yes, kids who are not ready and who are not prepared need protecting from people who would take advantage of them, but so does everyone else. It's the taking advantage that's the problem, not the age of the victim of it.

And I'll note the question wasn't answered - isn't a 60 year old using their age and experience of the world as an advantage over a 30 year old to coerce them into sex? Why would they not be a rapist when a 17 year old who uses the same advantage to coerce a 15 year old (where 16 is the age of consent) into the same act is?

 

[Danoff]

I'm generally fine with lines drawn in the sand - lines like a drinking age, an age of consent, an age at which you can drive, an age at which you can vote, an age at which you can get married, an age at which you can work, an age at which you can be prosecuted as an adult for crimes, even an age at which you can enter a movie theater and see certain imagery unsupervised.

All of these limitations exist in an attempt to prevent children from ruining their lives by making a decision they didn't have the necessary emotional or intellectual capacity to make. They are lines drawn in the sand out of a sense of practicality rather than principle - because it is impossible to take each case on its own. The line is drawn as early as possible to ensure that few people who are prepared for those decisions are prevented from doing so.

Some people are never fully prepared to make those decisions. Some 30 year olds don't have the mental or emotional capacity to engage in sex, or vote, or drink. The fact that a 70 year old can be an alcoholic is an indication that the drinking age at 21 (or 18 or whatever) doesn't catch everyone. The point is that a 7 year old doesn't have a right to drink his brain away or marry a pedophile because they don't have a chance at understanding the consequences - not because they will definitely someday fully understand the consequences.

As far as the age of consent goes, I'd like to see some leniency for children that are close in age. I think as far as sex goes, 18 is way too high an age of consent. Sex is not as serious a decision as some of the others in this list, I don't think it needs to be nearly as protected as we make it. I had graduated from high school and was attending college 2 years before I turned 18. I may have been there early, but I think 16 year olds, even 14 year olds, are capable of more judgement than most adults seem to think.

If you can't decide well enough for yourself who to have sex with or whether to use protection, why on earth do we think you can responsibly guide a motor vehicle 75 mph down a freeway?

 

[Famine]

All of these limitations exist in an attempt to prevent children from ruining their lives by making a decision they didn't have the necessary emotional or intellectual capacity to make. They are lines drawn in the sand out of a sense of practicality rather than principle - because it is impossible to take each case on its own.

While I'd largely agree, I'd not include sex in the list of those things.

It's not possible to drink safely or smoke safely. Imbibing or inhaling any quantity damages the body. But you can have any amount of sex safely without any damage. Unless you include emotional damage and - I may just be a jaded old guy here - I don't necessarily follow the line of reasoning that there is a necessary emotional rollercoaster behind sex. There can be, but you can have the emotions without the sex (see old guy) and the sex without the emotions.

While I think it's primarily the parents' responsibility to ensure their kid isn't screwing, drinking and huffing their way through high school, I don't think it's a child protection - and thus state - issue if it's the former, especially if the kid is rubbered up, so I don't think it should even be something the state should be judging.

However, mental capacity and acuity should be taken into account in all instances where sex may have been coerced without informed consent, regardless of age.

Some people are never fully prepared to make those decisions. Some 30 year olds don't have the mental or emotional capacity to engage in sex, or vote, or drink. The fact that a 70 year old can be an alcoholic is an indication that the drinking age at 21 (or 18 or whatever) doesn't catch everyone.

Ain't that the truth.

The fact is we hit adults with every right in the book when they reach whatever age is determined as adulthood. Many aren't anywhere near understanding the responsibilities that go with those rights when they're that age. Some never get there. Some get there before they reach double digits.

There is, perhaps, a better job that can be done with drip-feeding rights as responsibilities are understood - though the rights that allow you to damage your body (alcohol, smoking, drugs, tattoos, piercings) are probably best left until it's finished developing.

 

[Joel]

As someone who's kinda on the bubble for all these things (I'm 18), it can be very frustrating. I find it completely ridiculous that at my age I can legally vote, have sex, buy a gun, go overseas and die for the military, drive 100km/h down the highway, get married, or get a credit card and rack up thousands of dollars in debt...but God help me if I want to have a beer or a cigarette.

I know it's not really a call you get to make for yourself, but I felt fully prepared and responsible for those things a long time ago. I didn't magically become responsible enough to do all those things on my 18th birthday, nor will I have a moment of clarity on my 19th where I suddenly understand how to drink responsibly.

I do understand the practicality of the laws, but it's so frustratingly arbitrary. I see my 35 year old coworkers and neighbours drunk every night and paying off credit cards with other cards, but I'm not allowed to have a beer.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm generally fine with lines drawn in the sand - lines like a drinking age, an age of consent, an age at which you can drive, an age at which you can vote, an age at which you can get married, an age at which you can work, an age at which you can be prosecuted as an adult for crimes, even an age at which you can enter a movie theater and see certain imagery unsupervised.

The difference between these examples and age of consent is this. If I meet you at a party and I'm 19 and you are 15 but look 18, and I don't ask your age, we decide to bust out of there and go for a ride in your car, you get pulled over and arrested for driving under age, I don't get arrested for driving with you even though we both "consented" to go for a ride together. Likewise, if you somehow sneak into a movie with fake ID and get caught, I don't get kicked out with you if I'm of legal age.

 

[Danoff]

The difference between these examples and age of consent is this. If I meet you at a party and I'm 19 and you are 15 but look 18, and I don't ask your age, we decide to bust out of there and go for a ride in your car, you get pulled over and arrested for driving under age, I don't get arrested for driving with you even though we both "consented" to go for a ride together. Likewise, if you somehow sneak into a movie with fake ID and get caught, I don't get kicked out with you if I'm of legal age.

Try handing a six pack of beer to a child in front of a cop and see if the kid gets arrested.

 

[Keef]

I kinda think all these age restrictions should be removed and penalties should be handed out based on the severity of whatever stupid thing a person does. Maybe we could set an age of adulthood - 16, say - as the age at which adults/parents/guardians are no longer responsible for the decisions of the kid. The new 18.

Or, in the case of driving, it's the same. Or in the case of alcohol, the new 21.

But if we're gonna pick a number, and we pretty much have to because our nonsense society demands it, then it needs to not only be the lowest reasonable number at which we allow kids to potentially kill themselves - 16, for driving - and then it has to be the same for everything else. Kids are as stupid as their parents think they are, and if they are it's because the parents didn't empower them with the tools to not be stupid.

 

[Slash]

I kinda think all these age restrictions should be removed and penalties should be handed out based on the severity of whatever stupid thing a person does. Maybe we could set an age of adulthood - 16, say - as the age at which adults/parents/guardians are no longer responsible for the decisions of the kid. The new 18.

Or, in the case of driving, it's the same. Or in the case of alcohol, the new 21.

But if we're gonna pick a number, and we pretty much have to because our nonsense society demands it, then it needs to not only be the lowest reasonable number at which we allow kids to potentially kill themselves - 16, for driving - and then it has to be the same for everything else. Kids are as stupid as their parents think they are, and if they are it's because the parents didn't empower them with the tools to not be stupid.

I agree with the whole determine penalties depending on severity.

 

[Danoff]

I kinda think all these age restrictions should be removed and penalties should be handed out based on the severity of whatever stupid thing a person does.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying that when a 7 year old gets in the car and runs over his sister that the 7 year old should basically not be handed a sentence because how could he have known what he was doing?

If that's true, it's rights without responsibilities - which doesn't work. Rights and responsibility exist in concert.

 

[Keef]

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying that when a 7 year old gets in the car and runs over his sister that the 7 year old should basically not be handed a sentence because how could he have known what he was doing?

What would happen now? The parents would probably get in trouble for some sort of neglect based on the fact that the kid isn't a legal adult.

Without that age limit the parents would probably still suffer consequences, but instead of being based off an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all limit it would could be based off a psychological evaluation of the kid. Who knows, maybe he honestly did hate his sister, he knew exactly what he was doing, and he should be tried "as an adult". Maybe not - maybe the parents should have been watching him better. It seems to me like you have to find that out if you want to judge the incident fairly. An arbitrary limit doesn't do that - it has no idea when kids are actually old enough to understand the rights of a human being.

 

[Danoff]

What would happen now? The parents would probably get in trouble for some sort of neglect based on the fact that the kid isn't a legal adult.

Without that age limit the parents would probably still suffer consequences, but instead of being based off an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all limit it would could be based off a psychological evaluation of the kid. Who knows, maybe he honestly did hate his sister, he knew exactly what he was doing, and he should be tried "as an adult". Maybe not - maybe the parents should have been watching him better. It seems to me like you have to find that out if you want to judge the incident fairly. An arbitrary limit doesn't do that - it has no idea when kids are actually old enough to understand the rights of a human being.

Right now the law says he had no business being behind the wheel of a car and that if the parents handed him the keys and said "good luck", they'd be liable automatically.

Under your scenario there would be a long drawn out investigation to try to determine whether the 7 year old could reasonably drive. The answer would be no, and the parents would be liable after a lot more hand-wringing.

Eventually case law would establish that no 7 year old is ever able to drive, and the case would be determined quickly and easily by looking at precedent. Case law would effectively establish a minimum age at which children may be found to legally drive.

The problem with case law is that it works great for courtroom where attorneys spend time on both sides looking up prior cases and determining what the threshold is. It doesn't work great for the average family who doesn't know what the law is. They don't know whether a 7 year old can drive, and they don't have the resources to look at all of the cases invovling accidents with 7 year olds to determine that. This is why statute is preferable where possible.

 

[Famine]

But, while silly, some 7 year olds will have been driving a two pedal car for three years thanks to karting. Some 7 year old will at least have the capacity to conduct a motor vehicle - and surely they'd only need a demonstrable ability to follow driving regulations to earn recognition that they are able and responsible?

Minifam is 12. We started teaching her to drive (NOT on the public road!) at 11 - because she's a very sensible person and the same height as her mum so she has NO trouble with the controls. Except for being crap at it so far. Once the ability is there and the knowledge of the Highway Code follows, we'll have a 12 year old who cannot earn the right that her ability and knowledge would deserve.

 

[Danoff]

But, while silly, some 7 year olds will have been driving a two pedal car for three years thanks to karting. Some 7 year old will at least have the capacity to conduct a motor vehicle - and surely they'd only need a demonstrable ability to follow driving regulations to earn recognition that they are able and responsible?

Minifam is 12. We started teaching her to drive (NOT on the public road!) at 11 - because she's a very sensible person and the same height as her mum so she has NO trouble with the controls. Except for being crap at it so far. Once the ability is there and the knowledge of the Highway Code follows, we'll have a 12 year old who cannot earn the right that her ability and knowledge would deserve.

I'm certainly in support of the ability to go through extensive certification to enable a minor to achieve rights normally reserved for adults - especially in the case of driving.

But it's not a super easy thing to test for. Sure she might be able to go through a cones course or parallel park - but will she have the intuition to know that the guy who isn't slowing down for the red light is probably going to run it? Even though that's not a part of any driving test or law, that kind of thing is the reason we wait until folks are a little older and slightly wiser before we let them drive.

Though there is a reasonable argument that the average 12 year old will act with more sensibility than the average 16 year old.

 

[Famine]

I'm certainly in support of the ability to go through extensive certification to enable a minor to achieve rights normally reserved for adults - especially in the case of driving.

But it's not a super easy thing to test for. Sure she might be able to go through a cones course or parallel park - but will she have the intuition to know that the guy who isn't slowing down for the red light is probably going to run it? Even though that's not a part of any driving test or law, that kind of thing is the reason we wait until folks are a little older and slightly wiser before we let them drive.

She learns quite a lot of that level of awareness from us. I've got into the (probably bad) habit of doing the IAMS thing of running a commentary on things around me - she finds it amusing that we can predict car movements on behalf of other people ten seconds before they do it, and within a second of them actually doing it. Hopefully she's picking up hazard awareness and perception in the process!

It is, for reference, a part of the UK driving test. The test and all of the lessons occur on public roads and you can be failed for other drivers' poor decisions and inattention. In fact, I was.

Though there is a reasonable argument that the average 12 year old will act with more sensibility than the average 16 year old.

Yes, that's fair enough too. After all, more 16 year old girls commit suicide and become vegetarian - two very poor decisions - than 12 year old girls.

She briefly thought about the latter during the horsemeat thing earlier in the year. Then she realised she really likes bacon and we never feed her the exact kind of processed goosenaargh that the horse was going into.

 

[Keef]

Eventually case law would establish that no 7 year old is ever able to drive...

It's ever more likely that a 7 year old would find it funny to bat their buddy off the ladder to the tree house, causing him to fall and break some bones. At what age should we disallow children to climb ladders?

The issue isn't the driving or the climbing. The issue is the childrens' understanding of the rights of themselves and others. That goes for all people, not just kids, because everybody does dumb things from time to time.

 

[Danoff]

It's ever more likely that a 7 year old would find it funny to bat their buddy off the ladder to the tree house, causing him to fall and break some bones. At what age should we disallow children to climb ladders?

The issue isn't the driving or the climbing. The issue is the childrens' understanding of the rights of themselves and others. That goes for all people, not just kids, because everybody does dumb things from time to time.

They aren't likely to ruin their lives by using poor judgement with a bat (though naturally it is possible). At some age you don't give a bat to a child - that's called parenting, and no they don't have a right to hold a bat either, even if they own it personally.

The concept is fairly simple, children can very easily make grave mistakes and destroy their own lives or the lives of others if given some of the privileges of adults. For those activities we prevent even their parents from allowing them to engage in those activities. The notion is that so few children under the age limit can engage in those activities that it justifies the use of a bright line in the law both for ease of prosecution and to make it clear to cops and parents alike exactly what the law is.

Allowing a child to use a bat does not fall into that category, and naturally we have set the age limit too high for many of those activities.

 

[Keef]

Allowing a child to use a bat does not fall into that category, and naturally we have set the age limit too high for many of those activities.

In the interest of making meaningful changes to society within my lifetime, I can agree with this. The next step is to decide where the line should be. I say the line because I think this whole 16/18/21 stuff is nonsense.

 

[Danoff]

In the interest of making meaningful changes to society within my lifetime, I can agree with this. The next step is to decide where the line should be. I say the line because I think this whole 16/18/21 stuff is nonsense.

Interesting idea. I'm not sure I can subscribe to one line though. The age at which you should be allowed to engage in sexual activities is probably significantly lower than the age for voting.

I'll just throw this out there to get the ball rolling:
- Voting: 30, or military service (whichever comes first)
- Driving: 14, or with competency test
- Consent: 14
- Drinking/Drugs: 14
- Marriage: 14
- Prosecuted as an adult: 14

 

[SagarisGTB]

Without too much thought:

Voting: 18?, seems fine as is
Driving: None with proper driver education/testing, 18 at least if the licensing is a joke like it is here
Consent: 12
Alcohol: 15 (or with parental consent)
Cannabis/Tobacco: 15 (or with parental consent)
Marriage: 15 or 18?
Prosecuted as an adult: 12
Gambling: 18