Dutch Court OKs 'Pedophile' Political Party

[TobiasTheViking]

HE HAGUE, Netherlands Jul 17, 2006 (AP)— A Dutch court refused Monday to ban a political party whose main goal is to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12. The judge said it was the voters' right to judge the appeal of political parties.

The party has only three known members, one of whom was convicted of molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987. Widely dubbed the "pedophile" party, it is unlikely ever to win a seat in parliament. The group would need around 60,000 votes, and pollsters estimate it would get fewer than 1,000.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2202895

How nice


* TobiasTheViking fumes

[Checkmite]

Lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12? Sounds so familiar, and yet I just can't place it...

[CFLarsen]

Lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12? Sounds so familiar, and yet I just can't place it...
Panama? Philippines? Uruguay? Zimbabwe?

Canada, Mexico (in some cases)?

[JamesDillon]

Seems like a legitimate exercise of free speech to me. Better to give them a fair (if no doubt futile) chance of persuading the majority to change the law through legitimate means than to cut them out of the political process because we happen to not like what they stand for.

[Darat]

Lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12? Sounds so familiar, and yet I just can't place it...

I don't think they have a cat in hells chance but 12 is unfortunately not that far from the age of consent in quite a lot of countries. http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

I'll keep harping on about this but it is about time we used science to set these types of legal lines.

[SwissSkeptic]

As much as I'm disgusted by the existence of such a party, I can't see anything wrong with the court's decision. It's within their political rights to form a party and try to change the law. I wonder how the opponents derive the children's right not to be confronted with the issue - are they claiming that listening to a discussion about the age of consent harms the children?

The argument that children shouldn't be confronted with their opinions doesn't seem convincing anyway. It's a political party, their goal is to persuade adult voters, not children. It's not like they're asking to start a school. I also feel that an exception is made for children in that argument, as e.g. ethnic minorities who might not like being confronted with the opinions of right-wingers aren't protected.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'll keep harping on about this but it is about time we used science to set these types of legal lines.
And where does science set the line?

[SwissSkeptic]

I'll keep harping on about this but it is about time we used science to set these types of legal lines.

Would you mind to elaborate? I'm really interested in how you would do that. The way I perceive it, the problem is that maturity is such an individual trait that we will never be able to set a standard that applies to everybody equally. We just have to draw the line somewhere, but I just can't see how science could help us find where "somewhere" is.

ARGH, beaten!

[Dr Adequate]

Canvassing will be interesting, won't it?

"Excuse me, sir, would you like to vote for a pedophile?"

"No ... but I have always wanted to thump one."

[Darat]

And where does science set the line?


I should go an dig up the references to the actual papers again I know but I'm feeling lazy let me give you this article instead:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4094083,00.html

...snip...

Scientists previously believed the brain was 90 percent of its adult size by the age of 6 and finished developing by 12.

But they were wrong.

Teams of researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of California have learned through magnetic resonance imaging that the brain continues to mature during the teen years - beginning a final push around 16 or 17.

"We found that the frontal lobes were the last to develop," said UCLA brain researcher Paul Thompson. "These brain regions control inhibition, rash actions, rage and anger." They also control decision-making, risk perception and impulse control.

"While a 14- or 17-year-old knows the difference between right and wrong, they don't have the same abilities to control their behaviors and assess risks the way adults do," said Steven Drizin, a Northwestern University law professor who helped author one of the briefs the Supreme Court considered in its ruling on juvenile death penalty.

...snip...


We now have sound scientific reasons to state that a child is not capable of making decisions in the same way an adult is, so I would say this gives us a good baseline for setting legal limits on when a child becomes an adult. Now of course for any given individual that line will still be arbitrary for instance if we set it at 18 then we may find that 10% of people of that age don't quite have adult brains with all the structures and connections required to make adult decision but we would know 90% do.

Of course this doesn't solve the whole problem because we as a society are still deciding what behaviours we believe require adult reasoning to make but at least we have a better understanding of what we mean by adult.

[JamesDillon]

We now have sound scientific reasons to state that a child is not capable of making decisions in the same way an adult is, so I would say this gives us a good baseline for setting legal limits on when a child becomes an adult. Now of course for any given individual that line will still be arbitrary for instance if we set it at 18 then we may find that 10% of people of that age don't quite have adult brains with all the structures and connections required to make adult decision but we would know 90% do.
But who's to say that the age of consent should be set at the point at which a child has developed a basically adult brain and is able to control impulses as an adult would? That's a plausible argument, but the point is that science itself can't make those judgments for us. Certainly our decisions should be informed by as much relevant scientific data as possible, but ultimately the creation of social policy requires value judgments that go beyond what science is capable of doing for us. An alternative science-based perspective would be that the age of consent should be set at the point at which our bodies are biologically capable of reproducing-- i.e., puberty. Presumably in the evolutionary environment, that's about the age at which humans started having children of their own. That line of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that 12 years old is about right-- maybe 13 or 14 at the oldest. I'm not saying I agree with that argument; the point, again, is that science is incapable of setting social policy in the absence of nonscientific value judgments.

[Kerberos]

From qotes text:

"The judge said it was the voters' right to judge the appeal of political parties."

Sounds about right to me, Can I hazard a wild guess about how the voters will judge the appeal of this particular political party? I'm gonna say: not very.

[Earthborn]

We now have sound scientific reasons to state that a child is not capable of making decisions in the same way an adult is, so I would say this gives us a good baseline for setting legal limits on when a child becomes an adult.You should read your own sources:

The brain researchers themselves are reluctant to join activists who are clamoring for change."Yes, the brain of a 16-year-old is different than the brain of a 25-year-old," Jay Giedd, a brain imaging researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health, said in an interview on PBS NewsHour last October. "But what should that mean for the judicial system or other systems? I think that it's just too great of a leap at this point."

[Darat]

But who's to say that the age of consent should be set at the point at which a child has developed a basically adult brain and is able to control impulses as an adult would? That's a plausible argument, but the point is that science itself can't make those judgments for us.


I agree but it is starting to give us some tools so that we can start to make much more objective decsions about these types of issues.


An alternative science-based perspective would be that the age of consent should be set at the point at which our bodies are biologically capable of reproducing-- i.e., puberty. Presumably in the evolutionary environment, that's about the age at which humans started having children of their own. That line of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that 12 years old is about right-- maybe 13 or 14 at the oldest. I'm not saying I agree with that argument; the point, again, is that science is incapable of setting social policy in the absence of nonscientific value judgments.

This is an interesting argument but when we start to look at the scientific evidence we see some strange patterns emerging that would indicate that this is not even a fixed point in human development. For instance the average age of menarche in North American females has been falling since around 1850.

I think we can come up with an objective reason (or rather a less subjective reason) for having an age of consent based on the ability to reason as an adult. (I've never tried to put this down in a post before so I may need to refine it a little bit as I go along.)

The consequences of having sex for a child (using the definition of a child as not being a physically mature human being) can not only be extreme for the child but also for the adult that child will become. The adult the child will become cannot undo actions taken by that child and using the latest scientific evidence we know that that child cannot and does not make decisions the same way as the adult would. Therefore there is an objective reason to not allow that child to make decisions that could have negative effects for the adult.

[Darat]

You should read your own sources:

I was aware of his opinion in that piece, as I said I'm being lazy and can't be bothered to find the actual studies that have been on-going showing at least a strong correlation between a child's immature brain and the effect that has on their ability to reason.

[Darat]

Some links to some other stuff about adolescent brain development

http://www.duke.edu/~amwhite/Adolescence/adolescent3.html

And this one has references to some of the key research papers: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/Publicat/teenbrain.cfm

[TragicMonkey]

If the criterion is brain development, then as people age, do they lose the right to consent? A ninety-year-old brain is not the same as a thirty-year-old brain: some function has deteriorated, in most people. Therefore if someone gets it on with Cher, are they guilty of statutory rape?

[Darat]

If the criterion is brain development, then as people age, do they lose the right to consent? A ninety-year-old brain is not the same as a thirty-year-old brain: some function has deteriorated, in most people. Therefore if someone gets it on with Cher, are they guilty of statutory rape?

No just bad taste.

[Tailgater]

I don't see how a 12 year old can be looked at as anything but a child. I think I stopped liking 12 year olds about the time I was 12 and saw a 14 year old. I can understand kids of a close age experimenting. It happens. But if your an older teenager and up, your one sic f**k to go after that. Having 3 kids, I know how immature and almost insane a 12 year old girl can be, and they are in no way ready to know what's good for them in life and they are discussing what's good for them in bed. Damn, they just quit playing with Barbies and action figures. I'm glad they can go more public so people know where to bring the nooses and torches.

[Ian Osborne]

If the criterion is brain development, then as people age, do they lose the right to consent? A ninety-year-old brain is not the same as a thirty-year-old brain: some function has deteriorated, in most people. Therefore if someone gets it on with Cher, are they guilty of statutory rape?
Cher is 90??? :jaw-dropp

[Darat]

Cher is 90??? :jaw-dropp

Some parts are, it's like retreads are cheaper then new*




*Should add I make no moral judgments regarding anyone having any cosmetic procedure, but that does not mean I will refrain from making sarcastic remarks about people who can afford to have cosmetic procedures that I would never, never even consider having even if I did have the money.

[TobiasTheViking]

As much as I'm disgusted by the existence of such a party, I can't see anything wrong with the court's decision. It's within their political rights to form a party and try to change the law.

Agreed

[Marquis de Carabas]

Of course this doesn't solve the whole problem because we as a society are still deciding what behaviours we believe require adult reasoning to make but at least we have a better understanding of what we mean by adult.
OK, if that's what you're saying I agree. We should always try to make scientifically-informed choices, but science can't make the final call. We should try to get our hands on as much information about brain development and decision-making as possible, but then, we have to draw an arbitrary line saying "OK, at this point the brain is developed enough to commence with the boinking".

[ponderingturtle]

I don't see how a 12 year old can be looked at as anything but a child. I think I stopped liking 12 year olds about the time I was 12 and saw a 14 year old. I can understand kids of a close age experimenting. It happens. But if your an older teenager and up, your one sic f**k to go after that. Having 3 kids, I know how immature and almost insane a 12 year old girl can be, and they are in no way ready to know what's good for them in life and they are discussing what's good for them in bed. Damn, they just quit playing with Barbies and action figures. I'm glad they can go more public so people know where to bring the nooses and torches.

But say two thirteen year olds have sex, should they both be locked up as criminals. There are just too many problems with hard limits, and at the low end of any such ruleing there should be some .

You need a couple of standards here so that the law can be enforced and not made to what most people feel is reasonable through selective enforcement.

So you have several issues
At what age should you be able to concent to sex with a full adult
at what age should you be able to concent to sex with someone of similar age
at what age should all sex irregardless of age of the partner be a crime, if two 10 year olds had sex with each other should that be a crime or not?

Now the group in question is almost certainly trying to make those all the same and quite low because they want to be able to have legal sex with the people that they are atracted to. I don't agree with them, I don't see any reason to have the age to concent with a full adult(say over 20 for this case) be 16, 12 is too low for that.

[Kerberos]

But say two thirteen year olds have sex, should they both be locked up as criminals. There are just too many problems with hard limits, and at the low end of any such ruleing there should be some .

You need a couple of standards here so that the law can be enforced and not made to what most people feel is reasonable through selective enforcement.

So you have several issues
At what age should you be able to concent to sex with a full adult
at what age should you be able to concent to sex with someone of similar age
at what age should all sex irregardless of age of the partner be a crime, if two 10 year olds had sex with each other should that be a crime or not?
The two last questions are really the same question, and IMO rather pointless. If two 10 yearl old have sex who are you going to punish?

The one who's five days older? That would be absurd.

None of them? Then there's not real point in criminalizing it.

Both of them? that doesn't make much sense either, if they're to young to consent they're also, as I see it, to young to be punished for it.

The relevant questions are IMO:

1) At what age can you consent legally?

2) how much of an age difference makes it legal despite one of them being below the age of consent?

3) What other modification do we wish to place on the age of consent? In Demark for exampel the general age of consent is 15, but for prostitution, or the older person is in some sort of senior position to the younger, like for example being a trainer in the younger persons sports clup, then it's 18.

[ponderingturtle]

The two last questions are really the same question, and IMO rather pointless. If two 10 yearl old have sex who are you going to punish?

Both of them. They are both guilty of having sex with someone under the age. Why should there have to be a victem and criminal? They both commited a crime, they should both be punished.

Or you could simply punish the male I guess(assuming heterosexual relationships, homosexual acts at young ages would make it even more complex)


Both of them? that doesn't make much sense either, if they're to young to consent they're also, as I see it, to young to be punished for it.

That doesn't make sense either, where do you then draw the line of someone who can not legaly concent but can be changed with having sex with someone younger.

It is entirely possible that they are both criminals, it can easily happen with violent offenses where both people acted illegaly so why not sexual ones as well?

[Kerberos]

Both of them. They are both guilty of having sex with someone under the age. Why should there have to be a victem and criminal? They both commited a crime, they should both be punished.

Sorry I don't really understand the logic of that. Presumably the reason for having an age of consent is that people under that age are not considered mature enough to understand the consequences of having sex. Why if they're not mature enough to understand that are they mature enough to be punished for it? also what punishment would you find appropriate?

Or you could simply punish the male I guess

Sure you could, if you didn't mind being blatantly sexist, violating basic human rights and such. You could also punish the girl. The Iranians would approve of that model.



That doesn't make sense either, where do you then draw the line of someone who can not legaly concent but can be changed with having sex with someone younger.
With the risc of sounding like an echo that doesn't make sense. I'm really not sure what you're saying here.


It is entirely possible that they are both criminals, it can easily happen with violent offenses where both people acted illegaly so why not sexual ones as well?
Because the reason why violent crimes are illegal has nothing, or at least little, to do with the maturity of the victim. People seldom consent to being beaten up. Unless they practice boxing that is.

[SwissSkeptic]

Kerberos, according to Swiss law the age of consent is 16. However if the age difference between the partners is less than three years, they can be younger than 16. This leads to the situation that in the case of a 14 year old sleeping with a 10 year old, both are technically guilty of having sex with a minor. There is a cop-out phrase about the possibility to forego the criminal prosecution or punishment for offenders under 20, but technically they are both guilty.

To make it clear, the criminal discretion begins with 7, that's why they can be charged.

[ponderingturtle]

Because the reason why violent crimes are illegal has nothing, or at least little, to do with the maturity of the victim. People seldom consent to being beaten up. Unless they practice boxing that is.

So duels are legal where you are? I did not know that. There are all kinds of ways to commit crimes in a fight, and it is not at all unlikely that both sides commited them, so they are both ciminals. So why should sex be different? They are both victems and victemizers and should both be punished for having sex with people under the age of consent. It is my understanding that this is how the laws would work, it is just selective enforcement that prevents such things.

[JamesDillon]

I'm not an expert in this area, but I believe that most rape statutes, at least in the United States, specify that the victim must be under the age of consent and younger than the perpetrator, in which case only the older individual involved would be subject to criminal prosecution.

It seems odd to suggest that a 10 year old could sexually "victimize" a 14 year old, even if both are under the age of consent.

[Checkmite]

So duels are legal where you are? I did not know that. There are all kinds of ways to commit crimes in a fight, and it is not at all unlikely that both sides commited them, so they are both ciminals. So why should sex be different? They are both victems and victemizers and should both be punished for having sex with people under the age of consent. It is my understanding that this is how the laws would work, it is just selective enforcement that prevents such things.

Did you decide to ignore that part of his post where he explains that if the age of consent is based upon the idea that a person cannot truly be responsible for a decision if they lack the mental capacity to understand that decision, and if neither player has reached the age of satisfactory mental capacity, neither player is truly responsible for their decisions and don't deserve to be punished?

[SwissSkeptic]

It seems odd to suggest that a 10 year old could sexually "victimize" a 14 year old, even if both are under the age of consent.

It's indeed odd, and more of an unintended side effect of our law than anything else. However, due to the cop-out phrase you won't see the 10 year old being punished or even prosecuted in practice. I still don't like the solution for the exact reason Kerberos named.

ETA: Many law scholars are arguing for an interpretation of the law that excludes the younger child from prosecution and I'm not aware of any cases where the younger child was actually punished, that's why I said "technically guilty" in my last post.

[ponderingturtle]

Did you decide to ignore that part of his post where he explains that if the age of consent is based upon the idea that a person cannot truly be responsible for a decision if they lack the mental capacity to understand that decision, and if neither player has reached the age of satisfactory mental capacity, neither player is truly responsible for their decisions and don't deserve to be punished?

And this is agenst so much of how the legal system treats people of this age. Why should they get a free pass at sexual crimes but not crimes of violence or property? They had sex with someone below the age of concent, so why shouldn't they be charged in juvinile court with the crime?

In many states there are more and more juviniles being tried as adults. These two views are entirely incompatable.

[Molinaro]

The conservative government now in power here in Canada has tabled legistlation to raise the age of consent to 16.

My understanding was that the lower age was set to facilitate the arranged marriages that are somewhat common in some cultures.

If it's legal for a pair of 14 year olds to get married, shouldn't it also be legal for them to have sex with each other?

And if it is an issue of being able to make an informed decision, why then are arranged marriages legal? That seems to be 100% against the idea of an informed decision.


Current age of consent in Canada:

12 with 12 or 13 is ok
13 with 12, 13, or 14 is ok
14 with anyone 13+ is ok
15+ with anyone 14+ is ok

[Kerberos]

So duels are legal where you are? I did not know that. There are all kinds of ways to commit crimes in a fight, and it is not at all unlikely that both sides commited them, so they are both ciminals. So why should sex be different? They are both victems and victemizers and should both be punished for having sex with people under the age of consent. It is my understanding that this is how the laws would work, it is just selective enforcement that prevents such things.
And how many of these crimes that one can commit in a fight are based on the maturity of the two fighters and therefore legal when the participants are above a certain age? Not duelling certainly. Also you failed to address most of my post, please do.

[ponderingturtle]

It's indeed odd, and more of an unintended side effect of our law than anything else. However, due to the cop-out phrase you won't see the 10 year old being punished or even persecuted in practice. I still don't like the solution for the exact reason Kerberos named.

ETA: Many law scholars are arguing for an interpretation of the law that excludes the younger child from persecution and I'm not aware of any cases where the younger child was actually punished, that's why I said "technically guilty" in my last post.

That is my problem, the laws now are based on so much selective enforcement, that there real effects are being muted. The laws should not be writen in such a way that requires ignoreing many crinimals to make them acceptable to the public. They should be writen in such a way that the public would find them acceptable. I have heard of cases where the jury didn't feel the person being charged had done anything wrong, but because he was 19 and she was 17(or mabey almost 17 or something) and the way the law was worded, he gets a very stiff prison sentance.

There is certainly a strong role for these laws, but I don't like the idea that it is just selective enforcement that prevents them form being used in ways that the public would take issue with. Sure a DA might not be interested in charging a couple of 13 yo's with statutary rape, but that does not mean that the laws would not support such an action.

[Kerberos]

Kerberos, according to Swiss law the age of consent is 16. However if the age difference between the partners is less than three years, they can be younger than 16. This leads to the situation that in the case of a 14 year old sleeping with a 10 year old, both are technically guilty of having sex with a minor. There is a cop-out phrase about the possibility to forego the criminal prosecution or punishment for offenders under 20, but technically they are both guilty.

To make it clear, the criminal discretion begins with 7, that's why they can be charged.
Yes technically, but as you say they frequently won't be punished and certainly not the younger child, so it falls under the " not actually punishable" categori I mentioned.

[ponderingturtle]

And how many of these crimes that one can commit in a fight are based on the maturity of the two fighters and therefore legal when the participants are above a certain age? Not duelling certainly. Also you failed to address most of my post, please do.

Show me the legal disticion made there. The crime is having sex with someone unable to give legal consent, and they both did that. If they where truely unable to be held accountable for their actions, then they should not also be able to be tried as adults, but in the ages we are talking about more and more states are permitting them to do that as well.

Basicly they are either responceible for their actions or they are not. The action here is having sex with someone unable to give legal consent because of age. Why is this so special that they are not held accountable for this, but if it involved say someone unable to give consent because of mental retardation, would that change the principle?

How much can a 14 year old be held responceible for their actions? IF they can be held responceible for so much, what is so special about having sex with someone unable to give consent to sex because they are a similar age to the party?

[SwissSkeptic]

That is my problem, the laws now are based on so much selective enforcement, that there real effects are being muted. The laws should not be writen in such a way that requires ignoreing many crinimals to make them acceptable to the public. They should be writen in such a way that the public would find them acceptable. I have heard of cases where the jury didn't feel the person being charged had done anything wrong, but because he was 19 and she was 17(or mabey almost 17 or something) and the way the law was worded, he gets a very stiff prison sentance.

There is certainly a strong role for these laws, but I don't like the idea that it is just selective enforcement that prevents them form being used in ways that the public would take issue with. Sure a DA might not be interested in charging a couple of 13 yo's with statutary rape, but that does not mean that the laws would not support such an action.

I agree with you to an extent, but there will always be badly worded laws and without selective enforcement the courts would be even more overloaded than they already are. We also have to ask ourselves if we want the law to be executed for it's own sake or rather for society's sake (false dichotomy, I know). It's often easier to correct a "bad" law by restricting its use than by trying to change it.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes technically, but as you say they frequently won't be punished and certainly not the younger child, so it falls under the " not actually punishable" categori I mentioned.

No it is not actualy punished, not punishable. You think that the only protections anyone in that situation should ever have is selective enforcement of laws then. They are both technicaly guilty, and people are just choosing not to enforce the law.

[CptColumbo]

Canvassing will be interesting, won't it?

"Excuse me, sir, would you like to vote for a pedophile?"

"No ... but I have always wanted to thump one."
If it was the US, they could do it while they go door to door, identifying themselves as a sex offender.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree with you to an extent, but there will always be badly worded laws and without selective enforcement the courts would be even more overloaded than they already are. We also have to ask ourselves if we want the law to be executed for it's own sake or rather for society's sake (false dichotomy, I know). It's often easier to correct a "bad" law by restricting its use than by trying to change it.

The problem is, what happens then when you get a case where charges are brought and it is technicaly illegal even if it does is almost never prosecuted? It makes it really easy for someone to not violate any comunity standards of behavior, but get charged and convicted because someone wanted to do so, say the girls family decides they don't like him and get the da to bring charges.

This can happen, and it means you are leaving protections up to the good will of others. ANd while I generaly belive in the good will of others I would not want to be in a situation where I was dependant on it.

[brodski]

If it was the US, they could do it while they go door to door, identifying themselves as a sex offender. i suspect that this political party will be very careful to make sure than non of their high profile members and candidates are convicted sex offenders. Which is an added advantage of the legalization of this party, it makes it easy to spot a number of people who desperately want to have sex with children, but haven't been caught at it yet.

[SwissSkeptic]

Yes technically, but as you say they frequently won't be punished and certainly not the younger child, so it falls under the " not actually punishable" categori I mentioned.

The older child can be minor and still punishable as long as they're over 7 and the other child is three years younger.

[Checkmite]

And this is agenst so much of how the legal system treats people of this age. Why should they get a free pass at sexual crimes but not crimes of violence or property? They had sex with someone below the age of concent, so why shouldn't they be charged in juvinile court with the crime?

The crime is not in having sex with someone over the age of consent. It's in being above the age of consent, and having sex with someone below the age of consent.

[Checkmite]

i suspect that this political party will be very careful to make sure than non of their high profile members and candidates are convicted sex offenders. Which is an added advantage of the legalization of this party, it makes it easy to spot a number of people who desperately want to have sex with children, but haven't been caught at it yet.

It's actually too late; one of this party's three founders is, in fact, a convicted offender.

[brodski]

It's actually too late; one of this party's three founders is, in fact, a convicted offender. oh, they're even less smart than I gave them credit for.

[SwissSkeptic]

The problem is, what happens then when you get a case where charges are brought and it is technicaly illegal even if it does is almost never prosecuted? It makes it really easy for someone to not violate any comunity standards of behavior, but get charged and convicted because someone wanted to do so, say the girls family decides they don't like him and get the da to bring charges.

This can happen, and it means you are leaving protections up to the good will of others. ANd while I generaly belive in the good will of others I would not want to be in a situation where I was dependant on it.

This is indeed a problem and I don't know how it can be changed except by adjusting the laws to the reality of the community standards, which often is a very unsatisfying process, as those standards can change much faster than the law (at least in a democracy).

[Kerberos]

Show me the legal disticion made there. The crime is having sex with someone unable to give legal consent, and they both did that. If they where truely unable to be held accountable for their actions, then they should not also be able to be tried as adults, but in the ages we are talking about more and more states are permitting them to do that as well.

Basicly they are either responceible for their actions or they are not. The action here is having sex with someone unable to give legal consent because of age. Why is this so special that they are not held accountable for this, but if it involved say someone unable to give consent because of mental retardation, would that change the principle?

How much can a 14 year old be held responceible for their actions? IF they can be held responceible for so much, what is so special about having sex with someone unable to give consent to sex because they are a similar age to the party?
You forgot to adress the rest of my previous post.


No it is not actualy punished, not punishable. You think that the only protections anyone in that situation should ever have is selective enforcement of laws then. They are both technicaly guilty, and people are just choosing not to enforce the law.
A distinction without a difference.

[Kerberos]

The older child can be minor and still punishable as long as they're over 7 and the other child is three years younger.
yes, but that's not children of similar age, which really was the topic.

[ponderingturtle]

The crime is not in having sex with someone over the age of consent. It's in being above the age of consent, and having sex with someone below the age of consent.

Show that. How often is the laws around statutary rape writen in that way instead of the other.

I have always heard that if two 15 yo's have sex they are technicaly both comitting statutary rape.

[SwissSkeptic]

yes, but that's not children of similar age, which really was the topic.

True. I was at first responding to the part of your post where you said:
if they're to young to consent they're also, as I see it, to young to be punished for it.

[ponderingturtle]

Fine as this seems to be the only post I did not address the entirety of and you keep instead of actualy stateing what I didn't address just blandly say I did not address your previous post

Sorry I don't really understand the logic of that. Presumably the reason for having an age of consent is that people under that age are not considered mature enough to understand the consequences of having sex. Why if they're not mature enough to understand that are they mature enough to be punished for it? also what punishment would you find appropriate?

I am not saying that anyone should be punnished I am talking about what the laws actualy say


Sure you could, if you didn't mind being blatantly sexist, violating basic human rights and such. You could also punish the girl. The Iranians would approve of that model.

There are laws that differeniate between men and women. There is simply no way arround it. The perfect example is laws regarding abortion and how a woman can force a man to pay child support, but gets no decision about aborting the fetus. The problem here is that there are three ideals here and you can only have two of them supported.

More relevent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Law

specificaly
The enforcement practises of AoC laws tend to vary depending on the social sensibilities of the particular culture (see above). Often enforcement is not exercised to the letter of the law, with legal action being taken only when a sufficiently socially-unacceptable age gap exists between the two individuals, or if the perpetrator is in a position of authority over the minor (e.g. a teacher, priest or doctor). The gender of each actor can also influence perceptions of an individual's guilt and therefore enforcement [1].

The [US] Supreme Court has held that stricter rules for males do not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, on the theory that men lack the disincentives associated with pregnancy that women have to engage in sexual activity, and the law may thus provide men with those disincentives in the form of criminal sanctions.[2] (^ Posner, Richard (1996). A Guide to America's Sex Laws. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-67564-5. The case cited is Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981). )

That is all legal in the US as far as I can determine.

I was just sugesting it because you seemed to want to blame one and not both of the participants and this would give you a suportable basis for such a determination.


With the risc of sounding like an echo that doesn't make sense. I'm really not sure what you're saying here.[/qoute]

This is not a substantive point so not adressing it is irrelevent
[QUOTE=Kerberos;1775918]
Because the reason why violent crimes are illegal has nothing, or at least little, to do with the maturity of the victim. People seldom consent to being beaten up. Unless they practice boxing that is.

Actualy there are cases there people consent to fighting and such, such as say taking it outside to fight it out in a bar for example. Legaly that is a consentual fight.

[Kerberos]

True. I was at first responding to the part of your post where you said:
I said that in response to a post wich operated with two ages of consent. One at which you were legal to have sex with regardless of your partners age, and another lover age over which you we're legal to have sex with if your partner was of roughly the same age.
Under the second age it was illegal to have sex with you at all, regardless of your partners age. The age of consent I refer to in the quote is the second lower age. The Swiss age of consent is the first higher age.

[SwissSkeptic]

I said that in response to a post wich operated with two ages of consent. One at which you were legal to have sex with regardless of your partners age, and another lover age over which you we're legal to have sex with if your partner was of roughly the same age.
Under the second age it was illegal to have sex with you at all, regardless of your partners age. The age of consent I refer to in the quote is the second lower age. The Swiss age of consent is the first higher age.

Thanks for clearing this up, I was confused because our law doesn't have that second age of consent, at least not in an absolute sense.


Must...learn...to...read

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks for clearing this up, I was confused because our law doesn't have that second age of consent, at least not in an absolute sense.


Must...learn...to...read

Most don't, and the way that they generaly work is getting the effect of having two relative ages of consent for minors who have sex is through selective prosecution. So selective enforcement and no legal bariers are what prevent a pair of 14 year olds from both being locked up and having to register as sex offenders.

[LW]

Most don't, and the way that they generaly work is getting the effect of having two relative ages of consent for minors who have sex is through selective prosecution. So selective enforcement and no legal bariers are what prevent a pair of 14 year olds from both being locked up and having to register as sex offenders.

I don't know about general cases, but in the specific case of Finnish Penal Code (http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039) (Chapter 20, section 6) it is not selective enforcement:

(2) However, an act referred to in paragraph (1) [containing the definition of the crime -LW] is not deemed sexual abuse of a child if there is no great difference in the ages and or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved.

[SwissSkeptic]

Most don't, and the way that they generaly work is getting the effect of having two relative ages of consent for minors who have sex is through selective prosecution. So selective enforcement and no legal bariers are what prevent a pair of 14 year olds from both being locked up and having to register as sex offenders.

In places where it's handled as you describe it, there sure is a problem as far as legal certainty is concerned. But what else can be done except trying to change the law (which can take many years) and making/following rules for the prosecution and judges to minimise their arbitrariness?

[ponderingturtle]

In places where it's handled as you describe it, there sure is a problem as far as legal certainty is concerned. But what else can be done except trying to change the law (which can take many years) and making/following rules for the prosecution and judges to minimise their arbitrariness?

I am not sure that there is that kind of close age exceptions in most state laws in this way. So most of the US relies on selective enforcement and not any actual law for this protection.

[SwissSkeptic]

I am not sure that there is that kind of close age exceptions in most state laws in this way. So most of the US relies on selective enforcement and not any actual law for this protection.

How long has this selective enforcement been in use? It seems like a pragmatic approach to me, as long as the predictability of legal decisions doesn't suffer too much. Of course it can't replace an adjustment of the law(s) in the long term, but it seems like a sensible thing to do in order to keep the decisions of the judicial power consistent with community standards.

[JamesDillon]

I really don't think that ponderingturtle is right in his/her basic assertion that most statutory rape laws are violated by both participants when two underage individuals have sex, and that only selective enforcement ("prosecutorial discretion" is probably a better term) is the only impediment to throwing two eight year olds in the slammer for playing doctor, but I don't have time to research the question right now. I believe, as I've said before, that most rape statutes apply only to a defendant who is himself several years older than the victim, and the victim is below the age of consent.

That said, prosecutorial discretion is an important part of any properly-functioning legal system. Inevitably situations arise in which a criminal statute has arguably been violated, but reasons not contemplated by the statute of general applicability exist such that prosecution would be inappropriate in that particular instance. So long as discretion is applied in good faith, and not to reward or punish the prosecutor's friends or enemies, there is nothing wrong with this, and in fact it operates to insure that application of the criminal law comports with social expectations and norms.

[Checkmite]

I have always heard that if two 15 yo's have sex they are technicaly both comitting statutary rape.

I cannot help what you've always heard. The only instance I can recall wherein the situation you describe takes place was recently, where a couple of (I think) 13 year olds were each charged with molesting each other; this instance was so unusual that it made headlines.

[Kerberos]

I am not saying that anyone should be punnished I am talking about what the laws actualy say
That wasn't very clear from your posts, but OK that might very well be what the law says in some US states. I wouldn't know. If it's not enforced though the law might as well not exist, the difference between a law that's never enforced and one that doesn't exist is pretty academic.

There are laws that differeniate between men and women. There is simply no way arround it. The perfect example is laws regarding abortion and how a woman can force a man to pay child support, but gets no decision about aborting the fetus. The problem here is that there are three ideals here and you can only have two of them supported.

More relevent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Law

specificaly
The enforcement practises of AoC laws tend to vary depending on the social sensibilities of the particular culture (see above). Often enforcement is not exercised to the letter of the law, with legal action being taken only when a sufficiently socially-unacceptable age gap exists between the two individuals, or if the perpetrator is in a position of authority over the minor (e.g. a teacher, priest or doctor). The gender of each actor can also influence perceptions of an individual's guilt and therefore enforcement [1].

The [US] Supreme Court has held that stricter rules for males do not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, on the theory that men lack the disincentives associated with pregnancy that women have to engage in sexual activity, and the law may thus provide men with those disincentives in the form of criminal sanctions.[2] (^ Posner, Richard (1996). A Guide to America's Sex Laws. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-67564-5. The case cited is Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981). )

That is all legal in the US as far as I can determine.
There is a different between the gender influencing something and you suggestion that you should just automatically punish the male. Even In cases where they are by any reasonable standard equally culpable, or perhaps the girl is more culpable.

That, I'm quite sure wouldn't be legal in the US, not in any other civilized country. Can you think of one currently existing and enforced law witch assign criminal responsibility to one of two of the criminals solely based on the gender of the two? In Iran perhaps, but not in the US, France, Denmark, Germany or any other western country.

I was just sugesting it because you seemed to want to blame one and not both of the participants and this would give you a suportable basis for such a determination.[/qoute]
Except for the part about being supportable, it doesn't even come within a mile of being civilized.

[QUOTE=ponderingturtle;1776300]Actualy there are cases there people consent to fighting and such, such as say taking it outside to fight it out in a bar for example. Legaly that is a consentual fight.
You will note I said seldom, not never - and of course that is illegal regardles sof the age and maturity of the participants (though the penealty would undoubtebly be stricter if one pareticipant was judged to young or unexperienced to know what he was doing).

Show me the legal disticion made there. The crime is having sex with someone unable to give legal consent, and they both did that. If they where truely unable to be held accountable for their actions, then they should not also be able to be tried as adults, but in the ages we are talking about more and more states are permitting them to do that as well.This disagreement is to an extend a result of you talking about what the law is (perhaps in some US states), while I talked about what it should be. However you admitted yourself that this is seldom enforced, so that's a legal distinction right there for you.

Basicly they are either responceible for their actions or they are not. The action here is having sex with someone unable to give legal consent because of age. Why is this so special that they are not held accountable for this, but if it involved say someone unable to give consent because of mental retardation, would that change the principle?
Are we talking about two retarded people having sex, or say a ten year old having sex with a 30 year old retard who's mentally equivalent to a 10 year old? in either case the principle remain that I don't think it's meaningful to punish people for having consensual sex unless you can identify a culprit and a victim.

How much can a 14 year old be held responceible for their actions? IF they can be held responceible for so much, what is so special about having sex with someone unable to give consent to sex because they are a similar age to the party?
Sorry are we still talking about what the law is here, or about what it should be? If we're talking about what the law is then I'll simply point out that the law, either by its letter or by its enforcement does in fact make this distinction.

[ponderingturtle]

I really don't think that ponderingturtle is right in his/her basic assertion that most statutory rape laws are violated by both participants when two underage individuals have sex, and that only selective enforcement ("prosecutorial discretion" is probably a better term) is the only impediment to throwing two eight year olds in the slammer for playing doctor, but I don't have time to research the question right now. I believe, as I've said before, that most rape statutes apply only to a defendant who is himself several years older than the victim, and the victim is below the age of consent.

That said, prosecutorial discretion is an important part of any properly-functioning legal system. Inevitably situations arise in which a criminal statute has arguably been violated, but reasons not contemplated by the statute of general applicability exist such that prosecution would be inappropriate in that particular instance. So long as discretion is applied in good faith, and not to reward or punish the prosecutor's friends or enemies, there is nothing wrong with this, and in fact it operates to insure that application of the criminal law comports with social expectations and norms.

This isn't argueably violated, it is clearly violated, some laws are clear enough that you can simply say yes or no to violations. The descretion is that it is not prosecuted. And this discretion can be a bad thing, look at how durring the civil rights movement some southern states simply did not bring charges for say burning down a black church. That was prosuctorial descretion right there.

So it is a question of how much do you want say your kids to be able to be locked up and permenantly branded as sex offenders at someone elses descretion?

[ponderingturtle]

I cannot help what you've always heard. The only instance I can recall wherein the situation you describe takes place was recently, where a couple of (I think) 13 year olds were each charged with molesting each other; this instance was so unusual that it made headlines.

Oh I am not saying that it is commonly done, just that the laws support that. My point is that the laws say that it is the case, but it is just not commonly prosecuted. So the issue is what the laws state not how common such actual cases are.

[ponderingturtle]

That wasn't very clear from your posts, but OK that might very well be what the law says in some US states. I wouldn't know. If it's not enforced though the law might as well not exist, the difference between a law that's never enforced and one that doesn't exist is pretty academic.

Until someone convinces a local procecuter to press charges agenst say a 15 year old for having sex with his 14 yo girlfriend. Then it becomes an issue. And there is not recourse because it is the law. Or better yet the 18 year old and his say 16 year old girlfriend, that is illegal is so many states hands down.

So would you be confortable with having the good will of the DA being your only protection?