Originally posted by WheelyThe only problem in this context as far as I am concerned is who is going to look after the poor little bastards produced by these kids?
What exactly is it with sex that requires someone to understand what it entails (apart from pregnancy of course)?
Clearly they are unfit to do so and therfore the burden falls on others who already have their own to care for.
Any teenage girl who produces a bastard for whom she cannot provide should be sterilised in order tyo prevent a repeat occurence.
Originally posted by chienlungYour solution doesn't allow for a women to mature and become able to look after kids and also doesn't put any responsibility on the father. That aside, I can understand the feelings behind it.
The only problem in this context as far as I am concerned is who is going to look after the poor little bastards produced by these kids?
Clearly they are unfit to do so and therfore the burden falls on others who already have their own to care for.
Any teenage girl who produces a bastard for whom she cannot provide should be sterilised in order tyo prevent a repeat occurence.
However, what I was trying to get at is, apart from pregnancy, what are the other things about sex that we need to be all mature and adult about before we should be entitled to do it?
Originally posted by spruce112358
The extreme case that shows the illogic of a "black and white" law would be if a gang of 15 year olds raped a 30 year old. Should the 30 year old be prosecuted for having sex with minors? Obviously not.
Agreed
But if you agree, then you agree that volition is important. The older person did NOT want to have sex with the younger -- hence there should be no prosecution under the statute.
Agreed
So since volition is important, what if a younger person wants to have sex with an older person -- lures them on, seduces them, maybe on top of that lying about their age. Should the older person be prosecuted?
Yes, because they are not forced into having sex, they choose to do so. The moment we equate temptation to commit an action with being forced to take part in an action under duress we basically render the judicial system impotent.
I say not to the same extent as in cases when the younger person was clearly pre-pubescent, unwilling or innocent.
Then you are allowing temptation of an autonomous, responsible agent (in the eyes of the law) to be an excuse for that agent committing an illegal act. Children are protected under the law concerning sex because they are not deemed responsible agents. If you start allowing the reduction of blame because an irresponsible party is held accountable, think of how utterly impossible it would be to try paedophiles and rapists and how many rape cases would, by the same token, be thrown out.
In fact, in the case in point, I would be inclined to cite the parents for negligence in raising their daughter and subject them to a fairly stiff fine. for not knowing where she was or what she was up to.
That's more a question of the ethical responsibilities of children than of how the law should deal with underage sex.
Originally posted by spruce112358Perhaps you're having difficulty with the concept of legal consent. A person who is intoxicated doesn't have their normal decision making abilities thus can't give legal consent. A person who is mentally retarded also can't give legal consent. A person who lacks proper life experience also can't give legal consent. These people need to be afforded protection. Anyone who takes advantage of such people can and should be prosecuted. They are predators of the weak and disadvantaged.
Amazing that we try to legislate what biology decrees. Kind of like the apochryphal attempt to legislate pi to 3.00 to make it easier to remember.
If a 15 year old woman is sexually mature and determined to have sex (and her legal guardians are irresponsible) -- then >99% of the time she will be successful. Maybe she will be discrete -- maybe not. Ma ...[text shortened]... pregnant, maybe not.
But to say this is entirely the fault of the male(s) is totally unjust.
Originally posted by StarrmanA couple points:
I say not to the same extent as in cases when the younger person was clearly pre-pubescent, unwilling or innocent.
Then you are allowing temptation of an autonomous, responsible agent (in the eyes of the law) to be an excuse for that agent committing an illegal act. Children are protected under the law concerning sex because they are not deemed resp ...[text shortened]... of the ethical responsibilities of children than of how the law should deal with underage sex.[/b]
The line is too abrupt:
The day BEFORE my 16th birthday, I mess around with a girl whose 16th birthday is tomorrow. We are both underage -- I get a slap on the wrist.
But the day OF my 16th birthday, I mess around with a girl whose 16th birthday is tomorrow and I get ten years in jail due to mandatory sentencing guidelines.
I think it is a very dangerous way to raise children that they have no responsibility for their actions until a certain age when WHAM! -- suddenly they have full responsibility. And to say that parents have no responsibility for their children's actions -- how does that work? I'm responsible if my kid's break someone's windows, so ...
This girl's drinking and carousing had gone far beyond the point where you could say, "Oh, she's just a kid." I mean, no one had explained to her that if she got drunk and buck naked in a room full of men and passed out giving blow jobs that she MIGHT REGRET THIS LATER?!?!?!?!?
That the men in this case were solely to blame I think stems from the notion that sex is something men do to women. It's not. Sex is something men and women do together.
The punishment for underage sex, at a minimum, should take into account the absolute age of the parties, the difference in ages, and the circumstances.
Starrman, you absolutely astonish me.
"It's exactly because there's a grey area that we have to legislate in absolutely. The chosen age is there to protect those that need it, regardless of whether they think they are mature or not. I hear that if a girl is mature enough to want sex and the guy doesn't know what age she is, it's not his fault. Balls. If a girl is even close to the age, then he should be thinking otherwise, the likelyhood is that she's not mature enough to have thought about what sex really entails, and it's his responsibility to say she could be underage and if I don't know if she's really ready for this, in virtue of how close to that boundary age she might be it's better if I don't risk either her innocence or my liberty. Anyone that goes ahead and later protests that she didn't say no, or that they thought she was legal, should have thought about that being a possibility before trying it on."
This is THE MOST ridiculous thing i have read in this entire discussion. Why on earth, would a boy (15-17) be expected to stop a girl who is determined to have sexual relations with him, and the girl (same age range) not have the same expectations levied on her? If she gave him a blow job, SHE was the one breaking the rule. She performed the action. Why should he be punished?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI am mostly having trouble seeing that the punishment fits the crime in this case.
Perhaps you're having difficulty with the concept of legal consent. A person who is intoxicated doesn't have their normal decision making abilities thus can't give legal consent. A person who is mentally retarded also can't give legal consent. A person who lacks proper life experience also can't give legal consent. These people need to be afforded prote ...[text shortened]... such people can and should be prosecuted. They are predators of the weak and disadvantaged.
But worlwide the age of consent for sex does range from 12 to 21 -- so one might say a consensus has not been reached.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
Originally posted by hematicI'm glad you're so easily astonished.
Starrman, you absolutely astonish me.
"It's exactly because there's a grey area that we have to legislate in absolutely. The chosen age is there to protect those that need it, regardless of whether they think they are mature or not. I hear that if a girl is mature enough to want sex and the guy doesn't know what age she is, it's not his fault. Balls. If a ...[text shortened]... was the one breaking the rule. She performed the action. Why should he be punished?
Why on earth, would a boy (15-17) be expected to stop a girl who is determined to have sexual relations with him, and the girl (same age range) not have the same expectations levied on her?
Because she was under age and he wasn't...
If she gave him a blow job, SHE was the one breaking the rule. She performed the action. Why should he be punished?
Yeah, and we should punish girls that wear skimpy dresses and get raped, because they were giving the come on... He wasn't forced, against his will, he willingly took part in the action. He should be punished because he broke the law. I'll reiterate my point above; as a responsible agent (in the eyes of the law) he is held responsible by that law for infringements of the law, a law which is there to safeguard underage children.
Originally posted by spruce112358I didn't say it was perfect, the point is that knowing the law as it stands should enforce our decisions to act for, or against that law. In the eyes of the law you're responsible for your actions once you become an adult.
A couple points:
The line is too abrupt:
The day BEFORE my 16th birthday, I mess around with a girl whose 16th birthday is tomorrow. We are both underage -- I get a slap on the wrist.
But the day OF my 16th birthday, I mess around with a girl whose 16th birthday is tomorrow and I get ten years in jail due to mandatory sentencing guidelines.
...[text shortened]... account the absolute age of the parties, the difference in ages, and the circumstances.
The moral implications of parenthood are for another discussion. Whilst I agree that the sudden flip from irresponsible to responsible is dangerous what other system would you put in place? I'm not sure which sort of legal demarcation criteria would suffice to satisfy the cases you suggest but still maintain the essence of the law regarding underage sex.
Punishment and guilt are also different topics, perhaps there is a way of ensuring that cases which fall into the grey area are dealt with less harshly? I don't know.
I do however disagree with your point about sex being a balance of male and female power. Men are grossly more empowered than women and as such must take more of the responsibility and indeed blame.
Originally posted by StarrmanSo let's start with awareness. Has it been announced over the high school PA system to all 16 and 17 year old kids that sex with any of their 15 year old classmates will land them 10 years in jail if that person chooses to report them? Such an announcement once a week would not be too frequent -- given the retention of the average high school student.
I didn't say it was perfect, the point is that knowing the law as it stands should enforce our decisions to act for, or against that law. In the eyes of the law you're responsible for your actions once you become an adult.
The moral implications of parenthood are for another discussion. Whilst I agree that the sudden flip from irresponsible to respo more empowered than women and as such must take more of the responsibility and indeed blame.
Now about justice. There are unjust laws -- the law that said black people cannot use white toilets, for instance. Is the law that says a 17 year old that has sex with a (willing) 15 year old gets 10 years in jail a similarly flawed law? I would say it is.
Now about responsibility. The goal is that 15 year olds don't have sex, right? So why should they not be punished with juvenile school or something if they do?!?! That men are to blame for everything wrong with sex is downright baloney (most cases of rape excepted). But this was not a rape. Sure, punish the guy (not 10 years; something reasonable) -- but for heaven's sake punish the girl too. Otherwise you will NEVER put an end to the problem.
Originally posted by Starrman1) He was of the age of consent in THAT state, if they had crossed state lines, the matters would have been different. This is the sort of law that needs to be nation wide, most kids that age arent even aware or concerned about that law. (i am aware ignorance of the law is no excuse) except that in this case the law is so archaic that the average young person in our society would not assume this law was there.
I'm glad you're so easily astonished.
[b]Why on earth, would a boy (15-17) be expected to stop a girl who is determined to have sexual relations with him, and the girl (same age range) not have the same expectations levied on her?
Because she was under age and he wasn't...
If she gave him a blow job, SHE was the one breaking the rule. She pe ...[text shortened]... that law for infringements of the law, a law which is there to safeguard underage children.
2) I think giving someone a blow job, a physical act, an intimate physical act performed on another person, isnt even in the same LEAGUE as wearing skimpy clothing. Wearing the clothing PROVOKES the action (maybe) the blow job IS the action. You arent even close here.
3) Furthermore, how on earth in this case does it protect underage children. The boy 17 at the time, was underage to do ANYTHING, except sex apparently. he cant sign a contract, he cant vote, he cant drink, he cant even buy cigerates. But he is expected to know the intricate nature of the age of consent laws. Sure that sounds reasonable to me.
Originally posted by spruce112358You keep missing a key point here: The girl was clearly intoxicated. This should make it a rape charge regardless of her age.
I am mostly having trouble seeing that the punishment fits the crime in this case.
But worlwide the age of consent for sex does range from 12 to 21 -- so one might say a consensus has not been reached.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
Anyone who takes advantage of an underage or intoxicated person should be removed from society. In this case it was both.
Perhaps when you've gained some maturity, you'll be able to have something other than an adolescent viewpoint.