What age do you figure would make it wrong?

"What age do you figure would make it wrong?"

I have a 15-year old son and a 12-year old daughter. I think 14 is too young for an age of consent. Even with a two year "proximate age" exemption, 16 "feels" about right. That's the age when we allow kids to start driving - and making the first series of decisions that can screw up their lives forever through carelessness or misadventure. Arguably they can screw themselves up in academic pursuits a year or so before that, but those errors are not (usually) irrecoverable, unless your goal in life is to make into Harvard.

My observation of my kids and their friends is that boys start to grow up enough to actually take (some) responsibility somewhere around 15. Girls seem to grow up a little earlier, no doubt due to some Darwinian psychology that we are not allowed to mention in polite company. Obviously this determination is absolutely subjective, and a broad average will have as many children "unduly restricted" as "inexcusably unprotected." Sorry, there's nothing we can do about that.

All that being said, I think the CPC's performance on this Bill was pathetic. I don't think it was a burning public issue, even though it was one that could usefully be put up for debate. Characterizing opponents of the Bill as 'promoters of kiddie porn' or 'assistants to molestation' is both unfair to people who might have been reacting to what they saw as a surprise Bill and trivializes any real concerns the Tories might have had. I don't appreciate Mr Dithers trying to yank my chain about health care or gun violence, and I don't like the Tories doing the same with issues of human sexuality.

Cheers,

Dean

"83. Young Offenders
i) A Conservative Government will introduce measures to hold young lawbreakers accountable to their victims and the larger community. A Conservative Government will introduce measures to ensure that violent or serious repeat offenders 14 and over are tried as adults."

So the Conservatives believe a 14-year-old is simultaneously a mature menace to society and a defenceless child? Talk about having your cake....

MikeC - what part of "violent or serious repeat offenders" don't you understand?

Dean

What part of "14" don't you understand?

I also heard that the bill was rather vague, and there were worries (a la Clinton no doubt) that such a loose definition of "sexual relations" would be unwieldy, difficult to enforce, and too subject to interpretation to be effective (i.e. would some people get away with things they shouldn't, while others are punished for things they shouldn't be punished for). Though, I haven't read the bill, so others could probably be more informative on this subject than I.

I also think Mike has an excelllent point. It seems ludicrous to me that we would say to someone "you are old enough to be tried as an adult, but you are not old enough to decide what you want to do with your body". It's a similar hypocricy to those States down south where 21 is the drinking age. So let me get this straight, I'm old enough to join the army and die for my country (and if things get really bad, you can draft me, and force me to join the army at 18) but I'm not old enough to buy a six-pack?

Seems crazy to me.

I'm not sure if I really DO think 14 is old enough to consent to sex, but if you're going to try 14 year olds as adults (even if it's only under certain circumstances) then I don't see how you can make decisions for them regarding their sex lives. Isn't that the type of moral relativism I always here conservatives railing against? When it comes to violence, you're an adult, and when it comes to sex you're a child???

Mike's right, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

"Mike's right, you can't have your cake and eat it too."

I don't see that this is the case. I think it is fair to start with the supposition that most people of -some age- (to keep the discussion generic) are unable to come to a mature understanding of sexuality. If so, then those people should be protected from sexual advances by people who do have an adult (even if warped) view of sexuality; hence age of consent laws, which are intended to protect the innocent among us from exploitation. Note that the burden of such laws does not lie on the young person who is 'denied the right to decide what to do with their own body' - it lies on the adult who is responsible to control themselves and not take actions that we deem to be prima facie exploitative. At the same time, it is reasonable to observe that part of the process of gaining that mature view of sexuality involves experimentation, and that such experimentation may not (necessarily) be exploitative to the degree that sexual conduct with an adult would be. To avoid criminalizing a normal part of growing up, we look at 'proximate age' exemptions from age of consent laws.

We also try to protect the inexperienced, or immature by not allowing the full weight of the justice system to fall on certain transgressions. When the offender is young they are automatically treated differently than if they were older, when we expect them to take full responsibility for their actions - in effect, we make a presupposition that young offenders are too immature, innocent, or inexperienced to be fully culpable for their offenses. With these young offenders we take greater pains to deter future offenses and to rehabilitate the offender. Similarly, if offenders of any age suffer from mental disorders that impair their ability to control their conduct, or to plan their actions in a mature fashion, we excuse them from the most sever penatlies, although we reserve the right to direct them to treatment, both for their own protection and benefit and to protect the rest of society.

I don't see that it is unreasonable to make the assumption that someone who is a "violent or serious repeat offender" is not the immature or inexerienced individual who is meant to benefit from our presupposition that young people deserve special consideration. Particularly in the case of repeat offenders, this seems almost self-evident; we are not dealing with an immature, inexperienced individual. This does not mean "have a fair trial, then string him up" - but it does mean that the onus is on the defendant to prove that they are not culpable, other than merely by age: surely a repeat offender is evidencing an inability to plan or control their actions, even in the face of knowledge of their unacceptablity. Equally, while we might excuse the lack of judgement involved in -say- shoplifting as a youthful error, I am not sure that we should do so in the case of serious, violent offenses; do we not have the right to expect that the unacceptability of such conduct is obvious, even to those of a (relatively) young age?

The statement that young people in general are entitled to protection from sexual exploitation does not bear on the statement that some young people do not require (or deserve) the presupposition that they are incapable of forming motive, or capable of rehabilitation. The two are orthagonal - there is no necessary relationship between them. Frankly, I find the attempt to equate them on a par with the logic that "if they vote against this Bill, it is because they support kiddie porn" which was rightly ridiculed.

Cheers,

Dean

hey! i liked your site very much! content makes poor men rich: http://www.seathelights.com , when Stake is Circle it will Make Table how linux thin-clients benefit schools , Table will Circle unconditionally we elected them