Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 16:54:04 GMT
So your more rational system is just the same system with the age of consent lowered to 12?
Okay... not convinced that's any more rational myself.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jun 6, 2017 2:35:56 GMT
1. Yes 2. No assuming they are roughly the same age. 3. No assuming they are roughly the same age.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 6, 2017 10:00:40 GMT
Fair enough, but I'm not asking whether you think change could happen or what it would take to achieve it. My question is what specific change do you think there should be with regards to murder and sex involving teenagers that would make the law more rational? For one, there's no need to treat teens any different from adults there. Isn't there a question of where the line is drawn? Let's say you set the age of consent to 13 for instance. Won't there then be people saying "Well sure a 12 year old is practically as mature as a 13 year old and for that matter an 11 year old isn't far behind"
There is of course a cultural dimension in all this. The age of consent in the USA is 18. In the UK it's 16. In Japan it's 13. Does that mean a Japanese teen is more mature than a British one who is again more mature than an American one? Or would you say the Japanese have it right and their law should be universal? Canada raised their age of consent from 14 to 16 in 2008 because of older men targeting 14 year olds over the internet and knowing they could legally get away with doing so. Would you agree with such protective measures or do you think the older men should be allowed to do that?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 6, 2017 11:01:39 GMT
For one, there's no need to treat teens any different from adults there. Isn't there a question of where the line is drawn? Let's say you set the age of consent to 13 for instance. Won't there then be people saying "Well sure a 12 year old is practically as mature as a 13 year old and for that matter an 11 year old isn't far behind"
There is of course a cultural dimension in all this. The age of consent in the USA is 18. In the UK it's 16. In Japan it's 13. Does that mean a Japanese teen is more mature than a British one who is again more mature than an American one? Or would you say the Japanese have it right and their law should be universal? Canada raised their age of consent from 14 to 16 in 2008 because of older men targeting 14 year olds over the internet and knowing they could legally get away with doing so. Would you agree with such protective measures or do you think the older men should be allowed to do that?
If I were king I woudn't have an age of consent (for anything, it's not just a sexual issue). I'd hinge it on ability to consent instead, per the way I define what it is to consent. I've posted my definition of what it is to consent a few times, but I know you'll ask, so here it is again: What I require for consent (and keep in mind that this is not at all just about sex): Of their own "free will", and not due to the direct or indirect force initiation of another agent or criminal threatened force from another agent, (i) the person can linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restate, as an explanatory paraphrase, not simply a parroting of the language used by the initiating party, the specific actions to be performed/just what they're consenting to, and they can explicitly do this for everything they're consenting to, (ii) they can and do say, "Yes, I'd like to do that" (again verbally, or in writing, signing, etc.), or an equivalent, regarding those actions, and can demonstrate (by at least attesting to the fact) that they did that, (iii) In the situation at hand, the person would be/would have been capable of but doesn't/didn't say "No" either linguistically or via body language a la attempting to push or fight off etc. the person doing whatever they initially agreed to above, and where we're not talking about a formal, legally binding contract the person entered into. (In the case of formal, legally binding contracts, the person is legally obliged to hold up their end of the bargain as they agreed/consented to in the contract.) * If any of the above conditions can not be met for any reason then consent isn't possible. * If any of the above conditions are not met, for any reason, then consent wasn't given. * Forcing someone to do something they couldn't or didn't explicitly consent to wouldn't be consent obviously. * I'd have no age of consent, including for contracts. However, note that for all contracts, I'd limit the maximum duration to n*1.5 the length of the previous contract with that same party, with the first contract maximum being 1 year. So a first contract can't be longer than 1 year, a second contract 1.5 years, a third contract 2.3 years, a fourth 3.4 years, a fifth 5.1 years, etc. There would be an exception made for contracts involving single projects that would take longer than the duration otherwise allowed by the contract, in which case, the contract would be over at the conclusion of the project. * For contracts and consent in general, fraud would still be fraud--you can't "sneak something in" that the person isn't explicitly consenting to (without threat of being prosecuted for fraud). * And yes, I'd hold children responsible for murders and other crimes just like adults. I'm in favor of sentencing reform, however, and I'd even change the core structure of imprisonment/the social separation of criminals.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 6, 2017 12:54:51 GMT
i) the person can linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restate, as an explanatory paraphrase, not simply a parroting of the language used by the initiating party, the specific actions to be performed/just what they're consenting to, and they can explicitly do this for everything they're consenting to I don't think this would safeguard against brainwashing. For instance, say an older man convinces a younger girl that she loves him and she'll do anything for him. She may fully understand the actions she does for him but the reason she's willing to do them is due to systematic brainwashing. How can you tell if they're sincere though? The brainwashing point I made above aside, people will readily agree to anything if they're being exploited. Would you limit the kind of contract that can be entered into? For instance banning sex contracts, surrogacy contracts or employment contracts where the person would miss school if they entered into it? Also wouldn't the whole thing be a logistical nightmare to police?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 6, 2017 13:58:56 GMT
i) the person can linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restate, as an explanatory paraphrase, not simply a parroting of the language used by the initiating party, the specific actions to be performed/just what they're consenting to, and they can explicitly do this for everything they're consenting to I don't think this would safeguard against brainwashing. For instance, say an older man convinces a younger girl that she loves him and she'll do anything for him. She may fully understand the actions she does for him but the reason she's willing to do them is due to systematic brainwashing. How can you tell if they're sincere though? The brainwashing point I made above aside, people will readily agree to anything if they're being exploited. Would you limit the kind of contract that can be entered into? For instance banning sex contracts, surrogacy contracts or employment contracts where the person would miss school if they entered into it? Also wouldn't the whole thing be a logistical nightmare to police? Brainwashing? I don't believe that brainwashing is even a coherent concept. No, I wouldn't limit the content of contracts in that way. Disputes would be a matter for courts, as they are now.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 6, 2017 15:19:20 GMT
Brainwashing? I don't believe that brainwashing is even a coherent concept. Really? What about in the cases of grooming etc? Also aside from brain washing, what about exploitation? I imagine wealthier people could get the financially desperate to agree to a lot without "forcing" them per se. So if you agree to a sex contract with someone for say a year you have no right to resist their advances throughout the year so long as they're sticking to the terms of the contract? Sure but now it's relatively simple. Laws have set ages for when someone can be taken as given full consent. With your system, every time someone sleeps with a 12 year old or sticks a 10 year old down a mine they'll have to be a complex assessment of whether they've committed a crime or not.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jun 6, 2017 21:09:45 GMT
What about teenagers looking at pornography? Assuming it wasn't intended for them, and all the people producing, directing, and appearing in porn are all consenting adults, but minors managed to get their hands on it through their own will alone. Do you think these horny young masturbators should be arrested?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2017 1:37:58 GMT
Brainwashing? I don't believe that brainwashing is even a coherent concept. Really? What about in the cases of grooming etc? Also aside from brain washing, what about exploitation? I imagine wealthier people could get the financially desperate to agree to a lot without "forcing" them per se. So if you agree to a sex contract with someone for say a year you have no right to resist their advances throughout the year so long as they're sticking to the terms of the contract? Sure but now it's relatively simple. Laws have set ages for when someone can be taken as given full consent. With your system, every time someone sleeps with a 12 year old or sticks a 10 year old down a mine they'll have to be a complex assessment of whether they've committed a crime or not. Re grooming, how is that anything like brainwashing? Re exploitation, I'm not categorically against that. If someone want to agree to whatever in exchange for money, that's fine. Re a sex contract, sure. Just don't sign contracts you might want to back out of. Re enforcement, it's simply a matter of a victim initiating a case.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 8, 2017 12:51:13 GMT
Re grooming, how is that anything like brainwashing? Groomers often manipulate their victims into thinking they're the only source of support they have and they need to please them. Might be a bit short of "brainwashing" but very worrying anyway. Yet they could probably do this without breaking any of your rules. The victim would want to please the groomer, and they might well understand the acts they're doing. The groomer might never force himself (or indeed herself) on the victim and might even back off if s/he resisted. So would you consider that scenario permissible? I really disagree with that. People shouldn't be able to justify using child labour and getting children to perform sex acts because the victims are desperate for the cash. I'm not a fan of contracts at the best of times since they're almost always one-sided. A contract where you have to perform sex acts on demand or be sued is crazy. People should have a right to change their minds with things like that. Especially if, as above, they only signed the contract initially out of financial desperation. Not all that simple. Many victims don't come forward in abuse cases, they are often brought to light by outside whistle-blowers. In your system, whistle-blowers would never be certain if abuse was happening. Also, bear in mind the low rate of prosecution for things like rape. This system would mean most child abusers could get away with it, even if they were breaking the laws you set out. Currently if a man rapes a 12 year old, he gets punished regardless of whether he claims it was consensual or not. With your system he could say "she said she wanted to and she understood what she was doing and didn't push me off" and unless someone saw him forcing himself on her, he'd probably get away with it due to lack of evidence. A major deterrent for child rape is removed.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2017 13:45:05 GMT
Re grooming, how is that anything like brainwashing? Groomers often manipulate their victims into thinking they're the only source of support they have and they need to please them. Might be a bit short of "brainwashing" but very worrying anyway. Yet they could probably do this without breaking any of your rules. The victim would want to please the groomer, and they might well understand the acts they're doing. The groomer might never force himself (or indeed herself) on the victim and might even back off if s/he resisted. So would you consider that scenario permissible? Yes, I see that as permissible. What do you feel is wrong with it? Why do you see it as worrying? Why do you think that certain things should be prohibited with respect to monetary exchanges? Why is it okay for an 18 year old to do construction cleanup, say, because they're desperate for cash? which is a very positive thing in my opinion. Anyway, you had asked about police enforcement. Enforcement is as simple as victims coming forward to courts in my system. I didn't say that every case where there's a consent violation that the consent violation would be prosecuted, and especially not successfully so in every case, but nevertheless, enforcement is a matter of victims taking the case to court. Which is a horrible system in my opinion. Why in the first world would you think that my system would only go by the testimony of the defendant? First, the court would need to determine whether the plaintiff was even capable of consenting to the acts in question. Remember, my criteria hinge on ability to consent and whether consent was subsequently given. It doesn't hinge on age. So ability to consent has to be established, whether we're talking about a 4 year old or a 40 year old. Of course there could be a situation where ability to consent has been established, but where it would otherwise be just one person's word against another's. In that situation, a plaintiff claiming that they didn't issue consent would be sufficient for at least a minor punishment to the defendant, as long as there is some evidence that the act in question occurred, and a jury/judge/arbiter believes it's plausible that consent was not given. The punishment in this situation wouldn't be imprisonment or anything like that (I'd radically change our prison system and prison culture anyway) but community service or whatever. The upshot of this is that if you're not pretty sure that someone isn't going to take you to court and claim that something wasn't consensual, you'd better provide evidence that they did indeed consent. One thing I should add is that the importance of documenting consent increases as what's supposedly being consented to involves violence/bodily harm. Because in a situation where it's just one word against another, but where there's evidence of the event occurring and there's evidence of violence/bodily harm, the punishment, on ruling that it was plausible that consent was denied, would increase in conjunction with the degree of violence/bodily harm, so that it would include incarceration.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 8, 2017 14:56:23 GMT
Yes, I see that as permissible. What do you feel is wrong with it? Why do you see it as worrying? Because children are often vulnerable and easily swayed into doing things they later regret. Fair question. Of the three examples I mentioned: - In cases of prostitution there can be emotional trauma, and this is more likely the younger the person is. Pregnancy and disease are also factors to consider. There is also the danger that sex is generally a one-on-one situation, there are no equivalents to supervisors, health & safety inspectors which a construction worker could rely on to protect him/her - Surrogacy puts a strain on a woman's body whilst taking away her bodily autonomy - she can't abort, she can't keep the child etc. A child who's never been pregnant would have little idea what she's getting into and has limited ability to back out. - Child labour will hurt the chances of a child getting educated dooming him/her to a lifetime of exploitation since s/he won't have any skills to gain any other form of employment. Depending on the work it can also damage their growth and health. A child might not fully appreciate all it is sacrificing in agreeing to this (even if s/he understands what the various tasks involve) So you think it's a bad thing when people go to the police about suspected child abuse? But like I said, genuine victims may not do so. Probably a significantly high proportion. Well, I mean you might get the odd case where an older person has a genuine fully consensual relationship with a 12 year old and can't consummate it. They can always wait 1-6 years (depending on where they live) or find someone older I guess. A small sacrifice for preventing cases of child abuse. I don't. But with adult rape cases, there is a problem of "your word vs mine". Compounded with "innocent til proven guilty", the prosecution rate is low - this means many people rape knowing they stand a good chance of getting away with it. Now at present this problem does not affect child rape because any sexual contact with children is illegal regardless of consent therefore it's a high risk crime. Under your system it would be a much lower risk crime. These days the average 12 year old probably could describe every sex act. Doesn't mean they're emotionally strong enough to cope with having done them with a much older person, even if they initially want to (or at least claim they did). How would you assess plausibility? I can't think of any situation where it's not plausible consent wasn't given. In which case any accusation would mean punishment for the accused. Either this punishment is so soft it doesn't serve as a deterrent at all, or you create a system where people can accuse innocent people out of spite and see them punished. Like a recording or a signed document perhaps? Even then there's the problems of exploitation and coercion.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 8, 2017 17:22:47 GMT
Yes, I see that as permissible. What do you feel is wrong with it? Why do you see it as worrying? Because children are often vulnerable and easily swayed into doing things they later regret. I don't believe that's the case for children any more than it is for anyone, of any age. I also don't believe that's the case with sex more than anything else, especially not where the engine of it wouldn't be cultural norms. The more this discussion goes on, the more additional topics are being introduced. To answer your comments below this, my response would have to be twice as long as any previous post we've made. I hate when that starts to happen--that responses have to get longer and longer, more and more involved, so I'm cutting it off here. Hopefully so we can cover one thing at time. I'll go back to the comments I'm cutting off once we finish the above (which hopefully won't continue to grow just as much).
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 12, 2017 10:44:38 GMT
Because children are often vulnerable and easily swayed into doing things they later regret. I don't believe that's the case for children any more than it is for anyone, of any age. I also don't believe that's the case with sex more than anything else, especially not where the engine of it wouldn't be cultural norms. You might not believe that but you're going against the consensus of most child psychiatrists. This paper by child psychiatrists talks about the issue of non-violent statutory rape cases. It acknowledges that often the child is knowledgeable about the sex acts and wants to perform them but they point out the following issues: - Higher percentages of pressure, coercion and intimidation in these relationships (though short of force) - Victims often have little to no experience in sex or relationships - Lack of confidence and ability in negotiating with their partner over sex acts - The perpetrator often has a position of authority over the victim - Reluctance to report incidents - That relationships in isolation from peers harm development - That those under 16 are usually lacking in emotional maturity and judgement and are often impulsive - Children struggle with emotional control - That the pressures of a relationship could harm academic studies and this is obviously more of an issue if the partner is not concerned with his/her own studies - Increased sexual health risks - The children who tend to get caught up in these relationships often suffer from loneliness, depression and often are riskier in their sex lives - The kind of children likely to engage in these relationships are ones who have been abused in the past - Often boys who are currently questioning their sexuality and looking for advice are targeted I would find these worrying issues.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 12, 2017 13:09:01 GMT
I don't believe that's the case for children any more than it is for anyone, of any age. I also don't believe that's the case with sex more than anything else, especially not where the engine of it wouldn't be cultural norms. You might not believe that but you're going against the consensus of most child psychiatrists. This paper by child psychiatrists talks about the issue of non-violent statutory rape cases. It acknowledges that often the child is knowledgeable about the sex acts and wants to perform them but they point out the following issues: - Higher percentages of pressure, coercion and intimidation in these relationships (though short of force) - Victims often have little to no experience in sex or relationships - Lack of confidence and ability in negotiating with their partner over sex acts - The perpetrator often has a position of authority over the victim - Reluctance to report incidents - That relationships in isolation from peers harm development - That those under 16 are usually lacking in emotional maturity and judgement and are often impulsive - Children struggle with emotional control - That the pressures of a relationship could harm academic studies and this is obviously more of an issue if the partner is not concerned with his/her own studies - Increased sexual health risks - The children who tend to get caught up in these relationships often suffer from loneliness, depression and often are riskier in their sex lives - The kind of children likely to engage in these relationships are ones who have been abused in the past - Often boys who are currently questioning their sexuality and looking for advice are targeted I would find these worrying issues. Are you familiar with cases like George Takai and Milo yiannaopolas? They engaged with sexual intercorse with adults as minors and speak fondly of the experience. Is there really any surprise people who believe there nothing wrong with it because they enjoyed it themselves are more likely to do it?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 12, 2017 13:18:26 GMT
Are you familiar with cases like George Takai and Milo yiannaopolas? They engaged with sexual intercorse with adults as minors and speak fondly of the experience. Is there really any surprise people who believe there nothing wrong with it because they enjoyed it themselves are more likely to do it? Yeah, I'm not arguing that it's always going to be traumatic. I just think the likelihood of trauma is greater at younger ages and that needs to be taken into account.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 12, 2017 13:43:27 GMT
Are you familiar with cases like George Takai and Milo yiannaopolas? They engaged with sexual intercorse with adults as minors and speak fondly of the experience. Is there really any surprise people who believe there nothing wrong with it because they enjoyed it themselves are more likely to do it? Yeah, I'm not arguing that it's always going to be traumatic. I just think the likelihood of trauma is greater at younger ages and that needs to be taken into account. Sure but half the things you listed above are not worrying. Things like "abuser is in a position of authority" are not worrying. There are power imbalances in all relationships and they are nt necessarily harmful.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 12, 2017 14:18:22 GMT
Yeah, I'm not arguing that it's always going to be traumatic. I just think the likelihood of trauma is greater at younger ages and that needs to be taken into account. Sure but half the things you listed above are not worrying. Things like "abuser is in a position of authority" are not worrying. There are power imbalances in all relationships and they are nt necessarily harmful. But they can be. That's the point, these are general rules as to why we shouldn't dismiss age as a factor. And power dynamics vary - a teacher sleeping with a student is a bit different from a senior executive dating a junior executive.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 12, 2017 14:35:33 GMT
Sure but half the things you listed above are not worrying. Things like "abuser is in a position of authority" are not worrying. There are power imbalances in all relationships and they are nt necessarily harmful. But they can be. That's the point, these are general rules as to why we shouldn't dismiss age as a factor. And power dynamics vary - a teacher sleeping with a student is a bit different from a senior executive dating a junior executive. There is no evidence it is more likely to be abusive power relationships. In what way are they different?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 12, 2017 14:41:43 GMT
But they can be. That's the point, these are general rules as to why we shouldn't dismiss age as a factor. And power dynamics vary - a teacher sleeping with a student is a bit different from a senior executive dating a junior executive. There is no evidence it is more likely to be abusive power relationships. In what way are they different? A teacher is in a position of care and trust. A senior executive is just someone who has a bit more clout at the company. Not saying the latter isn't problematic as well but they're not on the same scale. Also factor in the student will likely be more impressionable and impulsive and all the other things I mentioned in my list and that compounds the danger of power imbalance.
|
|