Age of consent

[Ideologue]

[CountDeMoney]

Whaddayesay? Whaddayesay?

[Grey Fox]

14 because.

[Ed Anger]

It depends. I think that the age should be 14 + 6, as I said in the other thread. If, however, it's not possible to put in the "+6", then the age should be 16.

My high school girlfriend and I fucked like bunnies when we were 15.  I had no idea we were unable to consent to lose our virginity together after watching Nine 1/2 Weeks.   

Hey! A fellow boning at 15 club member. 

[merithyn]

I look at the age of consent laws as a way to protect young teens from predator older teens and adults, not from each other. In other words, if there was a way to write a law that said, "There's no age of consent if both kids are roughly the same age (give or take a year or two), but once the age-spread hits two years, then no," I'd be happy.

The last thing that I want is for kids to be arrested for normal exploration with someone of the same age as they are. Nonetheless, I feel like there has to be laws on the books to keep Uncle Pheebus from trying to horn in on the fun.

[derspiess]

I voted with the masses & went with 16.

[Capetan Mihali]

I like Osterreich's system. I would say 14 unless cognitively/developmentally impaired (and reasonably apparent to the defendant for purposes of criminal law) or under the authority/tutelage of the defendant, otherwise 16.  Under 14, I think a +4 rule is reasonable for criminal law.

[DontSayBanana]

I look at the age of consent laws as a way to protect young teens from predator older teens and adults, not from each other. In other words, if there was a way to write a law that said, "There's no age of consent if both kids are roughly the same age (give or take a year or two), but once the age-spread hits two years, then no," I'd be happy.

The last thing that I want is for kids to be arrested for normal exploration with someone of the same age as they are. Nonetheless, I feel like there has to be laws on the books to keep Uncle Pheebus from trying to horn in on the fun.

That exactly how "doctor laws" are set up.  For it to be a felony, one has to be a minor AND the age gap has to be at least x amount of years.

[Malthus]

I look at the age of consent laws as a way to protect young teens from predator older teens and adults, not from each other. In other words, if there was a way to write a law that said, "There's no age of consent if both kids are roughly the same age (give or take a year or two), but once the age-spread hits two years, then no," I'd be happy.

The last thing that I want is for kids to be arrested for normal exploration with someone of the same age as they are. Nonetheless, I feel like there has to be laws on the books to keep Uncle Pheebus from trying to horn in on the fun.

Easily possible, and done in some jurisdictions.

[mongers]

It depends. I think that the age should be 14 + 6, as I said in the other thread. If, however, it's not possible to put in the "+6", then the age should be 16.

Since that option isn't on the poll but I want to see what the general feeling is, I voted for 16.

That's not a bad approach. 

In part I think the law should reflect how young people go about their business with each other and in a small part is should echo how the adult society would like them to achieve positive outcomes in their lives.

But that various laws should clearly show society's disapproval of older adults exploiting young people.
And in specific cases where adults have plenty of authority over younger people, vulnerable or not, then there should be absolute bans in place, so no college* staff screwing their students. 


* UK usage, with universities it's more complex and a grey areas, though I think much of the aberrant behaviour should be dealt with as a mater of professional misconduct. 

[dps]

* UK usage, with universities it's more complex and a grey areas, though I think much of the aberrant behaviour should be dealt with as a mater of professional misconduct. 

Care to elaborate a bit on just what the UK usage of "college" is, just so we're all clear here on what you mean?

[garbon]

* UK usage, with universities it's more complex and a grey areas, though I think much of the aberrant behaviour should be dealt with as a mater of professional misconduct. 

Care to elaborate a bit on just what the UK usage of "college" is, just so we're all clear here on what you mean?

Bit of schooling before university. I think generally during our Junior/Senior years.

[Agelastus]

* UK usage, with universities it's more complex and a grey areas, though I think much of the aberrant behaviour should be dealt with as a mater of professional misconduct. 

Care to elaborate a bit on just what the UK usage of "college" is, just so we're all clear here on what you mean?

The alternative wording is "Sixth Form College" for the type I believe Mongers is referring to; they exist for those 17-18 year olds who want to continue studying but who can't continue their education at the school they took their GCSEs at (since an awful lot of schools never had Sixth Forms and never got extra funding to have them when various governments started encouraging more young people to go to University - because useless course or not it still kept them out of the jobless figures.)

Of course, Sixth Form is probably an obsolete term now, but the current system of Year 1, Year 2...Year 9 etc. makes me want to puke. It's impersonal at best and totally incomprehensible to someone like me educated using the more traditional year namings.

[Ideologue]

they exist for those 17-18 year olds who want to continue studying but who can't continue their education at the school they took their GCSEs at

So do you graduate at 16 or something, or is "college" mandatory?  I was going to make fun of you for saying sequential numbers are confusing, but I'm not sure I understand either.

[crazy canuck]

16.  You could make reasoned arguments for 15 or 17, or even for the abandonment of a bright-line rule.

I also favor taking away the strict liability basis for guilt.  That's retarded.  Virtually every other crime on planet Earth requires mens rea.

You not using "strict liablity" correctly.  In most jurisdictions knowing the age or being recklessly blind to the age is part of the offence.  What is being protected here is that consent cannot be given if the person is underage, but if the partner did not bona fide know that the person could not consent then that is an issue.

For example in Australia a viable defense is if the Defendant reasonably believed their partner was at the age of consent.  In Canada a defence of mistaken belief as to age is available if the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain their partners age.

Also, in many jurisidictions, including Canada, there are specific exemptions for partners who are close in age.

So, not a strict liability offence.   But it is an offence which shifts the burden of proof.


As to the poll question.  I am not sure what the age of consent should be.  I think our current law strikes a good balance though by protecting teens from older predators and making exceptions for teens who are close in age.