Age of consent

[Capetan Mihali]

No, he's using strict liability correctly -- in a lot of US jurisdictions, it doesn't matter whether or not you reasonably knew or should have known (or could have known).

[crazy canuck]

No, he's using strict liability correctly -- in a lot of US jurisdictions, it doesn't matter whether or not you reasonably knew or should have known (or could have known).

I apologize Ide, I had no idea your country could be so backward.

[Viking]

Obviously kids like to fuck. The start wanting to pretty young. Whatever the legal standard is, my moral standard is as follows. Over 18s can consent. Under 18s can consent with someone their age plus-minus one year.

My experience is, however, girls remain stupid and idiotic well into their late 20s, not improving much on their ability to judge from 14 until that age.

[Ideologue]

I apologize Ide, I had no idea your country could be so backward.

No, I understand.  But I do feel a little insulted.

in a lot of US jurisdictions

Afaik, all but federal*--but I haven't done a 50 state survey.

*And I was wrong, mildly, about the negligence standard.  Instead, reasonable belief is an affirmative defense.  Mihali knows what this means, but for the rest of you: a prosecutor need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would have realized the victim was under the age of consent (federally, 16); instead, the D must prove by preponderance of the evidence that he or she did in fact reasonably believe that the victim was over the age of consent.  Probably has never affected an actual trial, but it's a subtle bit of burden shifting.

[Ideologue]

Obviously kids like to fuck. The start wanting to pretty young. Whatever the legal standard is, my moral standard is as follows. Over 18s can consent. Under 18s can consent with someone their age plus-minus one year.

Eurofascist.

My experience is, however, girls remain stupid and idiotic well into their late 20s, not improving much on their ability to judge from 14 until that age.

Misogyny, too.

[Viking]

Obviously kids like to fuck. The start wanting to pretty young. Whatever the legal standard is, my moral standard is as follows. Over 18s can consent. Under 18s can consent with someone their age plus-minus one year.

Eurofascist.

I'm a bit curious, how am I a fascist for explaining my moral standard and not using it to justify a legal stands?

My experience is, however, girls remain stupid and idiotic well into their late 20s, not improving much on their ability to judge from 14 until that age.

Misogyny, too.

I suggest you look up the words "descriptive" and "normative".

[Ideologue]

I'm a bit curious, how am I a fascist for explaining my moral standard and not using it to justify a legal stands?

Are you now or have you ever been a European?

A moral standard is by definition normative, otherwise it's just a personal preference for 18+ women, like for Asians or the thin.  Basing it on the idea that women are stupid and must be protected from their stupidity is misogynist.  C'mon, dude.

Also, the idea that someone is capable of consent but only within their age cohort may be both administratively convenient and pragmatic, but cannot be based on any coherent moral reasoning.

[Ideologue]

P.S. You're not really a fascist, Viking, I just like the phrase Eurofascist and use it whenever I have the opportunity.

[Viking]

I'm a bit curious, how am I a fascist for explaining my moral standard and not using it to justify a legal stands?

Are you now or have you ever been a European?

1 - I wasn't born in europe, and anybody in oxfordshire will tell you that it isn't in europe.
2 - Reykjavik is on the american side of the mid atlantic ridge
3 - I was raised in california

calling me european is problematic.... and btw, HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY?

A moral standard is by definition normative, otherwise it's just a personal preference for 18+ women, like for Asians or the thin.  Basing it on the idea that women are stupid and must be protected from their stupidity is misogynist.  C'mon, dude.

Here you are mixing apples and oranges. Ultimately all morality is relative, what would be fascist is imposing my morality on others without their consent. My reference to normativity and descriptiveness was in your response to my comment on misogyny, not on moral standards and/or legal standards for age of consent.

Observing that, and I admit a qualifier like "most" or "many" would have been appropriate, "most" girls are stupid and gullible is descriptive. Asserting that because a person is a girl, she is gullible and stupid is normative. The latter is misogynous the former is merely a representation of personal experience. Note, the main fault of misogyny is not that it is discriminative, but rather that it is wrong. It is not speciesist to assert that dogs are stupider than humans. Discriminating against dogs due to their lack of mental faculty is completely acceptable because they really are less intelligent that us.

Also, the idea that someone is capable of consent but only within their age cohort may be both administratively convenient and pragmatic, but cannot be based on any coherent moral reasoning.

Of course it can. If you evaluate consent considering exploitation and how even a small age difference can be abused. Handicapping the race in such a way that stupid 14 year old boys can have a go at getting into the pants of the stupid 14 year old girl, while not considering the same for "mature" 19 year olds who have learned all the tricks. I see the age of consent rules and laws as a means to prevent exploitation not really as a means to prevent sex. That is how I can get to such an administratively pragmatic and workable solution to the issue of hormones and abuse.

[Phillip V]

I look at the age of consent laws as a way to protect young teens from predator older teens and adults

The law has nothing to do with how a predator works. Regardless of any law, a predator will go after a child/adolescent if there is no good family/community around.

Even with a sex law on the books, enforcement/prosecution tends to not to happen for the most vulnerable and downtrodden of the population that need it most.

[Agelastus]

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.

Curiously enough the "School Leaving Age" has been raised to 17 from 16 this year (school leaving age being the age that you no longer have to go to school, not the age at which you are forced out of schooling.) It's due to be raised to 18 soon...yet another swindle concerning the jobless figures as well as being another nod to "equality of outcome" rather than "equality of opportunity".

So up until this year no, "College" (or the equivalent "Sixth Forms"/"Incomprehensible Year Number") of some schools were not mandatory.

Now it is.

But only at the moment for one year of the normal 2 year full course/exam cycle; an awful lot of people going to College will simply be resitting the GCSEs they failed at 16 without getting the sort of personal tuition that people who at 16 fail to get acceptable grades in subjects such as English and Mathematics really need. Of the rest now retained in the system they'll either be people who don't want to be there or who don't have a clue what they want to study.

[Just to clarify...I agree that people should be expected to reach a certain standard in some subjects before they can leave school; I just don't see how continuing them in the standard educational system is going to help them achieve this standard. How is one extra year in a standard college going to help those whom multiple years of schooling has failed?]

Anyway, instead of a dual descriptor for education Britain is now slipping into a triple descriptor mode. "Education" for 5-16, "Higher education" for 17-18, "Further Education" for university students. Confusingly, this means we now have Colleges at two levels of education ("Sixth Form Colleges" as a supplement to the schools that still have Sixth Forms as above and the "Colleges" at the older Collegial Universities such as Oxford, Cambridge and London.)

[crazy canuck]

I look at the age of consent laws as a way to protect young teens from predator older teens and adults

The law has nothing to do with how a predator works. Regardless of any law, a predator will go after a child/adolescent if there is no good family/community around.

Even with a sex law on the books, enforcement/prosecution tends to not to happen for the most vulnerable and downtrodden of the population that need it most.

I disagree.  The reason predators need to focus on the most vulnerable is because of age of consent laws.  If a predator was able to set up a defence of consent the problem would be worse.

[Barrister]

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's exactly how the law works in Canada.  Age of consent is 16, but with a 2 year "close in age" exception.

What gets funky however is you can have two people who are freely able to have sex, but can not take naked pictures of each other.

[garbon]

Well the latter does last a lot longer. And it is harder to control the audience.

[Grallon]

My bottom line (  ) has always been 15 yo. They most certainly know what they like/want at that age - even though they might not envision all the possible consequences... But then again who does when dealing with other humans?




G.