Languish.org

We've probably done this one before, but here it is, inspired by the Montana judge thread.

Depends.  How old does she look?

The shotgun I'm going to blast you with for going near my kids will be less than 2.

"Mister Anger, I'mma fittin' to ask your permission to take your daughter's hand in holy matrimony marriage, what with her bein' with child and--"
*BLAM BLAM*

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.

I would like to see young teens be able to freely have sex, drive, work, and vote. Not sure about alcohol; maybe knock that down to age 18 or 16.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 07:30:12 PM
"Mister Anger, I'mma fittin' to ask your permission to take your daughter's hand in holy matrimony marriage, what with her bein' with child and--"
*BLAM BLAM*

My ulcer just started.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 03, 2013, 07:31:16 PM
I also favor taking away the strict liability basis for guilt.  That's retarded.  Virtually every other crime on planet Earth requires mens rea.

:yes: That's the most fucked up of many fucked up things with statutory rape laws.  It's an iffy enough concept when it comes to financial matters, but for criminal matters it's just barbaric.

Fwiw, the federal stat rape law (which has limited application, obviously) does require a mens rea of, iirc, negligence as to the age of the victim.

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.

Austrian law gives 14, unless the person is not mature enough to understand the gravity of the deed. Otherwise it's 18. In general, though, adults being with under 18s is frowned upon.

Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
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.   :(

I hate you.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 10:23:14 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
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.   :(

I got no beef with that.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 03, 2013, 10:24:24 PM
I hate you.

Definitely a dated film now, but it was the hotness at the time.  You should write a review on it.

:grr:

Whaddayesay? Whaddayesay?

14 because.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 03, 2013, 10:23:14 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
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.  :hug:

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.

I voted with the masses & went with 16.

I like Osterreich's system. :swiss: 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.

Quote from: merithyn on September 04, 2013, 08:26:21 AM
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.

Quote from: merithyn on September 04, 2013, 08:26:21 AM
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.

Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
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. 

Quote from: mongers on September 04, 2013, 08:49:54 AM
* 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?

Quote from: dps on September 04, 2013, 05:20:26 PM

Quote from: mongers on September 04, 2013, 08:49:54 AM
* 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.

Quote from: dps on September 04, 2013, 05:20:26 PM

Quote from: mongers on September 04, 2013, 08:49:54 AM
* 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.

Quotethey 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. :(

Quote from: Ideologue on September 03, 2013, 07:31:16 PM
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.

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).

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 04, 2013, 06:17:29 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: CCI apologize Ide, I had no idea your country could be so backward.

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

;)

Quote from: Mihaliin 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.

Quote from: Viking on September 04, 2013, 06:49:55 PM
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.

QuoteMy 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. :(

Quote from: Ideologue on September 04, 2013, 07:03:29 PM

Quote from: Viking on September 04, 2013, 06:49:55 PM
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?

Quote from: Ideologue on September 04, 2013, 07:03:29 PM

QuoteMy 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".

Quote from: VikingI'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.

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

Quote from: Ideologue on September 04, 2013, 07:14:51 PM

Quote from: VikingI'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?

Quote from: Ideologue on September 04, 2013, 07:14:51 PM
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.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 04, 2013, 07:14:51 PM
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.

Quote from: merithyn on September 04, 2013, 08:26:21 AM
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.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 04, 2013, 06:04:32 PM

Quotethey 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.)

Quote from: Phillip V on September 04, 2013, 08:13:21 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 04, 2013, 08:26:21 AM
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.

Quote from: merithyn on September 04, 2013, 08:26:21 AM
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.

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

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.

12-14
13-16
14-18
15-21
16+

21 year old with a 15 year old? :wacko:

Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2013, 01:21:01 AM
21 year old with a 15 year old? :wacko:

I'd hope it wouldn't be normal but 15 year olds do often find their way into university parties.
More :wacko: is a 16 year old with a 60 year old but that is totally legal as things stand, despite the 15 and 16 year old often being in the same class.