should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?

[jaimehlers]

So you don't think it's hypocritical to say that a 14 year old is not capable of making decisions like an adult and should be protected but a 14 year old is capable of making decisions like an adult and should be punished?

Let's rephrase for accuracy, shall we?  "I don't think it's hypocritical to say that most 14-year olds are not capable of making decisions like an adult and should be protected, while some 14-year olds are capable of making decisions like an adult and should be punished."  This statement accurately represents what I think; yours doesn't even come close.

I expect better from you than these asinine word games, Joe.

[joebbowers]

Why is it reasonable to assess a 14 year old's ability to reason as an adult on a case by case basis when they have done something wrong, but it is not reasonable to assess a 14 year old's ability to reason as an adult on a case by case basis when it comes to a sexual relationship with an adult, and simply assume the child is the victim and throw the adult in prison?

[jaimehlers]

Because they are having sexual relations with an adult.  Regardless of the maturity of the 14-year old, the adult is expected to know and abide by the law, and is required to pay the penalty if they break it anyway.  Furthermore, the 14-year old's ability to reason as an adult is not pertinent.  The adult is not being punished for the 14-year old's ability to reason or lack thereof, they're being punished because of the decision they made to have sex with a minor.  And before you say that the 14-year old might look 18, ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law.  It's the adult's responsibility to check anyway regardless of appearances.

To illustrate why this logic is wrong, consider a tobacco store employee who sells cigarettes to this 14-year old who looks 18, because they went based on appearances instead of checking their actual age.  It's not reasonable to give the clerk a free pass for breaking the law by selling cigarettes to someone underage because they were ignorant of the person's true age, and it's not reasonable to give an adult a free pass for breaking the law by having sex with someone underage because they were ignorant of the person's true age.  In both cases, it was their responsibility to confirm the person's age.  If they fail to meet that responsibility, they're legally liable for that failure.

[joebbowers]

But that's circular logic. I'm questioning the fairness of the law, and you're saying the law is fair because people should be punished for breaking the law.

You say that the adult is not being punished for the minor's lack of reasoning skills, but for having sex with a minor. But why is having sex with a minor illegal? Isn't it because minors lack reasoning skills? Circular logic.

Why is it reasonable for us to go out of our way to assess the reasoning skills of minors when the minor commits an offense, but when the minor engages in sex with an adult we simply assume the minor is the victim of abuse because they lack reasoning skills.

[Gnu Ordure]

Joe:

I'm curious as to who Joe means by his 'girlfriend'. What husband refers to his wife as his girlfriend? None that I know of. Maybe he means his mistress. That's possible. Care to share, Joe?

I use the terms wife and girlfriend interchageably. This is a habit I've picked up from the Chinese.

I had a drink with a old friend tonight who has worked in China for years, so I asked him about this. He said it's bollocks. Chinese people make exactly the same distinction between wives and girlfriends that we do.

This seems to be rather similar to you saying that you had two adopted children, but on further enquiry it turns out that formally, you don't.

Are you formally married, Joe? Or do you just refer to your girlfriend as your wife sometimes?   

Whereas you think that the age of consent should be drastically reduced:

I agree, there should be a line, but I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult.

Which in the US is between 6 and 12 (here).

6 to 12 was your number, not mine.

6 to 12 isn't my number; they're the numbers used in the US to define criminal responsibility. And you said that you would like the AoC to be reduced to those levels. Here in Britain, it's 10. That's too young for the AoC, Joe.   

How is my answer any different from your answer?

Because you're saying that a 31-year-old man having sex with an 11-year old girl should be legal in some circumstances:

if and only if, you could determine with 100% certainty that it was completely consensual, and that she understood what she was doing and both the short and long term ramifications of her actions, I think it should be legal.

Why do you bother promoting that view when you concede that there is no way of establishing 100% certainty, and that the vast majority of 11-year-old girls would not understand the potential consequences of their actions?

I think 14 is a reasonable age to be considered an adult, and I think that should apply to both sexual consent and accountability for one's actions.

Thanks for sharing, but who cares what you think, or what number you plucked out of thin air?

And, I don't believe you.

[HAL]

I'll prolly regret jumping into this but it seems to me we legislate age issues such as this based on the idea of over-engineering based on safety. Perhaps (and I don't believe this) but perhaps .1% of 14 year olds could understand the ramifications of sex with a 30 year old man (consequences of having a baby, sexually xmitted diseases, etc.) and then safely take on the relationship.

But who is going to "test" all of them to make sure they understand? It ain't gonna happen. Therefore we up the age to what it is now so as to cover most people, assuming they know WTF they are doing (even then many don't).

It's like the age recommendations on children's toys (without legal ramifications). Yea you could buy the toy below for a 2 year old and some could safely use it, but most would choke on the parts, and the gubment knows people are sometimes too stupid to do the right thing for an innocent child, therefore the age recommendation of 3+ years. That's why children have a safety "label" for an age on consent that safely covers the vast majority, even though some could be of a lower age.

[joebbowers]

At 14 it's .1%, but at 16 we assume 100% are capable. There is a LOT of development in those two years apparently.

[Azdgari]

No, by 16 we treat everyone as 100% capable.

Come on, Joe, that 'misunderstanding' on your part was deliberate.

[joebbowers]

I use the terms wife and girlfriend interchageably. This is a habit I've picked up from the Chinese.

I had a drink with a old friend tonight who has worked in China for years, so I asked him about this. He said it's bollocks. Chinese people make exactly the same distinction between wives and girlfriends that we do.

Oh you know one guy who worked in China? That's not confirmation bias at all. His expert opinion far outweighs my own. After all, I've only lived here most of my adult life, speak the language fluently, and have a Chinese wife. That can't compare to your drinking buddy who used to live here.

The Chinese use the words laogong (husband) and laopo (wife) to describe their lover if they are in a committed relationship. They typically begin using them once the relationship is consummated. They refer to each other as husband and wife during their courtship and engagement, long before they are married. These are the same exact words they will continue to use after they are formally married.

Tell that to your idiot friend who knows nothing about China.

This seems to be rather similar to you saying that you had two adopted children, but on further enquiry it turns out that formally, you don't.

Ding ding ding ding ding! So, are you saying I don't, or formally I don't? Does that mean I lied, or does that perhaps mean that I raise my wife's children as my own but haven't gone through the legal formalities yet? That is the correct use of the word adopted, it does not require a formal or legal action.

Are you formally married, Joe? Or do you just refer to your girlfriend as your wife sometimes?

We have a marriage license but we haven't had the money to have the big wedding she wants yet.

6 to 12 isn't my number; they're the numbers used in the US to define criminal responsibility. And you said that you would like the AoC to be reduced to those levels. Here in Britain, it's 10. That's too young for the AoC, Joe.

I never suggested lowering the age of consent to 6 or even 10. I'd appreciate it if you stopped characterizing my argument as such. You know it's dishonest. Is that the reputation you want to cultivate? My point was that I don't think it's fair that we consider young children adults in some situations, but children in other situations. Did you not get that or are you simply pretending you didn't get that? Set the bar a little higher for yourself, Gnu.

If you've been following along you'll find that what I've actually said several times is that we shouldn't charge children as adults at all. My position is that we should set the age of adult responsibility to 14, which would apply to both age of consent and liability for criminal prosecution as an adult. I've also said that 16 is also a reasonable age of adult responsibility, if the punishment for consensual sex with a minor from 14 to 16 was a slap on the wrist.

Because you're saying that a 31-year-old man having sex with an 11-year old girl should be legal in some circumstances:

Certain theoretical circumstances that I quickly admitted may be an impossible condition to meet.

if and only if, you could determine with 100% certainty that it was completely consensual, and that she understood what she was doing and both the short and long term ramifications of her actions, I think it should be legal.

Why do you bother promoting that view when you concede that there is no way of establishing 100% certainty, and that the vast majority of 11-year-old girls would not understand the potential consequences of their actions?

I wasn't promoting that view. I was answering a question. You're cherry picking out of context here, and you know that of course, but allow me to shine a light on it.

Do you think that it should be legal for you to have sex with an 11 year old?

You'll forgive me for not giving you a simple yes or no, as that's a difficult question. I don't think all 11 year olds are created equally. I certainly don't think most of them are anything like her.

If you really want to force an answer out of me, I would say that if and only if, you could determine with 100% certainty that it was completely consensual, and that she understood what she was doing and both the short and long term ramifications of her actions, I think it should be legal. If there is no coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, malice, or abuse, how can it be called rape?

Clearly in this case she is physically ready, the problem is determining her mental fitness. Is an 11 year old capable of that kind of understanding? Perhaps some are, but certainly most aren't. How could you determine which ones are? I don't know. Some specially designed psychological tests, I would imagine. Of course, that's awkward foreplay and it's not reasonable to set age of consent laws on a case-by-case basis.

You see, I am not promoting lowering the age of consent to 11. I was asked if it should be legal to have sex with an 11 year old. I said that I didn't believe it was a simple yes or no question. If it could be proven harmless, it should be legal. I then voiced my doubt that it could be proven harmless and in conclusion made no recommendation to lower the age of consent laws. I was quite clearly saying that while theoretically there are cases where it is not harmful, I didn't believe any changes should be made to accommodate those incredibly rare situations.

You said essentially the same thing yourself.

People judge readiness by talking, and establishing recognition of potential consequences and risks. And establishing informed consent. Most 18-year-olds can do this. 17-year-olds slightly less so, 16-year-olds slightly less so, and so on.

Bold mine. And so on. So you've said most 18 year olds can do it, slightly less than most 17 years olds, slightly less than slightly less than most 16 year olds, and so on. You did not specify at which point it reaches zero, the age at which 0% of children can establish informed consent. Now, compare that to my statement.

...the problem is determining her mental fitness. Is an 11 year old capable of that kind of understanding? Perhaps some are, but certainly most aren't.

We are both claiming that an incredibly small percentage of 11 years olds could establish informed consent. In fact I'm even opening suggesting the possibility that that percentage may be zero. That's what perhaps means there. Your "and so on" doesn't in any way suggest that the percentage at age 11 is zero.

But since there is no objective measure of this ability, societies simpy draw a line at a certain age, so everyone knows where they stand and there are no legal grey areas. It's artificial and arbitrary, but there's no workable alternative.

and mine...

How could you determine which ones are? I don't know. Some specially designed psychological tests, I would imagine. Of course, that's awkward foreplay and it's not reasonable to set age of consent laws on a case-by-case basis.

We are both claiming that it is difficult or impossible to determine informed consent, and impractical to attempt it. While the age of consent is not perfect, it is acceptable and neither of us proposes an alternative solution.

Yet you characterize my statement as supporting legalizing child sex, and you believe your statement is completely different from mine.

I think 14 is a reasonable age to be considered an adult, and I think that should apply to both sexual consent and accountability for one's actions.

Thanks for sharing, but who cares what you think, or what number you plucked out of thin air?

And, I don't believe you.

Well, this is just rude and stupid. We were having a discussion and sharing opinions. Should I dismiss every single statement you make without accompanying facts and figures? Are we only here to regurgitate the thoughts of others or would it be terribly rude of me to have an original thought?

Also, 14 is not plucked out of thin air. 2394762936 is plucked out of thin air. 3589 is plucked out of thin air. In fact almost any number plucked out of thin air would be impractical as there are infinite numbers beyond the human life span. And if I did manage to pluck 14 out of thin air, it would be an amazing coincidence that it happens to be the same age of consent of many countries. Apparently they chose them at random too? Someone should call Steven Hawking, the odds of so many of us choosing the same number completely at random is astoundingly implausible. And the fact that that number is actually an appropriate answer as it's the approximate age at which most children have completed puberty is another unbelievable coincidence! Not only was the number chosen at random by so many people, but it's a plausible answer!

It's almost as if it were chosen after careful consideration and thought, but that's crazy. Who makes laws like that?

[joebbowers]

No, by 16 we treat everyone as 100% capable.

Come on, Joe, that 'misunderstanding' on your part was deliberate.

OK, I will reiterate.

At 14 it's .1%, but at 16 we treat everyone as 100% capable. There is a LOT of development in those two years apparently.

My point still stands.

[Azdgari]

Apples and oranges.  At 14 we treat everyone as a flat 0% (on this topic).  At 16 we treat everyone as a flat 100%.  That's just how age limits work.  It's how any age limit would work, no matter what it was.

[joebbowers]

So the law is the law because it's the law and we should follow it because it's the law? Well, if that's good enough for you then I guess there's nothing more to discuss.

[Azdgari]

Eh?  Joe, it's hard to have a back-and-forth with you when your posts address nothing I said, and instead address angles or topics I never even broached.

[HAL]

At 14 it's .1%, but at 16 we assume 100% are capable. There is a LOT of development in those two years apparently.

The law prevents you from having sex with a 14 year old in all cases. There are no exceptions in the law. Even if you produced a psychological profile of a 14 year old that somehow were to show they were capable of understanding the ramifications of it all, you still couldn't have sex with a 14 year old because the law doesn't have that exception built-in. It's certainly plausible that such a law could be written, but it simply isn't going to happen because of the amount of work it would entail keeping up with all the requests for sex with 14 year olds and the job of medically certifying the profiles, etc.

It's like the stop sign analogy I use from time to time. If I come to a four way stop and there are clearly no other cars there, not even a cop, do I still have to stop? Yes. Would I have broken the law if nobody saw me? The answer is yes, even though it's a waste of time to stop for no car, because you understand the law in your own mind. That's really where the law resides. Stop is Stop. Period. No exceptions.

So even if you produced a psychological profile of a 14 year old that somehow were to show they were capable of understanding sex with a 30 year old, and had sex with her, you have broken the law. You cannot use that paperwork as an excuse to avoid punishment if caught.

You didn't stop at the stop sign even though there were no cars in sight.

[pianodwarf]

The law prevents you from having sex with a 14 year old in all cases. There are no exceptions in the law.

Note:  This is not true.  There are a number of jurisdictions where fourteen-year-olds are legally able to give consent.  Iceland, for one, comes to mind.

[HAL]

The law prevents you from having sex with a 14 year old in all cases. There are no exceptions in the law.

Note:  This is not true.  There are a number of jurisdictions where fourteen-year-olds are legally able to give consent.  Iceland, for one, comes to mind.

Jeezus, it's just an example age.

[Azdgari]

Note:  This is not true.  There are a number of jurisdictions where fourteen-year-olds are legally able to give consent.  Iceland, for one, comes to mind.

Utter miss of point.  HAL was talking about how laws work in general.  Do you (dis)agree with the meaning of his post?

[pianodwarf]

Note:  This is not true.  There are a number of jurisdictions where fourteen-year-olds are legally able to give consent.  Iceland, for one, comes to mind.

Utter miss of point.  HAL was talking about how laws work in general.  Do you (dis)agree with the meaning of his post?

Do you think that valid arguments can be made from invalid premises?

[HAL]

Can a mod please clean up this thread back to my last post?

[pianodwarf]

Note:  This is not true.  There are a number of jurisdictions where fourteen-year-olds are legally able to give consent.  Iceland, for one, comes to mind.

Jeezus, it's just an example age.

It's OK, HAL, you can call me pianodwarf.

[Azdgari]

Sure.  I also think that people can make posts devoid of explanatory content.  Like yours just now.

Hal's "in all cases" clearly refers to all cases under the jurisdiction of the law in question, rather than all cases through the world.  Or throughout the universe.  Or the multiverse for that matter.

This is shown by the comparison he uses, with stop-signs.  The laws for those aren't present in all cases throughout the universe, either.  That's beside HAL's point.

[joebbowers]

I still think both of you are basically saying it's the law because it's the law, and we don't make exceptions because we don't make exceptions. Hal's argument that you should stop at a stop sign even if there are no cars demonstrates a blind obedience to authority even in cases where the rules are not necessary.

We know it's illegal, you really don't need to point that out. What I've asked is why we make exceptions and call a child an adult when we can punish someone, but we won't go through the same effort when we can show mercy?

[HAL]

I still think both of you are basically saying it's the law because it's the law, and we don't make exceptions because we don't make exceptions. Hal's argument that you should stop at a stop sign even if there are no cars demonstrates a blind obedience to authority even in cases where the rules are not necessary.

Oh gosh Joe this is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

Just exactly who gets to decide for themselves when they get to break a law? How exactly does that work while at the same time preserving a workable system devoid of anarchy?

We know it's illegal, you really don't need to point that out. What I've asked is why we make exceptions and call a child an adult when we can punish someone, but we won't go through the same effort when we can show mercy?

I don't know.

[joebbowers]

That sure sounds like blind obedience to authority to me. As I've said before:

So the law is the law because it's the law and we should follow it because it's the law? Well, if that's good enough for you then I guess there's nothing more to discuss.

[HAL]

That sure sounds like blind obedience to authority to me. As I've said before:

There's always civil disobedience I guess.

So the law is the law because it's the law and we should follow it because it's the law? Well, if that's good enough for you then I guess there's nothing more to discuss.

Yes that's the way it works. You know as well as I do what the options are. Get the lawmakers to change the law either by civil disobedience or by electing people who will change it. Breaking the law won't get it changed though, unless like prohibition, the sheer amount of law breakers does the trick. If there were enough pedophiles around that would probably do the trick, but then we're back to the fact that there's no absolute morality, and so if most people were pedophiles then, well, it would be OK to be one. In fact in that case it wouldn't be "wrong", it would be moral.

[Traveler]

I'm going to dive in here with what is perhaps a different angle to this. People are talking about laws and punishment and other logical approaches. I'd like to speak as a woman, who was a girl of 14 (and all the other ages we've talked about of course).

At 14, sex is something talked about in school sex ed classes. Its usually mentioned as an aside to birth control and mentruation discussions. Details are often slim. Never mind talk of love, learning to respect one's own wishes and boundaries when pressured by boys and/or men, or how easy it is to get hurt. For many 14 year olds sex is both titilated and frightening. "They're going to put THAT into THIS? Are you f-ing kidding me???" The fear. The giggles. The confusion. Let us not forget that sex for a girl/woman is sometimes very difficult or painful the first time. Breaking the hyman. Dealing with physical pain and blood. Dealing with shyness or uncertainty. And somehow, with all the "white knight" rescue stories out there, far too many girls are prepped with romantic ideas of love instead of practical matters like emotions and the differences between many boys who just want sex vs. many girls who just want love. How many girls mistake sex for love? How many girls say yes when they really aren't yet sure because of peer pressure?

These are questions that a 30 year old man is not equipped to answer.

What IS the answer? I want for every girl to have massively more detailed sex education. I want every boy to have massively more detailed sex education. And ALL of these issues need to be addressed to help avoid a lot of misunderstandings. I know far too many women who have never even experienced an orgasm. Why? Because they were hurt along the way, pressured into things they didn't understand, and never really learned about sex as making love. As a sharing between equals. It's sad. Very, very sad.

When I read these notes about this topic I can't help but cringe inside. Reducing a girl's experience to logic or laws or rationalizations is to miss the point. Those are all simply ways of saying, "we don't want our children harmed, and in today's society, with sex still so stigmatized (virgin/whore, for instance), this is the only way we know how to do it."

[joebbowers]

Hal, I never suggested ignoring or breaking the law is the solution. But neither should we blindly follow laws that do more harm than good. I've clearly stated my suggestions to change the law, which are specifically to lower the age of consent to 14, and legalize the possession of child pornography while keeping production and sale illegal.

Until that happens, there is also the option of jury nullification. If you are called for jury duty and you don't agree with the law, you can vote not guilty regardless of guilt. This is not illegal. I think it's important for juries to vote guilty if they believe the punishment fits the crime, but not otherwise. If you're on a jury where the defendent was clearly in possession of child pornography, but never paid for it or personally harmed a child himself, you should vote not guilty.

You don't have to break the bad laws, but you can nullify them.

Breaking the law won't get it changed though, unless like prohibition, the sheer amount of law breakers does the trick. If there were enough pedophiles around that would probably do the trick...

Was it the sheer numbers of homosexuals around that got sodomy laws struck down and gay marriage approved? Or the work of non homosexuals who realized that a group of people was being treated unfairly and joined them in their fight for equality?

[joebbowers]

She says...

...and the differences between many boys who just want sex vs. many girls who just want love.

...and Kimberly upvotes her.

I said...

Girls use sex to get love, and boys use love to get sex.

...and Kimberly calls me disgusting and uncivilized. Interesting.

[HAL]

This is a hot thread - 22 pages. It might even exceed threads on gun control and homosexuality.

Hal, I never suggested ignoring or breaking the law is the solution. But neither should we blindly follow laws that do more harm than good. I've clearly stated my suggestions to change the law, which are specifically to lower the age of consent to 14, and legalize the possession of child pornography while keeping production and sale illegal.

Until that happens, there is also the option of jury nullification. If you are called for jury duty and you don't agree with the law, you can vote not guilty regardless of guilt. This is not illegal. I think it's important for juries to vote guilty if they believe the punishment fits the crime, but not otherwise. If you're on a jury where the defendent was clearly in possession of child pornography, but never paid for it or personally harmed a child himself, you should vote not guilty.

You don't have to break the bad laws, but you can nullify them.

I have nothing to add to that.

Was it the sheer numbers of homosexuals around that got sodomy laws struck down and gay marriage approved? Or the work of non homosexuals who realized that a group of people was being treated unfairly and joined them in their fight for equality?

Some of both I guess. Go ahead and use their methods to get the rights you feel are being denied to you. It's gonna be a hard slog regarding the subject your pleading for though.