5 replies to this topic

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I should have posted this ages ago, but I kept forgetting.

Recently, BBC Radio 4 has broadcast a debate started by Law Professor, John Spencer, of the University of Cambridge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...of_consent.html

In it, he argued that the age of consent in the UK should be lowered. Those of you who live in the UK can listen to it here (there are seven days left to listen to it from the day of this post). Basically, he is arguing that the law is criminalising half the population unnecessarily. It is too blunt, he argues, criminalising consensual acts between adults and children, and more importantly, "children" and "children", and is so vague that any sexual activity, no matter how minor is criminalised when it isn't really necessary. He also argues that it is unenforcable.

Sexual abuse of children, he argues, should be made a specific crime and the rest of the law criminalising underage sex should be abandoned.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 26 September 2009 - 07:35 AM.

[Raien]

First of all, I agree with Mr. Spencer that all non-consensual acts of sex should be dealt with as rape under law, but I do think that the rapist's age needs to be considered when deciding the appopriate punishment. I don't know how long an adult must spend time in prison for rape, but I doubt that it would be appropriate for a developing twelve-year-old.

Secondly, I'm not sure that young children (i.e. below twelve years of age) are often in positions where they can comprehend the full consequences of sex and the contexts involved. Sex education doesn't kick in until secondary school, and I would be concerned that children were having sex without the full understanding of what they were doing. So with that in mind, I would set an age of consent to about 13-14 years of age, and I wouldn't go any lower unless assured that children were educated and responsible enough to have sex at such a young age.

Edited by Raien, 26 September 2009 - 07:46 AM.

[Egann]

I live in the US and I can access the audio link (FYI.) I think it's just video that's blocked.

Age of Consent is an arbitrary law that is culturally determined. This rather "extreme" position is just a logical extension of removing the arbitrary point BECAUSE it is arbitrary.

Now, I'd like to say that this really only makes sense if the logic is considered in a vacuum. Is not the age to vote ALSO arbitrary? Would we consider giving the right to vote to a three year old? In a similar sense, I think that the line should be defined as THE BEGINNING OF PUBERTY, not some random age that almost certainly doesn't apply to everyone.

That said, this brings an AMAZING sense of deja' vu from Brave New World, where "underage" sexual play is outright encouraged to prepare children for a life of promiscuity.

Personally, I think that there should be a law on the books, but that it should also have a phrase leaving the affair to the Judge's discretion. As that different people mature at different rates, the "offense" might actually warrant no punishment. The ones writing the laws have no involvement in and don't know the specifics of the case. The judge does. The call OUGHT to belong to the judge.

[Toan]

I think that the line should be defined as THE BEGINNING OF PUBERTY, not some random age that almost certainly doesn't apply to everyone.

I don't think it should be "the beginning of puberty", but more like "sorta the middle", at least. You said it yourself - different people mature at different rates - and while you were using it in an emotional sense, the same is true physically and hormonally. Since some people start puberty sooner than others, I think an age like... oh, 14-15 is old enough for at least everyone to have started puberty.

Personally, I think that there should be a law on the books, but that it should also have a phrase leaving the affair to the Judge's discretion. As that different people mature at different rates, the "offense" might actually warrant no punishment. The ones writing the laws have no involvement in and don't know the specifics of the case. The judge does. The call OUGHT to belong to the judge.

I'm probably not understanding this, but it sounds a little too much like "arrest/indict now, ask questions later", and I've always thought that this sort of rule could/should be avoided. Just my 2 cents.

[arunma]

I have some comments here, but first I feel like I should clarify a couple of things.

In it, he argued that the age of consent in the UK should be lowered. Those of you who live in the UK can listen to it here (there are seven days left to listen to it from the day of this post). Basically, he is arguing that the law is criminalising half the population unnecessarily. It is too blunt, he argues, criminalising consensual acts between adults and children, and more importantly, "children" and "children", and is so vague that any sexual activity, no matter how minor is criminalised when it isn't really necessary. He also argues that it is unenforcable.

Sexual abuse of children, he argues, should be made a specific crime and the rest of the law criminalising underage sex should be abandoned.

I can certainly see the wisdom of relaxing age of consent laws. For example, in certain states here in America, if an 18 year old has consentual sex with a 17 year old, the 18 year old is committing statutory rape. Clearly laws like this ought to be abolished. And then there are all those cases of teachers having sex with slightly younger students (usually the student is around 16 or 17). This is a gray area, but probably shouldn't be punished with any prison time. However, there are plenty of weirdo 30-40 year olds (of both sexes) who will have sex with children as young as 10. This, as I think we can all agree, should be fully prosecuted.

Would you suggest decriminalizing all sex between adults and children, or are you simply calling for courts to exercise some judgment and common sense?

First of all, I agree with Mr. Spencer that all non-consensual acts of sex should be dealt with as rape under law, but I do think that the rapist's age needs to be considered when deciding the appopriate punishment. I don't know how long an adult must spend time in prison for rape, but I doubt that it would be appropriate for a developing twelve-year-old.

I'm not so sure about that. Not that I agree with the death penalty per se, but we do execute children who commit murder, albeit very rarely. Thus, there's an extent to which being under 18 doesn't fully shield you from being prosecuted as an adult. So I'm not sure why a twelve year old who rapes some adult girl wouldn't get punished in the same manner as an adult who did the same thing.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I have some comments here, but first I feel like I should clarify a couple of things.

In it, he argued that the age of consent in the UK should be lowered. Those of you who live in the UK can listen to it here (there are seven days left to listen to it from the day of this post). Basically, he is arguing that the law is criminalising half the population unnecessarily. It is too blunt, he argues, criminalising consensual acts between adults and children, and more importantly, "children" and "children", and is so vague that any sexual activity, no matter how minor is criminalised when it isn't really necessary. He also argues that it is unenforcable.

Sexual abuse of children, he argues, should be made a specific crime and the rest of the law criminalising underage sex should be abandoned.

I can certainly see the wisdom of relaxing age of consent laws. For example, in certain states here in America, if an 18 year old has consentual sex with a 17 year old, the 18 year old is committing statutory rape. Clearly laws like this ought to be abolished. And then there are all those cases of teachers having sex with slightly younger students (usually the student is around 16 or 17). This is a gray area, but probably shouldn't be punished with any prison time. However, there are plenty of weirdo 30-40 year olds (of both sexes) who will have sex with children as young as 10. This, as I think we can all agree, should be fully prosecuted.

Would you suggest decriminalizing all sex between adults and children, or are you simply calling for courts to exercise some judgment and common sense?

I'm not calling for anything. I just thought it would be a different point to discuss.

Personally, I see pros and cons to the situation. For example, we don't know how this will affect teenage pregnancy if there is any effect at all. Will teenagers do what they've always done with the law in place or would it encourage more teenagers to have sex? I don't know and I don't think any of us will know until we try it out. That's the problem with social programmes, there's no real way of knowing whether it will work unless you test it out and by testing it out, you could doom some to huge problems.

As for adults and children, there is the situation where more sexually mature and knowledgable people will coerce young 'uns green about the ears, to use some rather colourful terms to describe them. In such situations, it is obvious that the Judges should show some judgement and common sense. However, I do believe that this would make such laws unwieldy and difficult to use. It would probably tie up the legal system a little bit more than we'd like, costing the tax payers money which isn't a good thing either.

It's difficult to say, though, really. I'm quite undecided on the issue.