|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
First of all, a confession! Those who notice these things will realise that I usually post in the middle of the night; it's my way of winding down from working before trying to sleep. Yesterday was an exception; I posted after an extremely alcoholic celebration and as a result parts of the third paragraph of last night's posting are absolute rubbish - or at least more absolute than most of my outpourings!
So, just for the record, most Tribunals of which I have any knowledge are the final arbiters of fact; their decisions upon the facts of a case can only be overturned by the High Court if they can be shown to be - in effect - wholly unreasonable. However, the Tribunals DO give decisions on points of law, following established legal precedents, though as I said last night these decisions do not themselves establish precedents.
Generally speaking, this system has advantages if the public bodies concerned use it responsibly. Most tribunals cannot award costs against an appellant unless he is shown to have acted wholly unreasonably, so it gives the man in the street a bite at the legal cherry free of charge, so to speak; he can, if he wishes, represent himself, and usually the hearing takes place around a table rather than in a court.
Either side can then appeal to the High Court, but only on a point of law. For this purpose, the contention that the Tribunal reached a wholly unreasonable decision in relation to the facts is regarded as a point of law - but this contention will only succeed if it is shown that the decision was WHOLLY unreasonable; if the tribunal merely arrived at one of several possible and reasonable conclusions, that conclusion cannot be overturned by the Courts.
If either party does not like the decision of the High Court, they can proceed to the Court of Appeal. From there, they can appeal to the House of Lords - strictly, to the most senior members of the judiciary, who are members of the House of Lords by virtue of their rank. In many civil cases, an appeal to the House of Lords requires leave from either the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords itself - this means that 'no hoper' cases are prevented from clogging up the system.
Each level of the Court is bound by legal precedents established at that level, or at a higher level - so if an appellant is seeking to overturn a precedent established in the Court of Appeal, the case may be fast-tracked direct to the House of Lords, since any lower Court would be bound to follow the established precedent.
My detailed knowledge of the bits of law which don't involve me has long since rusted to an attractive reddish brown colour - but if my unreliable memory serves me right, the House of Lords was bound by its own decisions until relatively recently (1960s?), since when it decided for itself that it could and should review its earlier decisions when it was in the public interest to do so.
Turning - at last, I hear you say! - to Black Prince's reply to my post, I am again plunging into the rusty recesses of my memory, but I believe that the House of Lords DID approve the Parliament Act of 1911. I think there was a snappy bit of blackmail involved! The budget presented by the Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd-George, was rejected by the Lords, which had a large built-in Conservative majority. Subsequently, the Liberal government threatened that if the Parliament Act were not approved, it would create several hundred Liberal peers in order to establish a majority in its favour. Under Britain's 'constitutional monarchy', the government certainly had the power to do this, and the Lords decided that discretion was the better part of valour and accepted a restriction of their powers to reject financial bills.
Moving on, there's no reason to suppose that the High Court would not rule on the Bill of Rights issue; it is bound by precedents established in its own or a higher court, but it can still interpret and apply those precedents and, in my experience, it doesn't hesitate to do so. So if, as has been suggested, the Car Parking Tribunal thingy has never previously been challenged on the issue, the High Court would probably tackle it with glee.
As I have already observed several yards above, Tribunals are a good thing in principle; it's the public bodies which they serve which create the problem. And it does appear from examples like the guy I referred to who was prosecuted for parking in an unmarked loading bay that some public bodies use the threat of court proceedings to frighten aggrieved members of the public into submission - and that's very obviously wrong.
Having disposed of the background theory, and hopefully having waved goodbye to parking tickets, I agree pretty well unreservedly with the rest of what Black Prince has to say.
The law should not be a blunt instrument. Judges are there to judge the merits of the case, and whilst it is not unreasonable for guidance to be issued on sentencing, it is - in my view - wholly wrong for Parliament to set mandatory sentences which cannot be overridden, whatever the circumstances of a particular case.
And to return to Marc's argument earlier in the thread, I don't seek to defend flagrant breaches of the law. I see no reasonable defence for an adult of 18 or over having sexual relations with a minor of, say, thirteen. But I would applaud and support a 16-year-old who had relations with a 15-year-old only a couple of weeks younger than him- or herself, because that would emphasise the daftness of the existing law. Finally, I am one hundred percent behind Black Prince when he suggests that it is wrong on any level of morality for someone to be punished for breaking a law they could not possibly have known they were breaking.
I'm glad that Deeeej found this meandering thread interesting - that's why I've bored you (and, very likely, him) by trying to correct my alcohol-fuelled mumblings. Oh, and I have it on good authority that there are 467 feathers in a clump - or, at least, in a clump of 467 feathers!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
> And to return to Marc's argument earlier in the thread, I don't seek to defend flagrant breaches of the law. I see no reasonable defence for an adult of 18 or over having sexual relations with a minor of, say, thirteen. But I would applaud and support a 16-year-old who had relations with a 15-year-old only a couple of weeks younger than him- or herself, because that would emphasise the daftness of the existing law. Finally, I am one hundred percent behind Black Prince when he suggests that it is wrong on any level of morality for someone to be punished for breaking a law they could not possibly have known they were breaking.
To morally support a couple as you mentioned is one thing..... But..... support of two individuals can not override the fact that they committed a crime as the law is written.
Secondly......
Ignorance of the law is no defense. Neither is the posture of ignorance of the crime.
Case in point.
A friend who is a court officer once contacted me to view a case he thought I might find interesting.
A family from the Middle East moved to the state of Massachusetts, USA.
After a time the family flourished and the children grew.
At one point a daughter went out to become pregnant.
Once hearing of this the men in the family summarily took the girl to a rock quarry and without further ado stoned the girl to death.
The familys defense was that "in their country this was acceptable" and they had no inclination of the law in the USA reguarding the dispatchment of a pregnant daughter/sister.
The judgment on the entire family was premeditated murder. All were remanded into custody of the state penil system.
Now...... I ask this.....
What sane person would allow this family to go free and clear solely because they were unawares of the commission of a crime????????
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
No sane perosn would. Plus "honour killings" are also a crime where they came from. Just apparently socially acceptable.
Ignorance of the law has never been a valid defence. But this incident os a matter of degree. And no, I am not saying "it would be ok to hurt her a little bit"
The degree is whether is is right to prosecute, whether it "is in the public interest"
The was a case here, R v Brown (http://tinyurl.com/8zsaq) which was not actually unlawful, but which was prosecuted as being "in the public interest" and which convicted some rather silly men who consented to an activity that harmed no-one. These men were convicted on moral grounds and laws were found under which they were charged.
A good CPS officer will determine if it is in the public interest to prosectute. It is most unlikely that two kids one just over and th eother just uinder the age of consent will be prosecuted. The probability of a prosecution increases as the age gap inceases, and as the older moves into and then well into adulthood.
A lawyer can also submit that it would not be in the public interest to proceed with the case. That is one of the things meant when "the morning was take up with legal discussions" and the jury is not present
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I am NOT talking about prosecution........
I am talking about the knowledge of crossing the line from being legally right to legally wrong.....
It is a moral stance......
It is establishing the knowledge and the admission that the line has been crossed.
It is admitting this to ones self......
It is also not fortifting the position of moral correctness in a situation where a law was breached with a posture of civil indignation. Nor is the advocating of a change in legislation an excuse for the justification for the commission of a breach in the law.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I misunderstood you 
I agree with those points, I think.
It is complex, though:
Did MLK and his followers break the law? If so was this invalid because it was morally wrong? (I have no idea if they broke the law or not).
If the law says "All Jews will be rounded up and shot" [pretty much Nazi Germany back then] what happens to the man who says "this law is morally wrong"? The man who obeys the law has been prosecuted successfully and many executed because they "obeyed orders".
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
No, MLK didn't break the law.
Here peaceful demonstrations are within the law (but you must file for a permit).
The example of NAZI Germany I think is a poor example as we are now sallying into the moat of political repression.
As this thread is about the AGE OF CONCENT let me say that testing the legal waters in this venue requires a crime of heinous proportion.
And crying "I didn't know" is still no defense.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you're in a club,
everyone knows (in the UK) that clubs are for 18+. its not a great mental leap to imagine then that you would expect everyone you meet in that cluib to be 18+. in fact the bouncers may even check/ID people to make sure they are 18+ if they don;t look it.
you meet someone, you go home with him, you sleep with him
he's 15
you had no idea, no way of knowing, and yet, by marcs anaylsis you are as guilty as someone who sits on internet chatrooms grooming 15 year old boys, then arranging to meet and abuse them.
legally, you have done something wrong.
for most offences you wouldn't have, because most offences require some form of mental element totally lacking here. but sex with a minor only requires action, and no mental element.
morally, if oyu knew and were deliberately sleeping with a child... well, many would say you have done something wrong. IMO, if the age difference isn't great, the child consents, maybe even initiates action, i personally see nothing wrong with say, 15 and 16 yr olds... (bearing in mind a 15 and 16 yr old can be classmates in the same school year, and yet one be a child and the another not..)
but the scenario i outline, there is no knowledge that you're sleeping with a child. you have a reasonably formed belief that the person you are with is 18+
how on earth can anyone view the teenage adult in that scenario as doing anything wrong regarding the law?
sure, there's the whole moral one night stand argument... which i would agree with, but one night stands aren't illegal.
i might further add i can thikn of at least 2 relationships right now that involve people where one is legally an adult and the other a child in terms of local laws.
in both cases, the age difference between parties is a max of 4 years, which is not unusual in any circumstance, both relationships are long term, loving, happy, and bring a great deal of vibrance and joy to all parties involved. i can't comment on any sexual aspect, i don;t ask about people's sex lives... i would imagine there is some element going on.
these people love each other, in one case have stuck by each other through some hard times together, in one case supported by the parents of the child too!
i fail to see any problems with these relationships.
love, true love, should be encouraged, not repressed, by both law and moral attitudes.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Are you sure you want to re-re-re-reopen that can of beans again?
If you really really really want me to respond to your post..... tell me.
To Tim!
I take this as a deliberate attempt to goad me to response as you know I can!!!!!
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Black Prince wrote:
> ....you had no idea, no way of knowing, and yet, by marcs anaylsis you are as guilty as someone who sits on internet chatrooms grooming 15 year old boys, then arranging to meet and abuse them.
>
> legally, you have done something wrong.
> for most offences you wouldn't have, because most offences require some form of mental element totally lacking here. but sex with a minor only requires action, and no mental element....
The older party in this case would be charged with a crime. Guilt would be decided later.
IF a convincing arguement can be made that there was deception AND
IF the Judge and/or jury believes the arguement AND (probably)
IF the minor admits to the deception; then there probably would not be a conviction. The circumstances of the individual case would determine the outcome.
As a side note: In Georgia a jury can not only decide on the guilt of the defendant, but can decide on the correctness(?)of the law with which the defendant is being charged. in other words, the jury could decide the defentant is guilty but let them go if they think the law sucks.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
He is making impersonal points and expressing an opinion. He has a right to do that, as do you.
The questions he raises are relevant and valid. He painst a scene where you have a legitimate expection in a club where ID is checked that your partner for whatever happens later is not only over the age of consent (16) but an adult (18). It is not generally a line before sex "By the way, how old are you?".
The other question about a 15 and a 16 year old classmate I think has been dealt with in this thread already, but it is again impersonal.
I do not interpret this as goading in any way, though I do know you are sensitive to sex between those over and those under the relevant local age of consent.
I do not see any reason to stop discussion on this topic. It is of legitmate interest to young people who feel they may be criminalised by their actions.
I happen to hold a view that a decent campaugn for modification to the law is valid. That law must still protect children from molestation by predatory older people. While it is true that some people of relatively close age are predatory the general predator tends to be past their first flush of youth. To me it is substantial age difference one needs to be careful of.
It is lawful for 16 to have sex with 60, not for 15 to have sex with 16. To me that is odd.
I do not like the response of yours I am responding to. I see it as threatening. I would like that behaviour to cease, please.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in the UK, if prosecuted
the jury would be asked, did the older party have sex with someone under 16? if your answer to this is yes you must return a guilty verdict.
deception?? no... nothing about deception in UK law... totally irrelevant.
the question is, did the 18yr have sex with someone under 16. answer yes.
tough luck mate, you're guilty, i think there's a minimum sentance of 2 years jail and 5 years as a registered sex offender.
this is NOT a just nor satisfactory law in the slightest.
i would reiterate, for mark, that i was not referring to myself in any way in my posts.
the 2 older/younger relationships i know of are exactly that, 2 others, one australian, and one british, one 20/15 one 21/16 (though they started going out 20/15 too)
neither of them involve me. my own boyfriend is of perfectly legal age i should perhaps add
to quote timmy
It is lawful for 16 to have sex with 60, not for 15 to have sex with 16. To me that is odd.
i too find this a very strange and bizarre situation, do you not?
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I just will have to give in to the mass opinion then.....
Whatever.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
This is not about mass opinion, nor is it about any individuals here. It is about discussing a point properly without hostility
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems sad that this is such an emotive subject that people forget the principles of this forum.
Away the knives guys, we should be more adult that that.
It's easy to quote the law argument, but sure there are plenty of anomalies in the law and especially where teens are of near age to each other.
Can't we just make valid points like gentlemen without kicking each other in the shins? Really!
I haven't checked my status recently, but I'm almost sure it hasn't risen to the level of being a deity. Therefore I will not sit in judgement over what is obviously a sensitive issue.
Mike.g
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Black Prince wrote:
> to quote timmy
> It is lawful for 16 to have sex with 60, not for 15 to have sex with 16. To me that is odd.
>
> i too find this a very strange and bizarre situation, do you not?
Where I live the first situation would be illegal and the second would be legal. The law recognizes the relationship between teenagers so long age the age difference is not extreem (It is illegal for minors age 14 and 15 to have consensual sex with adults at least five years older, this law does not apply to married couples). the age of consent, I believe, is 16 (so long as the adult is under 24) but may be as high as 18 or 21 depending on the relationship between the adult and minor parties.
The law gets complicated, but it is enforced, so you need to know what it says.
There is an attempt to change the age of consent. the new law states:
"(a) A person commits the offense of statutory rape when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 18 years and not his or her spouse, provided that no conviction shall be had for this offense on the unsupported testimony of the victim.
(b) A person convicted of the offense of statutory rape shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years; provided, however, that if the person so convicted is 21 years of age or older, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years; provided, further, that if the victim is not less than 14 nor more than 17 years of age and the person so convicted is no more than three years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
SECTION 2.
Said chapter is further amended by striking subsection (a) of Code Section 16-6-4, relating to child molestation, and inserting in lieu thereof a new subsection (a) to read as follows:
"(a) A person commits the offense of child molestation when he or she does any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 18 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person."
SECTION 3.
Said chapter is further amended by striking subsection (a) of Code Section 16-6-5, relating to enticing a child for indecent purposes, and inserting in lieu thereof a new subsection (a) to read as follows:
"(a) A person commits the offense of enticing a child for indecent purposes when he or she solicits, entices, or takes any child under the age of 18 years to any place whatsoever for the purpose of child molestation or indecent acts."
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
But when the point comes too close to home it has a tendency to cry foul.
But like I said, it doesn't matter anymore.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
In Australian law (in most states anyway) if you can reasonably prove that you believed the person was over the age of consent that is a valid legal defence.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I may not agree with you on this topic, Marc, but I do like hearing your opinion and it has influenced my thinking before. I hope you will continue to post, trying not to bring anyone's past history into this. This is a theoretical debate, if people want to bring specific named examples into this then they should do so themselves. I'm sure you wouldn't really appreciate it if other people raised painful incidents from your past to use as argument points.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
"It is lawful for 16 to have sex with 60, not for 15 to have sex with 16. To me that is odd."
Picking up on this point, I'd say that yes, it is odd, HOWEVER what I don't like about this topic is the assumption that just because someone is 40 or 60 that they should have to stick to people their own age, just as people in their teens would have to. Now I'm not 40 or 60 so this has got nothing to do with me, but although I personally wouldn't like to have sex with someone that age in the majority of cases, why should it be illegal or immoral for a large age disparity. Why should a 16 year old be capable of consenting to sex with a 15 year old, but not with a 60 year old?
The thing I don't get is that, informed consent is informed consent. Either you know what sex is about and you know what you're doing, or you do not. If you are deemed capable of consenting to sex then aren't you also capable of refusing to consent to sex? Think of it from the point of view of a teen, rather the point of view of the teen's sexual partner. If a teen wants to have sex with someone that is 60, rather than someone that is 18, shouldn't they be able to say yes to either? Now I'm not saying that it'd be a common scenario where a 16 year old would want to be with a 60 year old, but a person should be capable of saying yes or no regardless of the person's age. Unless someone it is harder to say no to a 60 year old? Wouldn't it be easier, though? Most teens I know would be quite capable of refusing to consent to sex with a 60 year old. Abuse is a whole nothing kettle of fish, as is grooming. They should be illegal regardless of age. I think another question is what makes sex as a 16 year old more harmful if it is with a 60 year old rather than an 18 year old? I appreciate the sliding scale argument, but I have to say that really it is just imposing more arbitrary, artificial limits.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
The issue of genitalia requiring special protection undoubtedly arises from the instinctual understanding that if the genitalia are damaged, the ability to have children can be diminished or destroyed, regardless of whether the cause of sterilization is physical or pyschological trauma, or disease. Stripping it to this barest essential principle of harm, one could then argue that sterilization of an individual is equivalent to murder, and therefore physical contact with, and resultant assault on genitalia, as opposed to say a finger, could well be ascribed as attempted murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
We do seem to be wandering from the point again - and I freely admit that I'm as guilty as anyone else.
The point raised by Black Prince was the unhappy tendency under ENGLISH law for discretion to be taken out of the hands of the judiciary. Thus, in the example he quotes, if the case came to court the teenage adult would OF NECESSITY be found guilty if he admitted the sexual relationship. He would acquire a criminal record, his name would be entered on the sex offenders register, and his future would be forever tainted. The fact that he met the minor in a club from which under-18s are supposedly barred, and that the minor not only appeared to be over 18 but also claimed to be over 18, would not constitute a defence. It is true that the CPS would have discretion to abandon the case on the grounds that a prosecution would not be in the public interest, but Black Prince's point - and mine! - is, in essence, that it is the Court which should have the discretion, because the Court must act in accordance with established precedent. The CPS is subject to no such restrictions, so the fate of the elder participant could be vastly different dependent upon the area in which the so-called offence was committed.
For my part, I admire the flexibility built into the relevant laws elsewhere, particularly in some Australian States; would that we had such realistic attitudes here.
Oh, and about this business of ignorance being no defence in the eyes of the law - of course it isn't; if ignorance were a valid defence we would all studiously practice being ignorant. Every citizen of every country has a reasonable duty to acquaint himself with the law as it applies to his actions. What Black Prince argued was that in a situation in which the older participant had taken reasonable steps to confirm that he was not breaking the law, but had been deceived by the younger participant, that SHOULD be a relevant consideration in any prosecution. But under English law, so far as I understand the situation, it wouldn't be.
Turning to the moral question of infringement of the law, I think that history demonstrates that lawbreaking is an integral element in social development. The Boston Tea-Party wasn't legal, nor was the American War of Independence. I confess that although I drive below the speed limit in residential areas - I had kids of my own and I know how unpredictable they can be - I still have enough of the boy racer in my blood to make me habitually exceed the 70mph limit on motorways, though not to a ridiculous extent. Alcohol never tasted as good as it did when I was legally too young to drink it, and until the current wave of licence relaxation in the UK I still enjoyed the guilty pleasure of drinking behind closed curtains in my local pub, an hour after legal closing time. And yet, in my own specialist field, I've spent my life enforcing the law. Law is a man-made standard, and in the nature of things times change faster than laws change. To cite just two of the many instances from British history, is was the breaking of laws which led to the creation of trade unions, and it was the breaking of laws which secured the vote for women. I certainly don't condone cynical disregard for the law, but I do very strongly believe that to break an unjust law can be not only morally acceptable but morally desirable.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
It seems to me that this '16 and 60' thing is a bit of a red herring; I'd guess that it appeared in the discussion simply to emphasise the rather ridiculous limits and consequences of UK law.
Frankly, I can't see too many teens rushing into relationships with sixty-year-olds, but as long as they are 16 or over I agree that it's up to them. I think that the essential advantage of the 'sliding scale' approach is that it removes the 'unlawful' tag from relationships between younger but sexually maturing teens, provided that these relationships are formed within their peer-group or within a specified age-difference.
As I've said before, it's impossible to legislate for every contingency, and some infringement of liberty is inevitable, but a sliding scale coupled with a realistic absolute age of consent seems to protect the younger and more vulnerable teens from exploitation whilst allowing them the freedom to experiment and mature naturally. That, I would argue, must be a good thing!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Saben wrote:
>Why should a 16 year old be capable of consenting to sex with a 15 year old, but not with a 60 year old?
Actually a 16 year old can. But a 15 year old? Because, as a great generalisation, the great majority of 15 year olds will realsie once they hit about 25 that they were not capable of giving good, valid consent to a sexual relationship with a 60/50/40/30 year old and that they were abused. Three days older, the 16 year old may regret it, but legally was not abused.
There is a point at which children must, absolutely, be protected, even from themselves. That is because childhood, even at 15, is precious, wonderful, and yes, somewhat restrictive on the child who is nudging adulthood in body and desires.
>
> The thing I don't get is that, informed consent is informed consent. Either you know what sex is about and you know what you're doing, or you do not. If you are deemed capable of consenting to sex then aren't you also capable of refusing to consent to sex? Think of it from the point of view of a teen, rather the point of view of the teen's sexual partner. If a teen wants to have sex with someone that is 60, rather than someone that is 18, shouldn't they be able to say yes to either? Now I'm not saying that it'd be a common scenario where a 16 year old would want to be with a 60 year old, but a person should be capable of saying yes or no regardless of the person's age. Unless someone it is harder to say no to a 60 year old? Wouldn't it be easier, though? Most teens I know would be quite capable of refusing to consent to sex with a 60 year old. Abuse is a whole nothing kettle of fish, as is grooming. They should be illegal regardless of age. I think another question is what makes sex as a 16 year old more harmful if it is with a 60 year old rather than an 18 year old? I appreciate the sliding scale argument, but I have to say that really it is just imposing more arbitrary, artificial limits.
I go back to protecting a child. Let us say that you, at 14, were mature and felt you could give decent consent for me at 53 to have sex with you. Or that you invited the sleazy rabbi of another thread into your home. You argue well at 14 that you know what sex is about and want some. The rabbi and I each enjoy your attenton and are flattered silly older men. We have a glorious time and no hamr is done.
Your next door neighbour is a sweet boy or girl of 14, too. But they are not mature. This is a time of arbitrary maturity with very odd hormone changes deluging teenage bodies with overdoses of weird sensations. They see you doing things and decied to have a go. But, being immature, they get harmed emotionally. They argued that they were mature enough, but happened not to be.
Under your concepts I think you argue that they have as much right to decide as do you. And so they do. But they were, with glorious hindsight, incapable of making that decsion well. You enjoyed the experience and are unharmed. They enjoyed it at the time but are now harmed.
Would they have been harmed by a sexual experience with another 14 year old? Probably not.
That is why I believe that criminalisation of kids having sex with kids of similar age is unwise, but I am strongly in favour of a law drafted to protect kids from any predators. And the fact is that most predators tend to be older.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Has anybody hear read the book by Judith Levine, 'Harmful to Minors'? Ms Levine covers the concerns being discussed in this thread with amazing clarity.
ISBN # 1-56025-516-1
I don't know if she's printed a revision since this edition.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Where's it gone? 
) 
Re: I am going to try once again......... 
