How Should Age Of Consent Laws Work?

[Dave1001]

What do you think? How should age of consent laws work?

Should there be a bright line age?

Should there be a bright line age difference?

Should there be a sliding scale of age difference based on age of the younger party?

Or a combination of these?

Should there be a rule that there's a presumption of guilt at a certain age or age difference, but that the burden of proof can be shifted if the defendant can demonstrate that their partner had sufficient maturity and intelligence such that it was consensual non-exploitational sex?

How would you write the ideal age of consent law(s)?

 

[andyandy]

How would you write the ideal age of consent law(s)?

we already have the best approach - with an arbitrary cut off. Below that age it's illegal, at that age it's not. No ifs, no buts. To approach the issue any other way would be to take the first step onto a very very slippery slope.

 

[Darat]

What do you think? How should age of consent laws work?

Should there be a bright line age?

Yes. On one side of the line people are children on the other side they are adult.

Should there be a bright line age difference?

No. See above.

Should there be a sliding scale of age difference based on age of the younger party?

No. See above.

Or a combination of these?

No. Guess what? See above.

Should there be a rule that there's a presumption of guilt at a certain age or age difference, but that the burden of proof can be shifted if the defendant can demonstrate that their partner had sufficient maturity and intelligence such that it was consensual non-exploitational sex?

No. And yes again see my first response.

How would you write the ideal age of consent law(s)?

Simple - "Sex with someone under the age of X is illegal". I would suggest that determining what the age of consent should be is a task that should be given to neurologists and behaviourists who can (using science) determine at what age we can assume say at least 90% of children can be considered capable of making decisions as adults [can] do.

 

[brodski]

we already have the best approach - with an arbitrary cut off. Below that age it's illegal, at that age it's not. No ifs, no buts. To approach the issue any other way would be to take the first step onto a very very slippery slope.

In the UK we have a number of cut off ages (for instance it is a more severe crime to have sex with an 8 year old than a 14 year old) and we have different ages of consent depending on whether the "adult" is in a position of authority over the "minor" (I use quotes for "adult" and "minor" because there are some cases where a person is chronologically an "adult" but they are treated as a "minor" for age of consent laws in some circumstances)

 

[Darth Rotor]

What do you think? How should age of consent laws work?

Should there be a bright line age?

Should there be a bright line age difference?

Should there be a sliding scale of age difference based on age of the younger party?

Or a combination of these?

Should there be a rule that there's a presumption of guilt at a certain age or age difference, but that the burden of proof can be shifted if the defendant can demonstrate that their partner had sufficient maturity and intelligence such that it was consensual non-exploitational sex?

How would you write the ideal age of consent law(s)?

The line shoudl not be age based, but physically based. Those not having gone through puberty should be off limits. Beyond that, where the age boundary should be is a massively subjective issue that I don't think lends itself to a hard coded answer without creating an immense pile of legal idiocies. (When SC Justice RB Ginsberg suggested the age of consent as 12 some years back, it made bilogical sense, if not social policy sense regarding teenage pregnancies.)

After that, the argument made that with in three years of one another, any damage is de minimus seems to make sense. Two minors, one 16 and on 15, who have been doing it together are hardly sex offenders (they are just horny) and when one of them turns 18, and the other 17, they still aren't criminals.

That they are using poor judgment may be true.

Teenage strikes me as a victimless crime, and ought to be relegated to damned foolishness, not a courtroom. Wait, the victims are the parents, who end up having to raise grandchildren for their kids.

DR

 

[Mid]

we already have the best approach - with an arbitrary cut off. Below that age it's illegal, at that age it's not. No ifs, no buts. To approach the issue any other way would be to take the first step onto a very very slippery slope.

I'm not sure, for example in the UK I don't think a 16 year old who sleeps with her 15years + 364days old girlfriend should be prosecuted, the no ifs no buts approach wouldn't differentiate between a 16 year old sleeping with this 15 year old and a 52 year old sleeping with the 15year old, which in my opinion is daft. I'm not sure if any alternative options are better though; so I'd stick with the bright line cut off and hope for some common sense approach in dealing with the more marginal cases which is what seems to occur.

 

[RandFan]

From another thread

1. Depending on the age and the maturity of the individual a child may not be able to reasonably form consent.
2. Because of the relationship of adults and minors the adult has significant power over the child and can coerce a child even when there is no consent and can pressure the child not to file a complaint.

Because of the very real possibility of unwanted pregnancy, transmission of disease that can lead to the sterilization of the child or even cause death and any number of other associated mental problems I think this is one case where we should err on the side of caution. 14 seems way too young for a child to contract HIV or become pregnant and have to deal with terminating a pregnancy not to mention the psychological problems of being coerced into having sex with someone he or she finds repulsive.

I'm largely happy with the laws as they are now in my community Los Angeles County, USA.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think they should use the "half your age + 7" rule for everyone up to the age of 18.

None of this "18 year old boyfriend jailed for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend" stuff, but does prevent the 20 year old from being with the high school sophomore.

Once you are out of college, high school kids are out of bounds.

 

[brodski]

I'm not sure, for example in the UK I don't think a 16 year old who sleeps with her 15years + 364days old girlfriend should be prosecuted, the no ifs no buts approach wouldn't differentiate between a 16 year old sleeping with this 15 year old and a 52 year old sleeping with the 15year old, which in my opinion is daft. I'm not sure if any alternative options are better though; so I'd stick with the bright line cut off and hope for some common sense approach in dealing with the more marginal cases which is what seems to occur.

In the UK the police generally only charge someone who has sex with a minor over the age of 13 if the minor themselves makes a complaint, unless there are aggravating factors (such as the adult is the minors teacher).

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The line shoudl not be age based, but physically based. Those not having gone through puberty should be off limits.

That's really unworkable. Some girls hit menarche at seven, and some never do. Males aren't "finished" with puberty until their early 20's, and females aren't done until their late teens. It's not as iff we suddenly turn blue when puberty is over. Also, so kids are much more physically mature than their peers. Physical maturity has little to do with mental maturity.

 

[Mid]

In the UK the police generally only charge someone who has sex with a minor over the age of 13 if the minor themselves makes a complaint, unless there are aggravating factors (such as the adult is the minors teacher).

Yep I thought it was something like that, but you do sometime hear stories from around the world of stupid applications of the age of consent laws along the lines of charging a 16 year old for sleeping with a 15 year old (or whatever.)

 

[Luke T.]

The line shoudl not be age based, but physically based.

That is pure nonsense. Sex is not just a physical issue. "Consent" has nothing to do with one's ability to reproduce.

 

[ponderingturtle]

we already have the best approach - with an arbitrary cut off. Below that age it's illegal, at that age it's not. No ifs, no buts. To approach the issue any other way would be to take the first step onto a very very slippery slope.

What age should it be? Should say a 13 and 14 year old who have sex both go to prison for statutory rape? If not should a 13 and a 40 year old be OK?

 

[Darth Rotor]

That is pure nonsense. Sex is not just a physical issue. "Consent" has nothing to do with one's ability to reproduce.

It has to do with rape or not, however.

Prolonged childhood is a fairly recent theory of human development. That said, I am not sure that age 14 consent wouldn't enable the spectre of teenage pregnancy as a norm. The question is: is that bad or good, and why? Depending in circumstances, particularly the extended family model discussed in another thread recently (nuclear family harangue) it just makes people grandparents earlier, providing that is the convention adopted.

I tend to agree with a higher age of consent, 16, than lower, as a nod to the need to develop judgment before "consent" even becomes an issue.

Someone posited the strawman of "teenage versus adult is not a relationship of equals." (might be in the Foley thread)

Most relationships are not relationships of equals. Divorce court proceedings seem to be evidence of that, and my anecdotal observations over a life time are that most two person relationships have one stronger (if only slightly) party than another.

DR

 

[Darat]

...snip...Physical maturity has little to do with mental maturity.

Going to disagree but only because I think you are limiting what "physical maturity" should mean. Physical maturity isn't about what the person looks like. There are now plenty of studies that show the brain is not fully matured in adolescents and that it takes until late teens for the brain to develop all the same structures etc. as an adult brain does.

When the body including the brain is physically mature is I think a good point to say someone should be considered by society to be an adult and therefore be allowed to do anything they want (caveat - legal/consent etc.)

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's really unworkable. Some girls hit menarche at seven, and some never do. Males aren't "finished" with puberty until their early 20's, and females aren't done until their late teens. It's not as iff we suddenly turn blue when puberty is over. Also, so kids are much more physically mature than their peers. Physical maturity has little to do with mental maturity.

Men are generally fertile by their mid teens. You seem to be confusing physical maturity with physical development.

You are telling me that seven year old girls routinely have their menses, or in bizarre cases well beyond three sigma?

Let's work on exotic exceptions only, sure.

I don't think a law is needed, raising one's children well is needed.

DR

 

[brodski]

Yep I thought it was something like that, but you do sometime hear stories from around the world of stupid applications of the age of consent laws along the lines of charging a 16 year old for sleeping with a 15 year old (or whatever.)

Oh, the UK used to have great "fun" with the homosexual age of consent laws, back when you had to be 21 to consent to "buggery". There where cases where both partners could be charged with unlawful sexual acts because one of them was below the age of consent!
And currently a 16 year old could be charged with having sex with their 15 and 364 day old partner if the younger partner chose to make a complaint.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Men are generally fertile by their mid teens. You seem to be confusing physical maturity with physical development.

You are telling me that seven year old girls routinely have their menses, or in bizarre cases well beyond three sigma?

Let's work on exotic exceptions only, sure.

I don't think a law is needed, raising one's children well is needed.

DR

No, I am not confusing the puberty issue here. Children mature at widely disperate rates.

 

[Mid]

...snip...
And currently a 16 year old could be charged with having sex with their 15 and 364 day old partner if the younger partner chose to make a complaint.

Although hopefully the CPS wouldn't pursue it unless something else had happened

 

[Darth Rotor]

No, I am not confusing the puberty issue here. Children mature at widely disperate rates.

Your claim of men reaching physical maturity in their early 20's argues that you did just that.

What do you mean by mature? Reach fertility/puberty, or something else?

Where is the mean, and where are the outliers? A little precision would be appreciated.

DR