Is this justice?

[Skeptic]

Likewise, It is rape if a 40 year commits that act, or if a 14 year old commits the act.

In most cases you are right, but in the specific case of underage sex you are wrong. Sex between a 16 year old and a 40 year old is different, legally, from sex between two 16 years old, since the assumption is that the 40 year old probably unduly influenced the 16 year old to have sex, while the other 16 year old probably didn't.

But this entire discussion is based on a false premise: one is shown a borderline case where the letter of the law disagrees with our intuition of justice. Apparently we only have two choices: either accept the law in general is unjust, or accept that it is always just including in the borderline case.

But why? EVERY LAW WHATEVER, no matter how just, will have SOME borderline cases. Murder is illegal; self-defense is legal. No matter how you define the difference between the two, there will be SOME murderers who would be defined as "self-defending" and SOME self-defenders who would be conviced (or at least accused) of murder.

Does this means the law criminalizing murder is unjust--or that self-defense should never be an excuse? No and no. It just means reality is usually more complicated that the law's ability to forsee all possiblities.

 

[Darat]

Where did I say that? Do you see no difference between 'able to give valid consent' and 'knowing right from wrong'?

As far as what I did say, I consider it an undisputable fact that the law makes those distinctions....when defining rape, and other crimes.
Does anyone have evidence to the contrary?


And for those who are claiming that 'Justice means morals, not laws' you can use other definitions all you like, I was still talking about the legality of the 60 day sentence for, and the elements of, statutory rape in this case.
And those fit the standard definition of justice quite well.
JUSTICE: noun: the administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments
http://www.onelook.com/?w=justice&ls=a



But on the topic of morals...

As far as as the morality involved in the 'she wanted it' consenting 12 year old argument, OK fine...

Then why would it be any less moral if a 25 year old got consent from the 12 year old... do they have some magic powers that mere 14 year olds don't?

The line is currently drawn at 2 years older ...what would you be comfortable with..4... 5... 10... 25... years older?

It's hard to discuss this specific case since we have so few facts to hand but would you change your mind if the testimony of the girl was that she had enticed the boy and instigated the sex? In other words she was the agent that initiated the breaking of the law?

Also it seems that this law (as it has been explained in this thread) is that if there is more then a two year age difference the law automatically assumes the person initiating the sexual act is the older person. The consequence of this is that a 13 year old could rape a 15 year old, yet the 15 year old would be the one the law prosecutes. That to me seems wrong.

 

[plindboe]

But this entire discussion is based on a false premise: one is shown a borderline case where the letter of the law disagrees with our intuition of justice. Apparently we only have two choices: either accept the law in general is unjust, or accept that it is always just including in the borderline case.

If a law can deliver so freakishly unfair borderline examples as this, then something should definitely change. Perhaps the best would be not to have a single line between complete innocence and heinous crime, but have several dividing lines between the two, where the punishment increases as the age difference increases for example, in order to avoid more such absurd examples.

 

[Skeptic]

If a law can deliver so freakishly unfair borderline examples as this, then something should definitely change.

I would argue that ANY law, no matter how carefully crafted, might deliver "freakishly unfair borderline examples" under some circumstances, especially if those are circumstances that the law framers had not aticipated. And if you have a law that DID, supernaturally, anticipate every possible circumstance, it would be so long and cumbersome as to be useless, and in any case would become obsolete the moment society changes its attitudes about some of the "borderline" cases the law tried to "clarify" in this way.

 

[Suddenly]

But why? EVERY LAW WHATEVER, no matter how just, will have SOME borderline cases. Murder is illegal; self-defense is legal. No matter how you define the difference between the two, there will be SOME murderers who would be defined as "self-defending" and SOME self-defenders who would be conviced (or at least accused) of murder.

This seems to miss the point.

In a murder case, the jury gets to hear all the circumstances and determine whether there is actually self defense. That question is actually asked, whether the accused actually was defending himself. In the OP case the question of whether consent occurred or was possible is never asked and it is assumed based on legislative fiat.

If there are borderline cases with murder, at least the line they are bordering is a relevant one. In the case at question in the OP, the line being bordered is an arbitrary one...

Which is the core difference...

 

[Suddenly]

And for those who are claiming that 'Justice means morals, not laws' you can use other definitions all you like, I was still talking about the legality of the 60 day sentence for, and the elements of, statutory rape in this case.
And those fit the standard definition of justice quite well.
JUSTICE: noun: the administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments
http://www.onelook.com/?w=justice&ls=a

Nice data mining. Do you always only count positives and quit looking as soon as you find one?

That link leads to a collection of links leading to online dictionaries which define justice.

The first is "Encarta." Their defintion?

1. fairness: fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made


2. system or application of law: the legal system, or the act of applying or upholding the law


3. validity: validity in law


4. good reason: sound or good reason


5. judge: a judge, especially of a higher court

Looks like you are #2 there,...

The second link? Oxford english:

1 just behaviour or treatment. 2 the quality of being just. 3 the administration of law or some other authority according to the principles of just behaviour and treatment. 4 a judge or magistrate.

not so clear...

the third is Webster:

1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of conforming to law
3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS

Well... yours is first there...

Dictionary.com has as its first definiton:

The quality of being just; fairness.

(they have your def as #3)

It is beyond dispute that "fairness" is an accepted meaning of justice depending on the context, and since the OP accepted that the result being discussed was obtained by proper legal action it should seem clear from the context that the word "justice" was being used as to the issue of "fairness," not technical application of a statute.

But on the topic of morals...

As far as as the morality involved in the 'she wanted it' consenting 12 year old argument, OK fine...

Then why would it be any less moral if a 25 year old got consent from the 12 year old... do they have some magic powers that mere 14 year olds don't?

[/B] Is greater maturity and social standing in a culture that still sees deference to ones elders as a virtue qualify as "magical" powers.... or are real world reasons sufficent?

The line is currently drawn at 2 years older ...what would you be comfortable with..4... 5... 10... 25... years older?

Not really.

The difference in ages is more about bargaining power than about the capacity of the younger to consent. The greater the difference, the more likely the older will be able to overcome the will of the younger.