StrangeSox Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 05:20 PM) I dont think you can change the law for guys or girls. That being said, age of consent is usually a state law and different states have drastically different laws. I personally think that the law easily could be changed to avoid such a nonsensical situation. If the "victim" states there was consent, then there is no crime. If the "victim" is silent on consent or says there was no consent, then you can move forward on the case. The fact is, people have been convicted when the "victim" absolutely consented and even at trial testifies that they wanted it to happen. That situation is just stupid. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 05:20 PM) I dont think you can change the law for guys or girls. That being said, age of consent is usually a state law and different states have drastically different laws. I personally think that the law easily could be changed to avoid such a nonsensical situation. If the "victim" states there was consent, then there is no crime. If the "victim" is silent on consent or says there was no consent, then you can move forward on the case. The fact is, people have been convicted when the "victim" absolutely consented and even at trial testifies that they wanted it to happen. That situation is just stupid. does a 12 year old have the mental capacity to really consent? And the younger you go the bigger the issue of power exploitation becomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Balta, Perhaps you missed the part where I said I dont like statutory laws at all, that includes drinking, etc. I believe criminal law requires "mens rea" (criminal mind), statutory law excludes that from the consideration. Im not going say that society is right or wrong on the ages, to me it would be a question of fact, dependent on the circumstances. Obviously a role of power would play into those circumstances, but as Ive said repeatedly, I dont really agree with statutory crimes. I think facts matter and that each case should be judged on its own merits, not on some idea that you can draw arbitrary lines at 16/17. (edit) Strangesox, It depends on the 12 year old. When I was 12, I definitely could have understood whether or not I wanted to have sex with some girl. Now that is drastically different than having sex with a teacher, but thats why it should be a fact based determination and not arbitrary lines. Edited January 31, 2012 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Wait a minute. Badger, are you saying a 13-year old boy/girl should be able to legally consent to sex with somebody 18+? Edited February 1, 2012 by Jordan4life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 No. Im saying that regardless of what age you pick its entirely arbitrary, so why not just look at the facts of the situation and determine whether its a crime? As opposed to our current system of calling it a crime regardless of what the facts are. That to me just seems strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 The risk-assessing part of your brain isn't fully formed until your early 20's. Physiologically, a 12 year old just isn't capable of the same careful considerations that even a 16 or 17 year old is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgoXUzIwXk0 Nicccceeee Edited January 31, 2012 by chw42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 If the risk assessment isnt formed until 20s, then why can people under 20 consent? Once again, arbitrary. Put the witnesses on the stand, let them testify, let a jury determine if their was a crime, its really not that revolutionary, its how our criminal system worked for the majority of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 05:36 PM) No. Im saying that regardless of what age you pick its entirely arbitrary, so why not just look at the facts of the situation and determine whether its a crime? As opposed to our current system of calling it a crime regardless of what the facts are. That to me just seems strange. Jurors need some criteria to judge against. Ultimately, any legal age restriction line is arbitrary but it'd lead to a hell of a lot clearer and consistent system than a case-by-case determination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 05:37 PM) If the risk assessment isnt formed until 20s, then why can people under 20 consent? It's forming until your 20's. I'm not a neurologist but there's substantial differences in the decision-making capacity of a child's brain, a young adult's (17) brain and an adult's brain. Once again, arbitrary. where the final line is drawn is. I can't distinguish between two close shades of gray, but I can tell if something is on the black end or the white end. Put the witnesses on the stand, let them testify, let a jury determine if their was a crime, its really not that revolutionary, its how our criminal system worked for the majority of time. What criteria could a jury possibly judge the ability of a 12 year old to consent by? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Strangesox, Sure if you care more about consistency than common sense, I agree that having bright line rules will result in more consistent crimes. If your 16 and 364 days and you have sex with someone who is 18, the 18 year old should go to jail, no questions asked, right? Because that is what happens when you have bright line statutory rules. Mitigating circumstances dont matter. Edited January 31, 2012 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Strange Sox, A jury can determine that a 12 year old didnt have the ability to consent to sex. The jury can also determine if its 2 7year olds and they were playing a game of Dr that it wasnt actually statutory rape. But if the law says, it is illegal for anyone to touch someone under the age of 16, then you get the ruling that one of the 7 year olds committed a sex crime because that is how the law is written. It is the epitome of stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 05:45 PM) The jury can also determine if its 2 7year olds and they were playing a game of Dr that it wasnt actually statutory rape. I don't think anyone in the world would consider two 7 year olds playing with each other's privates to be statutory rape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 05:42 PM) Strangesox, Sure if you care more about consistency than common sense, I agree that having bright line rules will result in more consistent crimes. If your 16 and 364 days and you have sex with someone who is 18, the 18 year old should go to jail, no questions asked, right? Because that is what happens when you have bright line statutory rules. Mitigating circumstances dont matter. I'm in favor of age difference allowances so that scenario would be cool. I can't imagine the system you propose being anything other than a giant, inconsistent mess, and to me that result isn't "common sense" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Steve, Unfortunately the reason I brought it up was because of this: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/25/famil...playing-doctor/ This is why statutory crimes are stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 05:45 PM) Strange Sox, A jury can determine that a 12 year old didnt have the ability to consent to sex. The jury can also determine if its 2 7year olds and they were playing a game of Dr that it wasnt actually statutory rape. But if the law says, it is illegal for anyone to touch someone under the age of 16, then you get the ruling that one of the 7 year olds committed a sex crime because that is how the law is written. It is the epitome of stupidity. I believe cali's laws are like that, and I agree it's stupid. Age+2 or something similar works for me and eliminates those issues. I don't believe a jury is sufficiently well-informed to determine the many issues, both philosophical and physiological, that go in to determining one's ability to consent based on age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 05:50 PM) Steve, Unfortunately the reason I brought it up was because of this: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/25/famil...playing-doctor/ This is why statutory crimes are stupid. that is a dumb law and should be changed. that doesn't necessarily mean laws forbidding 12 year olds from sleeping with 30 year olds are wrong. edit: the prosecutor had discretion for "common sense" and chose to prosecute. She didn't have to. Edited January 31, 2012 by StrangeSox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 05:50 PM) Steve, Unfortunately the reason I brought it up was because of this: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/25/famil...playing-doctor/ This is why statutory crimes are stupid. Well then f*** the world, and more importantly, f*** Wisconsin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Strangesox, I never said that you couldnt write the laws appropriately. I just said that as it stands today, Id rather have no laws then current laws. The current laws are really bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 and apparently the judge dismissed the charges so the system worked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 06:53 PM) The current laws are really bad. I'd like to add, I really strongly disagree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Youre entitled to your opinion, but not every state is like Illinois that has at least some different variations. (edit) Not to mention that each state has different laws, so you could be committing a crime in Illinois but not Indiana. Edited February 1, 2012 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 05:57 PM) Youre entitled to your opinion, but not every state is like Illinois that has at least some different variations. (edit) Not to mention that each state has different laws, so you could be committing a crime in Illinois but not Indiana. Is this an endorsement of stronger federalism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Strange, Not necessarily, its just more to show that states and people are all over the place on what truly is a crime in this regard. Because its not so clear, Id rather just leave it up to a jury to determine. That way if I want I can try and convict a 18 year old having sex with a 17 or a 17 with a 12, it would just depend on the facts of the case. Most reasonable people are not going to believe a 12 year old cant consent to sex with a 17 year old, but maybe in the circumstances it was okay. I cant predict the future, so I prefer laws that are flexible for the facts. Thats just my personal opinion, I generally hate statutes and legislature because they write things so terribly and it makes my life twice as hard. Although I guess if it wasnt for things being poorly worded, I wouldnt have a job. Makes you think. Edited February 1, 2012 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Man, can't we all just be happy for this guy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 06:11 PM) Man, can't we all just be happy for this guy? I'm not sure we know how old the student was or that it was a he (posting from phone, maybe article does specify male student). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.