Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Most countries have an age of consent for sexual intercourse, It ranges from 12 in some countries to 18 in other places. The principle, as far as am aware, behind such legal standpoints relates to the point at which a child/young adult is considered to have the mental capacity and maturity to engage in such acts with consent. Prior to the age written into the law of whichever law, it is considered that the child is not able to effectively make that decision. The implication is such that we consider the child, a child, and not a consenting adult or young adult. We thus confer certain responsibilties upon their parents, guardians or carers in these matters.

However, the age of criminal culpability iof often vastly lower (although sometiomes higher) than the age of consent for sexual intercourse. The implication of that is that a child is an acting self-aware adult that should be treated as such at a certain age.

So my question is this. How do we make that trade off? Upon what basis do we decide that a child is a child in some circumstance yet an adult in others? Should the age of consent and the age of criminal culpability be equalised or is the trade off acceptable? If one take a moral view of both these legal matters of age does it suggest that perhaps societies morality is out of balance?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: kansas.
Posts: 346

It's even worse in the US - the age of consent vs. the age of legal responsibility varies from state to state. In Kansas (my land of Ahs), the age of consent is sixteen, but a kid can be slapped with a sex crime conviction as young as ten. What I don't understand is that so many states are moving to smack the label of "sex offender" on really young kids, forcing them to be on state registries.

Kansas is one of those "progressive" states that even decided to criminalize consensual same-age sex between teenagers under 16 as criminal, and our lovely state attorney general is a real go-getter in pushing prosecution on these cases, forcing medical and school staff to report sexual relationships between peers to law enforcement. Lovely uninteded consequences? Fewer kids seeking treatment for STD's, disclosing actual sexual assault for fear of their own legal culpability, etc, etc. It's one hell of a system.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: is futile
Posts: 5027

For Denmark the age of consent is 15, the age of criminal culpability is 18.

the latter is abused by teenage troublemakers that know they will not get in any serious trouble for holding up a drug store or something similar.

I have no real position on the issue other than I think the age of consent listed above seems quite appropriate.

Cheers

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Location: a constant state of wrath
Posts: 1284

If I follow you Phil...

In the US, the general rule is adulthood = 18.

Statutory rape laws vary some, but usually they are 16, with at least 3 years age difference. I.e., a 16 & 17 or 18 y.o. having sex won't get prosecuted. At 20 or 21, we put the onus on the other party to realize they are having sex with a minor & shouldn't-- so they do get punished. Personally, it's a good rule.

Minors who are tried as adults, are tried on a case by case basis-- and usually for violent crimes. I think you have to be at least 16 in most places.

There doesn't strike me as all that much of a trade-off. The statutory rape laws are designed to prevent harm to a minor. In other words, they exist to keep older 3rd parties from having sex with the minor and taking advantage of them. The adult "punishment" for certain juvenile violent offenders, though, is designed to actually punish the juvenile when he commits harm to a third party which won't be sufficiently punished by 1 or 2 years in juvie.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Location: a constant state of wrath
Posts: 1284

hurm... having just re-read this post:

quote:

---

Originally posted by snarkychick
[B]It's even worse in the US - the age of consent vs. the age of legal responsibility varies from state to state. In Kansas (my land of Ahs), the age of consent is sixteen, but a kid can be slapped with a sex crime conviction as young as ten. What I don't understand is that so many states are moving to smack the label of "sex offender" on really young kids, forcing them to be on state registries.

---

Do you disagree with a sex conviction for a kid? I assume you're talking about a juvenile offender though... For instance, what do you do with the 13 or 14 year old kid who clearly molests 5 or 8 year old ones?

quote:

---

Kansas is one of those "progressive" states that even decided to criminalize consensual same-age sex between teenagers under 16 as criminal, and our lovely state attorney general is a real go-getter in pushing prosecution on these cases, forcing medical and school staff to report sexual relationships between peers to law enforcement. Lovely uninteded consequences? Fewer kids seeking treatment for STD's, disclosing actual sexual assault for fear of their own legal culpability, etc, etc. It's one hell of a system.

---

I'm not from Kansas, but this strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration. Plus, it's not something I've heard of before.

It's genuinely debatable whether a kid under 16 can consent, and I'm a fan of the general legal principle that they can't-- whether it's to sex, buying a car or whatnot. Nevertheless, there seem some fairly good reasons aside from wanting to levy a smack-down for this. For example, school staff definitely have pretty clear boundaries on privacy. I mean, if they catch 2 kids fucking, they could be compelled to report that. But really, why shouldn't they? Kids fucking on schools grounds isn't good as a matter of public policy. Aside from actually catching them though, I don't think they'd have too much license to investigate. At least, not without facing a big lawsuit. Medical staff, on the other hand, I can see as being "forced" to divulge sexual activity for the sake of public health. I'm not sure how it would really impede kids from getting treatment. I.e., I don't see a big chunk of kids really having that as the swaying component for getting treatment. Do you?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

I would say that age of sexual consent certainly shouldn't be higher than the age of criminal responsibility. It is only sex, after all.

Many kids definitely won't talk about their sexual activity to a doctor if they know that it has to be reported. It is up to doctor's discretion as to whether or not to prescribe birth control to someone under 16 here in the UK, I think, but as I understand it, they will respect the confidentiality of the patient in any case. As a teacher, I was obligated to tell other people, which in practice meant that kids didn't ask for my advice on these matters once they had heard me tell them that.

I am interested as to whether or not today's 'children' are somehow less capable of being adults at the same age as has been traditional in society. And if so, why did we make it that way?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged