Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p="
The problem is the need to set an arbitrary age limit. It is a necessary evil.
|
but is that really a logical and consistent criteria? or even a rational standard to begin with?
it seems like (at least in america) the belief that an arbitrary age is required is more canon than justifiable practice - people believe it because it's law, and it's law because people believe it.
Quote:
|
Children and adolescents should be protected from predators.
|
and they are - it is illegal to coerce or physically force unwanted actions upon another person. and these laws exist regardless of your age, or the age of the accused.
the age of consent laws do not create protection where no protection previously existed, if anything they do little else than punish people haphazardly for not having done any harm to anyone.
Quote:
|
The age 18 is sensible because it is also the age of majority... the age when children officially become adults and are thus legally capable of taking responsibility for all actions.
|
this seems to come back to the circular reasoning mentioned above, it's self justifying without having any rationale behind it.
Quote:
|
But still it is necessary to have some law in defense of kids. Since not all people develop the same it is hard to do. But certainly you would not want a twelve year-old in a sexual relationship with an adult (or even another twelve year-old). Eighteen might be a bit odd, but it is logically consistent in that it is the age that the law recognizes adulthood (17 would work just as well since it can be age of emancipation).
|
WHY is it necessary to have some law in defense of kids?
since laws already exist (which cover all people of all ages) which provide legal recourse protecting against the kinds of behaviors we want to prevent, why is it necessary to ALSO have laws, on top of those which already protect every person, which
additionally prohibit the exercise of free will?
it strikes me that laws regarding age of consent (within reason) are really more about control (of minors) and punishment (of anyone being attracted to a minor) for doing nothing harmful, but something which others consider unseemly.
Quote:
|
As for how much the difference in age is when both people are adults... That's no one's business but your own. The gray area is when there is high school senior dating a junior... I think there are caveats in the laws to protect people in such situations, but it varies by state.
|
which begs the question about the original 'justification' to begin with.
if the claim is that age of consent laws exist to 'protect' minors from being coerced or what not... if preventing certain situations is the reason we have the law... why is it
legal for someone to lie, emotionally manipulate, coerce, and prey upon a 17 year old (as long as they're also 17) but
illegal for someone who's 30 to do the same thing? (well, this case being a glaring counter-example of that)
the whole rationale for the age of consent laws make absolutely no sense.