|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 14:27:07 GMT
Good God no I'd never be in favour of lowering the age of consent to 14 or 15! madness!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 14:39:02 GMT
. Two 14-year olds for instance haveing consensual sex get lumped in the same bracket as the likes of Savile which is insane and unjust. Any kind of sentencing that doesn't take account of individual circumstances is just lynch law. No the two 14 year olds are not the sex offenders the adult is! I still think sex offenders should loose their Human Rights. I think if you take away anyone's HUMAN rights you're on a slippery slope to Nazism and Communism. Human rights belong to every one of us simply because of what we are; civil rights are different. Taking away a criminal's civil rights is one thing; taking away their human rights is something else. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 14:42:01 GMT
Good God no I'd never be in favour of lowering the age of consent to 14 or 15! madness! If you look at the biology of us girls we're programmed to be fertile from about 12 or 13 years old. Until Victorian times it was perfectly legal for kids of that age to get married. I think that's too young but when you consider how rare it is nowadays to find at 15 or even 14-year old virgin I'd say the kids were voting with their bodies and putting two fingers up to the law. I've never understood Puritanism; it's based on hatred of sex and to me that's so totally denying life and love and joy I just can't understand it at all. We all know the difference between teenagers having sex and adults sexually exploiting or abusing them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 14:45:43 GMT
Good God no I'd never be in favour of lowering the age of consent to 14 or 15! madness! If you look at the biology of us girls we're programmed to be fertile from about 12 or 13 years old. Until Victorian times it was perfectly legal for kids of that age to get married. I think that's too young but when you consider how rare it is nowadays to find at 15 or even 14-year old virgin I'd say the kids were voting with their bodies and putting two fingers up to the law. I've never understood Puritanism; it's based on hatred of sex and to me that's so totally denying life and love and joy I just can't understand it at all. We all know the difference between teenagers having sex and adults sexually exploiting or abusing them. exactly but if they did lower the age of consent you would bet that it wouldn't just be teenagers having sex with other teenagers it would be adults having sex with children , that is why the age of consent needs to be kept as it is , for child protection. It's one thing to be biologically ready quite another to be emotionally ready
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 14:51:09 GMT
Gibby, I don't disagree with you about emotional maturity but then plenty of adults never seem to achieve that either.
And it's difficult to decide how to make a law - let's say you said that you couldn't have an age difference more than, say, five years between a couple having sex.
What about a woman of 20 marrying a man of 40? Is he a paedophile?
Or a man of nineteen having sex with a girl of 17?
Or a girl of 16 (the age of consent in Britain) having sex with a boy of 15?
It's hard to see where to draw the line; I worry about the way that people are trying to use the totally GENUINE problem of real paedophiles to launch a neo-Victorian attack on what they see as sexual promiscuity to try and enforce a right-wing sexual agenda on people.
If you're going to make emotional maturity a necessity for sex how many of us would fail that particular test?
I'm anything BUT pro-paedophile but I do worry about the way that a genuine problem is being deliberately lied about and distorted as part of a wider attack on sexual freedom.
And freedom generally.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 14:53:31 GMT
No the two 14 year olds are not the sex offenders the adult is! I still think sex offenders should loose their Human Rights. I think if you take away anyone's HUMAN rights you're on a slippery slope to Nazism and Communism. Human rights belong to every one of us simply because of what we are; civil rights are different. Taking away a criminal's civil rights is one thing; taking away their human rights is something else. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I guess I do not see any justice in this when a murder has taken away a person's life , violated their human rights into oblivion and yet still gets to have human rights, they got nothing to complain about imo.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 14:58:56 GMT
. Two 14-year olds for instance haveing consensual sex get lumped in the same bracket as the likes of Savile which is insane and unjust. Any kind of sentencing that doesn't take account of individual circumstances is just lynch law. No the two 14 year olds are not the sex offenders the adult is! What adult? Are you saying that a 14 year old boy having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend isn't an offender, but a 17 year old having sex with his 15 year old partner is?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 15:05:03 GMT
Exactly, Skylark. That's one of the biggest problems with the whole area.
I read recently about (in America of course) a case where a couple who were both aged 15 or 16 at the time they had sex and have since got married and BOTH of them have been labelled by the law as sex offenders for the rest of their lives!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 15:07:10 GMT
I think if you take away anyone's HUMAN rights you're on a slippery slope to Nazism and Communism. Human rights belong to every one of us simply because of what we are; civil rights are different. Taking away a criminal's civil rights is one thing; taking away their human rights is something else. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I guess I do not see any justice in this when a murder has taken away a person's life , violated their human rights into oblivion and yet still gets to have human rights, they got nothing to complain about imo. Justice SHOULD be about fairness and doing the RIGHT thing and NOT about revenge. I can certainly understand revenge; there are lots of times I've felt like going in for it. But if you make revenge rather than justice and fairness the basis for law you might as well give up and admit that you can't have any kind of law that's based on morality!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2013 15:25:16 GMT
Judge McCloskey said: "Society has dealt with the plaintiff in accordance with the rule of law. "He has been punished by incarceration and he is subject to substantial daily restrictions on his lifestyle." Which means the public is being protected, and the man is not free to prowl and stalk children . What more do the vigilantes propose to do? it has nothing to do with vigilantes. it has to do with the people's right to know that they have a pedophile for a neighbor. here, where it is done right, you can go on any one of several sites, and see the pic, and name and address of every sex offender.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2013 15:34:41 GMT
I don't want to get into the specifics of individual cases but even paedophiles are human beings and have human rights. The law isn't about deciding whether or not the 'rights' of the victim or perpetrator are paramount; it's about trying to decide on proportionate punishment. If (as the judges clearly believe) certain types of punishment DO violate the accused's human rights it doesn't matter if it's over a parking ticket, a paedophile offence or murder. If it's a human rights violation then it's a human rights violation. I've had furious arguments on two other forums with conservatives who refuse to believe that criminals HAVE human rights and many of them don't even believe NON-CRIMINALS have human rights. I remember vividly about half a dozen conservatives claiming that we do NOT have a human right NOT to be murdered, raped, stolen from or whatever. When I asked them on what basis they thought those crimes should be punished they came back with the same tired old nonsense about trying to intimidate other criminals into NOT doing those crimes. So, unpopular though my view probably is, and much as I despise nonces, I have to say the judges are right. And any nation that has totally immoral laws like the Three Strikes law and the Law of Parties is still about one notch on the ladder above Somalia and Saudi Arabia. I don't think the US at the moment IS a country we should consider extraditing people to because its judicial system is utterly barbaric in many respects. I'm sure I'll get a lot of flak flying my way for what I've said but I've always stood by the words of Luther 'here I stand; I can do no other.' of course, you KNOW that is patently false
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2013 15:38:12 GMT
Part of the problem may be that the US tends to treat all sex crimes the same. There is a world of difference between a man who forces himself onto a terrified and resisting 14 year old girl and man agreeing to have sex with an eager girl of the same age who enjoys the experience. Yet both are classed as "rape" and presumably both convicts are subject to the same lifetime confinement after their jail term. It is also true that proportionately fewer sex offenders re-offend after release than other criminals. nope. there is absolutely NO difference between a forty year old male holding a 14 year old girl down and raping her, and a forty year old male screwing her at all. NO 14 year old is competent to give consent. and, pedophiles ALWAYS reoffend
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 15:45:00 GMT
Look, you keep trying to make out that the extreme scenario is the norm when it just ain't so.
Like I asked earlier, how big an age gap is too big?
And how do you justify the fact that a California boy aged 18 having consensual sex with a Louisiana girl aged 17 (which is legal in her state but not his) could be punished for it?
And how do you make out that two 14-year olds having sex is anywhere near the same as, say, a 12-year old having sex with a 40 year old?
The whole idea of paeodphiles being a blanket situation is just wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 15:48:08 GMT
Which means the public is being protected, and the man is not free to prowl and stalk children . What more do the vigilantes propose to do? it has nothing to do with vigilantes. it has to do with the people's right to know that they have a pedophile for a neighbor. here, where it is done right, you can go on any one of several sites, and see the pic, and name and address of every sex offender. Which of course would include the 18-year old Californian boy who had consensual sex with the 17-year old girl from Louisiana. And if you advertise where people are you are going to invite vigilante action and it's just dishonest to pretend you won't. It's no different from stalking except that it's sanctioned by the so-called government. What a barbaric idea of justice you have, Jumbo? Maybe you should move to Somalia?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 15:53:58 GMT
Here, by the way, is a blogpost about the mass hysteria about so-called paedophilia which although even I think what he says is over the top and one-dimensional does still make some valid points. robertlindsay.wordpress.com/category/mass-hysterias/pedophile-mass-hysteria/BY ROBERT LINDSAY | AUGUST 15, 2012 · 8:24 PM The Feminist Enemy Fires Another Shot at Men Here. Virgin Airlines has decided that if you are a male and only if you are a male, you are not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children who are not related to you on a flight. Women of course may sit next to children any time. Although this was a policy formulated by Richard Branson’s Virgin Airlines, it obviously has its roots in feminism. Gender feminism states that all men are potential rapists and child molesters. The Pedophile Mass Hysteria sweeping the US right now is being caused by a number of factors, but some of the perpetrators are gender feminists and femiservatives. Femiservatives are basically conservative feminists or conservatives who do the feminists’ bidding for them. For instance, around 1920, a femiservative outfit called the Women’s Temperance Union put into place California’s age of consent laws, putting them at 18, which was very high for the time in an era when many females were marrying at 14 or 15. This same WTU was also responsible for the atrocity of Prohibition. Prohibition is a prime example of how Female Rule always fails. Male Rule produces more or less workable and functional societies, whereas Female Rule always produces dysfunction and chaos. Male Rule versus Female Rule means whose thinking will rule society. Will male thinking or female thinking dominate the public sphere? The Virgin Airlines rule is a prime example of the chaos caused by Female Rule. The idea that men may not sit next to children for fear they might molest them is classic female thinking.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2013 16:06:07 GMT
Toby comments.:- Most folk would agree that when you sexually assault children then you lose your rights. You lose your right to freedom for a start when convicted, you lose the right to a Family life etc. etc. Unlike a simple robbery which does not induce lifelong angst in the victim, sexual assault leaves victims mentally and emotionally scarred. Because of this I am in favour of maximum penalties for sex offenders. I note the oft-quoted comment about the two 14 year olds having consensual sex but if they don't know the difference between right and wrong at the age of 14, then maybe a spell in the slammer will educate them. Most folks would agree - so what? Most folks would agree with all sorts of stupid and cruel things - if you go on moral things rather than just following the blind prejudice of the heard you take a more balanced view of things. And I think we're getting confused between 'civil rights' - like the right to vote, the right not to be imprisoned and so on - and 'human rights' - like the right not to be tortured, raped, and so on. You lose your civil rights when you're convicted but NOT your human rights. And plenty of victims of robbery DO suffer from lifetime angst and plenty of victims of rape or sexual assault come to terms with it. I had to and i'm still here and fighting. Now let's add to the mix the fact that in the US there are particular idiocies because the 'age of consent' varies from state to state. For instance, in Louisiana it's 17 and in California 18 so a 17-year old girl from New Orleans could have totally consensual sex with an 18-year old from Los Angeles and yet her could still be convicted as a sex offender because she wasn't of legal age in California. For what it's worth I think the age needs to be lowered to about 15 or maybe even 14 but certainly it's yet another example of how bad law isn't even consistent. no 16 year old is intelligent enough to give consent. obviously, NO 14 or 15 year old is when it is two 14 year olds, it is NOT treated the same as if one is forty
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2013 16:10:43 GMT
No the two 14 year olds are not the sex offenders the adult is! What adult? Are you saying that a 14 year old boy having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend isn't an offender, but a 17 year old having sex with his 15 year old partner is? no, but, an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old is
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2013 16:11:55 GMT
I guess I do not see any justice in this when a murder has taken away a person's life , violated their human rights into oblivion and yet still gets to have human rights, they got nothing to complain about imo. Justice SHOULD be about fairness and doing the RIGHT thing and NOT about revenge. I can certainly understand revenge; there are lots of times I've felt like going in for it. But if you make revenge rather than justice and fairness the basis for law you might as well give up and admit that you can't have any kind of law that's based on morality! retribution IS justice
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 16:12:32 GMT
Most folks would agree - so what? Most folks would agree with all sorts of stupid and cruel things - if you go on moral things rather than just following the blind prejudice of the heard you take a more balanced view of things. And I think we're getting confused between 'civil rights' - like the right to vote, the right not to be imprisoned and so on - and 'human rights' - like the right not to be tortured, raped, and so on. You lose your civil rights when you're convicted but NOT your human rights. And plenty of victims of robbery DO suffer from lifetime angst and plenty of victims of rape or sexual assault come to terms with it. I had to and i'm still here and fighting. Now let's add to the mix the fact that in the US there are particular idiocies because the 'age of consent' varies from state to state. For instance, in Louisiana it's 17 and in California 18 so a 17-year old girl from New Orleans could have totally consensual sex with an 18-year old from Los Angeles and yet her could still be convicted as a sex offender because she wasn't of legal age in California. For what it's worth I think the age needs to be lowered to about 15 or maybe even 14 but certainly it's yet another example of how bad law isn't even consistent. no 16 year old is intelligent enough to give consent. obviously, NO 14 or 15 year old is when it is two 14 year olds, it is NOT treated the same as if one is forty Leaving aside the question of what consent means, of what informed consent means and of what intelligence means, at some point the law makes a purely arbitrary decision about what is or isn't legal. Biologically us girls can get pregnant from about 12 or 13; until Victorian times (and in parts of the Southern States till more recently) they could get married at about that age too. Now if you're going to require intelligence before sexual activitiy takes place a hell of a lot of people would stay virgin all their lives! And I know for a FACT that there HAVE been cases in America where 15-year olds having sex have both been given a LIFE description as paedophiles and sex offenders so the law DOES sometimes do that. An unjust law is never worth keeping; asking humans to be perfect never works either. Fairness, justice and common sense are what's needed but the trouble is that lawyers live by injustice, unfairness and stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 16:14:14 GMT
What adult? Are you saying that a 14 year old boy having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend isn't an offender, but a 17 year old having sex with his 15 year old partner is? no, but, an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old is Why? How do you make that out? How big an age gap does there have to be?
|
|