# Tories move to raise age of consent



## zipperhead_cop (22 Jun 2006)

I can only hope that this bill passes unanimously in the House.  Having the age dropped to 14 was horrible.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cbc/s/22062006/3/canada-tories-move-raise-age-consent.html
The Conservative government introduced a bill on Thursday that would raise the age of sexual consent by two years to 16.

If passed, the new law would mean most adults who have sex with girls or boys aged 14 or 15 could face criminal charges.


"Adults who sexually prey upon young people are the targets of these reforms, not consenting teenagers," said Justice Minister Vic Toews, who said the bill will rename the Age of Consent law to the Age of Protection law.


The proposed legislation includes a close-in-age exception, which means that teens who are 14 or 15 can have a sexual partner who is "less than five years older."


"Another time-limited exception would also be available for existing marriages and equivalent relationships," said a news release posted Thursday on the Justice Department's website.


The current legal age of consent in Canada is 14, in contrast with jurisdictions such as Texas, where it is 17.


'Widespread public support' for law, Toews says


Toews said there is "widespread public support" for the proposed legislation among law enforcement and child protection agencies, as well as ordinary Canadians.


He said he believes the bill will have enough support from opposition parties to pass in a House of Commons vote.


Several high-profile criminal cases have pushed both internet luring and the age-of-consent issues into the spotlight in the past few years.


In one luring case, a 31-year-old Edmonton man was sentenced in December to seven years in prison after pleading guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old autistic girl he met through an internet chat room.

It is truly chilling how many people seized on this in order to start having sex with 14 year olds.  I also like the "less than five years older" clause, to avoid piling on kids just being kids.


----------



## paracowboy (22 Jun 2006)

> In one luring case, a 31-year-old Edmonton man was sentenced in December to seven years in prison after pleading guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old autistic girl he met through an internet chat room.


kneel down. Face the ditch.


----------



## The_Pipes (22 Jun 2006)

I think this is an excellent move, I'd love to see if there's any opposition to this and what the reasoning would be.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> kneel down. Face the ditch.



Or "put your teeth on the curb"


----------



## TMM (22 Jun 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I can only hope that this bill passes unanimously in the House.  Having the age dropped to 14 was horrible.



Agreed. 100 years ago, 150 years ago when the law was enacted it may have made some sense but not in this day and age.


----------



## The_Falcon (22 Jun 2006)

The_Pipes said:
			
		

> I think this is an excellent move, I'd love to see if there's any opposition to this and what the reasoning would be.



There will be, The Liberals were very reluctant to outlaw possession of kiddie porn in the 90s, and even balked at using the notwithstanding clause in the Robin Sharpe case.  I seem to recall a few Liberal ministers suggest that the current age of consent laws were more than adequate, and staunchly refused to even look at them during their last 14 years in office, despite numerous calls from the opposition to do so.


----------



## couchcommander (22 Jun 2006)

Oh there is plenty of opposition.

I don't think anyone would disagree that a 30 year old trying to have sex with a 14 year old should be harmed, and seriously at that.

The problem starts to emerge when you have an 18 and a week year old and a 15 and 11 month year old. You're going to charge him (or her) with a very serious and lasting offence that does not fit the bill IMO (i.e. it could be a grade 12 and a grade 11 student... more likely a grade 12 and grade 10, but still). 

In the end the issue is exploitation to me. I really don't care what their ages are, if one person is exploiting another then that is something that is unacceptable. Unfortunaley our justice system does not have the mechanisms in place to readily determine this. 

But the idea of a less than 5 years clause would seem to be more appropriate. Between the ages of 14-18 a person may not engage in sexual relations with another person if they are more than 5 years their senior. The possibility of throwing teenagers being teenagers away is much less, as you'd have to have things like high school grads trolling the junior high for dates, but you also protect younger children from adults trying to take advantage of them as it sometimes the case now. 

In the end, the opposition is towards criminalising the actions of teenagers just being normal teenagers - I don't think that is anyone's goal.


----------



## SoF (22 Jun 2006)

Great move by the tories especialy the close-in-age exception which will keep many older teenagers from having a sex offender record.


----------



## canadianblue (22 Jun 2006)

Theirs already people stepping up to the plate to oppose it, EGALE is already stepping to the plate and the last political battle these guys fought they won.


----------



## TMM (22 Jun 2006)

???That will do so much good for the GLBTG community.


----------



## paracowboy (22 Jun 2006)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> Theirs already people stepping up to the plate to oppose it, EGALE is already stepping to the plate


why? What on Earth does pedophilia have to do with the Rights of homosexuals?


----------



## youravatar (22 Jun 2006)

> The problem starts to emerge when you have an 18 and a week year old and a 15 and 11 month year old. You're going to charge him (or her) with a very serious and lasting offence that does not fit the bill IMO (i.e. it could be a grade 12 and a grade 11 student... more likely a grade 12 and grade 10, but still).
> 
> In the end the issue is exploitation to me. I really don't care what their ages are, if one person is exploiting another then that is something that is unacceptable. Unfortunaley our justice system does not have the mechanisms in place to readily determine this.
> 
> ...



The 5 years clause doesn't cover those below the age of consent. So like 16-21 years old. not 11-16.


----------



## couchcommander (22 Jun 2006)

youravatar said:
			
		

> The 5 years clause doesn't cover those below the age of consent. So like 16-21 years old. not 11-16.



"The proposed legislation includes a close-in-age exception, which means that teens who are 14 or 15 can have a sexual partner who is "less than five years older."


----------



## youravatar (22 Jun 2006)

that's disgusting 

 :threat: Get 'um!


----------



## Hot Lips (22 Jun 2006)

Fantastic move by the Tories...
Perhaps groups that believe in polygamy in this country will have one less deterant so as to stop 30-50 year old men from marrying 14 year old girls...

And on so many other levels this is a great move by the Tories, as psychologically there aren't too many 14 year olds, IMO, that are mentally and emotionally mature enough to effectively deal with sexual relationships and everything that comes along with them...

I have assisted a 13 and 14 during child birth and let me tell you...these are babies having babies

HL


----------



## couchcommander (22 Jun 2006)

> that's disgusting
> 
> :threat: Get 'um!



I'm not so sure it's disgusting. 

As I pointed out, it would prevent criminalising an early born grade 12 having relations with a late born grade 10. This is a situation where I don't think sexual assualt against a minor charges are appropriate. 

And surprisingly to me, the Tories took this into account. 

Who knew that they had a modicum of common sense in those brains of theirs?


----------



## youravatar (22 Jun 2006)

not sure you got my meaning, grade 10s trolling for grade 6s. is more along the lines of what i was getting at.


----------



## couchcommander (22 Jun 2006)

Ah, I think the minimum age of consent amongst minors will remain 14.


----------



## youravatar (22 Jun 2006)

I thought the age of concent was universal.


----------



## Inspir (22 Jun 2006)

Great move by the Torrie's!

My little sister is 15 and her dumbass boyfriend is 18. Everytime time I see him I want to pull a Malcolm X on him, and he knows it. 

This brings peace and stability to my thoughts.  ;D


----------



## youravatar (22 Jun 2006)

Inspir said:
			
		

> Great move by the Torrie's!
> 
> My little sister is 15 and her dumbass boyfriend is 18. Everytime time I see him I want to pull a Malcolm X on him, and he knows it.
> 
> This brings peace and stability to my thoughts.  ;D



now now that's covered by the 5 years, isn't it?


----------



## couchcommander (22 Jun 2006)

Yup,

But re: your last question.

From the justice backgrounder:



> Close-in-age exceptions have been included in the legislation to protect against the criminalization of consensual teenage sex. This exception would apply to 14 and 15 year old youth  who engage in non-exploitative sexual activity with a partner who is less than five years older.
> ...
> The proposed reforms maintain an existing close-in-age exception that exists for 12 or 13 year olds who engage in sexual activity with a peer who is less than 2 years older, provided the relationship is not exploitative. The legislation also maintains the existing age of protection of 18 years old for exploitative sexual activity



http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2006/doc_31832.html

Edited to clear things up.


----------



## youravatar (22 Jun 2006)

Thanks, you really cleared that one up for me.


----------



## canadianblue (22 Jun 2006)

> Theirs already people stepping up to the plate to oppose it, EGALE is already stepping to the plate
> 
> why? What on Earth does pedophilia have to do with the Rights of homosexuals?



From what was said in the National Post, the reason why is that it drives teen sex underground.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (22 Jun 2006)

How could anyone say anything bad about this, really.


----------



## paracowboy (22 Jun 2006)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> From what was said in the National Post, the reason why is that it drives teen sex underground.


but this would do nothing for/against teen sex. It's aimed at adult/teen sex. Either EGALE is composed of morons, or the media is spinning stuff again.


----------



## GAP (22 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Either EGALE is composed of morons, or the media is spinning stuff again.



or both


----------



## Sheerin (23 Jun 2006)

I think EAGALE's biggest concern is section 159 of the CCC which says that anyone under the age of 18 is commiting a crime if they have anal sex.

I honestly don't think this bill will accomplish anything, well that is other than scoring political points with people on the right.  
Is this bill going to stop people from doing it?  Hell no.  Hot lips mentioned that she's seen 14 year olds give birth, is this bill going to stop any of that?  Nope.  Kids are still going to have sex, and they'll have sex with whomever they want to have it with.  Reagardless of age.  If a 15 year old girl thinks its alright to sleep with a 40 year old, then let her.  Its her life and she can frak it up if she likes.  And what difference does 730 days make?  Practically none.  

  


> Great move by the Torrie's!
> 
> My little sister is 15 and her dumbass boyfriend is 18. Everytime time I see him I want to pull a Malcolm X on him, and he knows it.
> 
> This brings peace and stability to my thoughts.



You're her big brother, i'm sure EVERYTIME she brings home a guy you'll want to beat the living crap out of him, regardless of her and his age.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (23 Jun 2006)

disagree.  14 year old girls having sex with a 40 year old?       not-on!


----------



## Sheerin (23 Jun 2006)

I'm not saying it turns my crank, but can you honestly tell me the difference between a 14 year old and a 16 year old is?

Put the two side by side (in most cases, at least the cases where the 14 year old is sexually active) and most likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference.


----------



## The_Pipes (23 Jun 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I'm not saying it turns my crank, but can you honestly tell me the difference between a 14 year old and a 16 year old is?
> 
> Put the two side by side (in most cases, at least the cases where the 14 year old is sexually active) and most likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference.



It's not about appearance. It's about maturity and ability to be both sexually active and have a child if things aren't careful. There's no visible reason why you can drive at 16, vote at 18 and drink at 19, but law dictates that you are mature enough to handle those kinds of things at those ages. There's no need for a visible justification for age of consent, after all people hit puberty at all sorts of ages. Age of consent means that legally at 16 you are mature enough to make the decision about being sexually active with an adult [not another teenager] whereas 14 the adult is more of a position of authority where the 14 y/o is not old enough to make the decision and might be coaxed due to the authority figure of the adult.


----------



## The_Pipes (23 Jun 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Is this bill going to stop people from doing it?  Hell no.



I agree with you and was thinking the exact same thing when I heard about this however that's really not what laws do. Does instituting the death penalty stop people from murdering? Does putting up "Community Safety Zone, Fines Increased" signs prevent people speeding? No, just like most laws, they do them anyway, agreed. However this allows law enforcement more power to PUNISH those individuals who break the law and thus stopping the many predators around. With that statement one could justify removing many laws because they have little deterance value.


----------



## Sheerin (23 Jun 2006)

Well physically they'll be identical, but at the same time you can have a 14 year old girl who is more mature than a 16 year old girl, in that case why is it acceptable for the 16 year old to sleep with a 22 year, while its not acceptable for a the 14 year old to sleep with a 20 year old?  

Maturity is a hard to determine and you can't use age as a gauge; i know many 20-somethings (and even some 30-somethings) who have the maturity level of a teenage, so should it be illegal for them to have sex with older people as well?  Yes i know crude analogue, though that was more of a rhetorical question.

Also, I'm curious, how will this bill affect emancipated minors?  Are they exempt from it?


----------



## The_Pipes (23 Jun 2006)

I agree with you however this is what the law would deem as the mature age typically on average. I mean *I* was mature enough to vote at 13  ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Hot Lips (23 Jun 2006)

Like I said...be witness to a little girl (13-14) being torn from ear to ear during childbirth and then tell me that's on.
The female body changes (in most cases) significantly between 14 and 16...it's called puberty and some females don't start to menstruate until they are 16...there are other growth & development issues as well.

HL


----------



## The_Falcon (23 Jun 2006)

Sheerin the whole point of raising the age of consent is to curb the activities of sexual predators, seeing as how Canada has one of the lowest ages of consent in the world.  Come on think back to highshool (it wasn't that long ago), you can't tell me there isn't a BIG difference in the emotional maturity between the majority grade 9 and grade 11 students (there are the exceptions yes, but that is the key word EXCEPTIONS, meaning there aren't many like that).  As a personal anecdote I know a guy (you probably know his brother better), who specifically went after girls who either 13 going on 14, or 14 years old because they were less mature than most older girls, and he could manipulate them better.  It disgusted me then and now, but not much that could be done cause as far as I know he never broke the law (he would wait for the 13 year olds to turn 14).


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (23 Jun 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I'm not saying it turns my crank, but can you honestly tell me the difference between a 14 year old and a 16 year old is?
> 
> Put the two side by side (in most cases, at least the cases where the 14 year old is sexually active) and most likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference.



I am not a mind-specialist, physcologist, doctor or anyone like that, but, I am betting there is a difference in terms of "mental development" between 14-16.  There IS a difference between a 14 and a 16 year old.  14 year old can't drive a car, 16 year old can.  Some study somewhere along the way must have proved/indicated something.  Regardless, something else that is the same with a 14 and 16 year old to me?  NO 40 YEAR OLD MEN SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT HAVING SEX WITH EITHER OF THEM.  Thats what the same with them.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (23 Jun 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Well physically they'll be identical, but at the same time you can have a 14 year old girl who is more mature than a 16 year old girl, in that case why is it acceptable for the 16 year old to sleep with a 22 year, while its not acceptable for a the 14 year old to sleep with a 20 year old?



You almost sound like you are lobbying AGAINST this on behalf of 40 year old perverts.  I ask you. What is the negative impact this is going to have?  What is it that bothers you about this?  When I was 24, I don't even think I thought about whether a 14 and 16 year old girl are "physically identical".  wtf.


----------



## Springroll (23 Jun 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> The female body changes (in most cases) significantly between 14 and 16...it's called puberty and some females don't start to menstruate until they are 16...there are other growth & development issues as well.
> HL



I was just about to post the same thing. The physical changes a girl goes through between 14 and 16 are HUGE!! Not to forget about the mental changes as well. 

I think this bill is awesome and wish it had been in place 12 years ago(or more).


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Jun 2006)

Personally I think the Torrie's move on this issue is guided by the right intentions.  However,  for the other side of the argument. http://www.ageofconsent.ca  It is very easy to get emotional about this issue,  but I remember being 14-16 and ... well to be blunt enjoying quality time with a 23-25 year old. (fond memories of small town Alberta)  It was emotionally fulfilling at the time and it was non exploitative. There has to be a better test on what is okay and what isn't than birthdates. Ie "the position of authority" or relationship of trust. 

     I haven't seen the new proposal in detail,  but (and I'm sorry if I sound rude when I say it) I'm sure it is so poorly written (because of the emotional nature of the subject matter not ignorance or inexperience) that when it passes the courts will have to strike it down because it is too vague, or riddled with so many If.. then... that... exceptions that it is not really law.  Then the Conservatives will complain about activist courts and rally the grass roots.  (I can site the example of Canada's child porn law that got struck down - http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/globe.16jan99.html ) Listining to the political right,  you'd think Judges were nothing but perverts who willy nilly choose to write their own law.  :


----------



## ReadyandWilling (23 Jun 2006)

I can only speak on this as a minor, now I have personal experience in 40 year old guys having sex with 12 year old girls (my cousin) and I am obviously against it, BUT I have some problems with the 5 year clause, I agree with an age clause but I think 5 years is a little long.

 I feel I can say this becuase I have been in a relationship with a girl who's yongest daughter is older than me. I was not readt for that. I figured sweet, I am the biggest mack of them all(how wrong I was). So I was stuck in a relationship I didnt really want anymore, becuase I thought i was cool. Now I know that she was way over the 5 years anyway, but this could happend with a 14 and 19 year old(minus the kid). If she is 14, he is supposedly gonna have more expeirience and have the "cool" factor lorded over her. I think it should be a 3 year clause. Giving young girls, and potentioally guys, the chance to mature and get ready for a sexual relationship with some one closer to their age.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (23 Jun 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> but I remember being 14-16 and ... well to be blunt enjoying quality time with a 23-25 year old. (fond memories of small town Alberta)



I am assuming you are female, so please correct me if this is wrong.  

I know stuff like this happened where I grew up (PEI) in parts of the island.  I know 14 year olds that had babies for 25-26 year olds.  That is ok with you??  wtf   

But did you ever stop to wonder _WHY_ a 25 year old man would need to find a 14-16 year old?  Is there some reason he can't play in his own age group?  Or that he doesn't want to????????  

Let me use an analogy.  In our rec. hockey leagues, we don't let 20 year old play with 14 year olds.  They are in different leagues.  If we seperate them on the ice, I think its a good practice to have some seperation in the bedroom too.  Don't you?  If we are worried about "adults hurting kids on the ice" or whatever the reason is for the seperation in HOCKEY leagues...we shouldn't be worried about them in the bedroom?  Think about that.

LAME.  LAME.  LAME.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I am assuming you are female, so please correct me if this is wrong.
> 
> I know stuff like this happened where I grew up (PEI) in parts of the island.  I know 14 year olds that had babies for 25-26 year olds.  That is ok with you??  wtf
> 
> ...



I think I have in my profile that I'm male. Zell (my nickname in real life) is a male name. In many of the situations mentioned above the existing laws aren't being enforced or respected so I don't see how another law will change that.  If the parents simply don't know whats going on they don't know.  I'm not saying raising it to 16 is a bad idea - I could easily be persuaded for it. I think that if we put in effort into prevention and education we'd see real results; as apposed to tougher laws that aren't enforced until it is to late anyways. All I see happining with the new law is sex education (something the political right wants removed anyways) would be limited to "it is illegal don't do it". If we as a society choose to raise the bar to 16, I'd be 100% fine with that;  I just hope it then wont be used as an excuse to cut back on the prevention/education.

As for the girls who are having children with older guys,  I personally as a blanket statement, don't support it.  (Of course not, and thanks for publicly implying that I do) In fact I don't think that anyone should have kids until they graduate college/university (with a B+ average) and have a good career and a happy and healthy relationship and a stable home with a 10,000 buffer emergency fund. If we wanted,  we could make a law saying such.  Do you support people having children in anything other than a perfect happy loving stable home?  (don't bother answering that,  I am bringing it to a point here) If we can't regulate how people choose to live their lives (forcing them to live they way we think they should - darn this freedom thing) we have to decide when they are capable of making their own choices. When I was 14,  if I wanted to do something there was very little that could be done to stop me. If parents want more legal rights until their child is 16,  fair enough. *cough* pay attention in the first place*cough* *cough*

On the issue of why that 25 year old was into me,  I like to think it was because I was good looking, funny and I helped with the Math homework. (discreet Mathematics is fun)  But really it was because of a limited selection.  When I was 18 I dated a 27 year old,  now I'm 27 I have had 18 year olds hit on me... I am just not interested.  They're simply to young,  I can't relate with them.  Which gives me insight into the mentality of the 27 year old that could relate with an 18 year old.  

And before I forget,  it is good to see people talking about a topic with dignity and grace; focusing on discussing the issues without name calling.


----------



## The_Pipes (23 Jun 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> but I remember being 14-16 and ... well to be blunt enjoying quality time with a 23-25 year old. (fond memories of small town Alberta)



Just because it happens does not make it right or justifiable as part of the norm. Take the example of a 40 year old and the even 16 year old with the new (possible) law. When that 16 year old was BORN he was 24 and most likely sexually active then. Does it seem right for a 24 year old to be involved with a newborn?  Or even compare along all of the ages, at age 5 the adult would be 29, at age 10 the adult would be 34, thats absurd to even consider a non-sexual dating relationship at those ages let alone sexual one, so how does a 16 year old dating a 40 year old seem any better? It may just be me however this is always how I see it. If the girlfriend's watching Maury with all of these adults dating kids I see their ages and just think how old they would've been when the kid was born and its redicilous.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (23 Jun 2006)

think of our rec hockey leagues... ;D

Did I say that before?  If we seperate age groups in hockey... :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Jun 2006)

Quote,
_I think that if we put in effort into prevention and education we'd see real results; as apposed to tougher laws that aren't enforced until it is to late anyways. All I see happining with the new law is sex education (something the political right wants removed anyways) would be limited to "it is illegal don't do it"._

Well I'm "politically right" and i don't want to see it removed.   You got any proof/ links to this, ..whats that thing again??...oh yea, hidden agenda? :


----------



## canadianblue (23 Jun 2006)

It seems like common knowledge that kids that haven't even graduated from Junior High shouldn't be having sex with anybody over 18 or for that matter anybody even in High School, its just creepy. 



> If we can't regulate how people choose to live their lives (forcing them to live they way we think they should - darn this freedom thing) we have to decide when they are capable of making their own choices. When I was 14,  if I wanted to do something there was very little that could be done to stop me. If parents want more legal rights until their child is 16,  fair enough. *cough* pay attention in the first place*cough* *cough*



Thats because it should be the parents who should be responsible for raising their kids. 14 year olds are not capable of making mature choices, thats a fact plan and simply. As well sexaul molestation I don't really consider something that is very "little". 



> I think I have in my profile that I'm male. Zell (my nickname in real life) is a male name. In many of the situations mentioned above the existing laws aren't being enforced or respected so I don't see how another law will change that.  If the parents simply don't know whats going on they don't know.  I'm not saying raising it to 16 is a bad idea - I could easily be persuaded for it. I think that if we put in effort into prevention and education we'd see real results; as apposed to tougher laws that aren't enforced until it is to late anyways. All I see happining with the new law is sex education (something the political right wants removed anyways) would be limited to "it is illegal don't do it". If we as a society choose to raise the bar to 16, I'd be 100% fine with that;  I just hope it then wont be used as an excuse to cut back on the prevention/education.



I sometimes wonder how much prevention and education has worked on that front. But I think the new law will help police in doing their jobs to track down predators. 

Personally, I think any guy in high school or in his mid twenties would have more common sense then to hang out with a 13-14 year old that isn't a family member.

The "political right" is putting this country in the right direction, and has probably done more in the past five months then the "political left" has done in the past 13 years.


----------



## The_Pipes (23 Jun 2006)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> The "political right" is putting this country in the right direction, and has probably done more in the past five months then the "political left" has done in the past 13 years.



+1 on that  ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> think of our rec hockey leagues... ;D
> 
> Did I say that before?  If we seperate age groups in hockey... :



Okay,  I'm allowed a silly post at least once. 
:warstory:  (this is a joke - to lighten the mood)

In rec hockey leagues we separate men and women - so they only play with their own kind. Are you in favor of only allowing homosexual encounters until marrage? True there are age groups, but there is also amateur, intermediate and pro categories.  Are you suggesting that we somehow test them for their skill level? And how would you enforce this ranking system?  Little badges? Are you in favor of forcing people to wear little badges based on what they do in bed? (note been done)  Who would get to decide the ranks, would it be done by a standardize test or would it be like an officer board type thing? Also in rec hockey leagues there are summer training camps, you can hire coaches to improve and total strangers come to watch you practice and cheer you on. Also if an older person stops by and offers to show you a few pointers,  it is a good thing. Are you in favor of 

 :warstory:  Okay silliness over.  

I think we all understand intuitively how to measure harm. (how most of us decide right from wrong)  Laws are funny things, it is hard to write down how we measure harm.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (23 Jun 2006)

:

Ok,  well, I think you know where I stand, and I know where you stand.  

Old people shouldn't play with teenagers.  Period.

No if, and's, but's or maybe's.


----------



## ReadyandWilling (23 Jun 2006)

Does that rule apply to older girls with 14 year old guys?? is it possible for a man to be raped by a woman??


----------



## couchcommander (23 Jun 2006)

yes, and yes


----------



## ReadyandWilling (23 Jun 2006)

Maybe its my youth, but how is that possible. Isnt the guy have to be somewhat willing,


----------



## couchcommander (23 Jun 2006)

no, but not just that. Men can be sodomized just like a woman can (even by a woman).


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (23 Jun 2006)

if you only define it by the physical aspect and ignore the mental and emotional aspect, sure... :

next question.


----------



## ReadyandWilling (23 Jun 2006)

Obviously, But I assume dyou knew what I meant. Let me re phrase. Is it possible for a woman to rape a man, while have sexual intercourse. And I am only refering to the physical aspect, becuase people lie constantly, you nver can tell how messed up someone really is.


----------



## couchcommander (23 Jun 2006)

Yes.

Men can get and have got erections from stimulation of erogenous zones - they do not need to be sexually aroused. As well, as I pointed out before, a woman can also sodomize a man with a foreign object, or make sexual contact.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Jun 2006)

Um,  I think this issue is now mute.  But as far as older women raping younger guys,  it is physically possible.  But more often it is an emotionally abusive relationship and it causes harm.  It isn't just the act that causes harm it is also the relationship which is disfunctional that traumatises.  (read above for the mental state of a person who is sexually attracted to their juniors)

this thread has kind of spun out of controll. :-\


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Jun 2006)

Not yet, but its starting.......watching....


----------



## paracowboy (23 Jun 2006)

older women having sex with male children is still rape, even if the boy in question thinks he is willing. The psychological harm is as great as it is with female children having sex with men. For examples, I suggest you simply look through the headlines of the past few years. How many incidents do you find of adolescent males committing, or attempting to commit, murder for the woman they're having sex with?

Rape is not a sexual crime. It is a psychological one. And rapists are not limited to one gender.

And no matter who does it, it's wrong. Period.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Jun 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well I'm "politically right" and i don't want to see it removed.   You got any proof/ links to this, ..whats that thing again??...oh yea, hidden agenda? :



I've spent two hours looking for proof of my statement that th religious right would be happy to remove sex education.  I can not find any credable proof to back that up.  Just speeches from churches,  no politicion on the right that I can find has touched this issue,  but they do seem to deal with the matter once in office.  I base my statement on conversations that I've had with the political right grass roots (Yes I am from Alberta and know many) and the sermons I've heard in churches.  (Yes I go there too) And the actions of the political right in our neighbouring country - which do influence the political right in this country.

August 29/September 5, 2005, issue of The Nation " money from the Federal Government used to create high school abstinence clubs was being used to train "young abstinence advocates", who were being encouraged to engage in politics and support right-wing issues like overturning abortion. The article states that although the program's official language has been secularized, a list of its grant recipients "reads like a who's who list of the religious right.""

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf   <--interesting read on Right wing sex education.

This isn't the smoking gun that I wanted,  but I don't think that I'm being tendentious when I say that the religious right want to remove sexual education as we know it and replace it with information that would lead people into behaviours they find more acceptable.


----------



## couchcommander (23 Jun 2006)

I think it would be adviseable to distinguish between the "political right" and those specifically who wish to disallow sexual education, or change it to reflect their own beliefs.


----------



## canadianblue (23 Jun 2006)

Perhaps some people would prefer to deal with the issue of sexuality and "sex education" within their family rather then having the government teach it.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Jun 2006)

As an alternate to a fixed age for consent, what about the golden rule of "half your age, plus seven".  Thus:
14/2=7+7=14.  Therefore a 14 year old can only "be" with another 14 year old
26/2=13+7=20.  So, 26 year old cannot "be" with a 19 year old (though, now we're talking adults, so....)
Going in reverse.  17+7=24/2=12 (?)  What the....?
OK, was trying to see what the "oldest" a person of 17 could consent to be with.
OH, I did a boo boo (thank God I took arts at University!!!)
17 MINUS 7=10 x 2 = 20
Now, for the litmus test:
20/2=10+7=17.   
VOILA!
A 20 year old may "be" with a 17 year old (assuming consent all round)
19/2=9.5+7=16.5
18/2=9+7=16
and so on and so forth
How could this work?


----------



## Hot Lips (23 Jun 2006)

Well vG not to point out the obvious...but if you found your own concept to be confusing perhaps it wouldn't be that user friendly...lol

HL


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Jun 2006)

Do you really think products of the Ontario education system could manage the math?


----------



## The_Pipes (23 Jun 2006)

vG I could've sworn I've heard that exact same idea for this subject sometime previously in my life. It's baffling my mind trying to think of where  ??? ??? talk about deja vu


----------



## Hot Lips (23 Jun 2006)

:rofl:

HL


----------



## Journeyman (23 Jun 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> As an alternate to a fixed age for consent, what about the golden rule of "*half your age, plus seven*".



WOOHOO! I can stay with my girlfriend....who happens to be 16 years younger than I.  ;D 

(No worries, we're both of "consenting age." If I'd been with her when I was 20, there _may_ have been talk - - no wait, she's from Quebec > )


----------



## boots (23 Jun 2006)

Oh!

I guess I was confused about how the consent laws worked. I THOUGHT 14 was supposed to be the cut off age for *any* sex, and that the two year difference rule was for when one or both partners was between 14-18. Guess I was wrong. Wow. I'm really glad they are introducing this bill. I agree with the person who said 5 years is too much for the exemption

I guess I can't go around calling myself "jailbait" anymore lol
When I was 17, I dated a 23 year old for a little while. (I'm 27 now)
My parents STILL don't know about that... 
Maybe I didn't have to worry after all... but I kind of wish the law worked the way I originally thought it did


----------



## couchcommander (23 Jun 2006)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> Perhaps some people would prefer to deal with the issue of sexuality and "sex education" within their family rather then having the government teach it.



Indeed, many would. That is why you are allowed to opt out of sex education, at least here in Alberta, though it is strongly discouraged.

Unfortunately experience from the past has taught us that in too many cases parents fail to discuss it in a meaningful manner, or end up conveying good natured, but ultimately incorrect or harmful information (all you parents don't get offended, I'm sure you're all fine and the such, but there are many who are not so comfortable or informed). 

Thus, for the good of the child and for the good of his or her future relationships, our education system has taken it upon itself to educate individuals regarding this topic. The lessons themselves, at least that I was exposed to or have later on read about are pretty innocous. Structure of male and female reproductive systems, birth control and family planning (and yes, they do convey 100% that the only way to ensure you don't get pregnant is to not have sex), biological process of reproduction, exploration of different types of sexuality, what is rape and sexual assualt, what do to in those cases, etc.

It's not some pagan discussion of how group sex is best; it's a frank exploration of human sexuality which is an integral part of any human being. 

In the end, out of my own curiosity, why would you not want to allow your child to be exposed to this beneficial information?


----------



## paracowboy (23 Jun 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Indeed, many would. That is why you are allowed to opt out of sex education, at least here in Alberta, though it is strongly discouraged.
> 
> Unfortunately experience from the past has taught us that in too many cases parents fail to discuss it in a meaningful manner, or end up conveying good natured, but ultimately incorrect or harmful information (all you parents don't get offended, I'm sure you're all fine and the such, but there are many who are not so comfortable or informed).
> 
> ...


I really like how you've managed to completely twist the original topic around, until it's an entirely new one. And a blatantly false one at that.

Not every person who is against sex education is a prudish Puritan. Some simply don't want strangers promoting their agenda or idea about sexuality onto their children. The "Right" is not against Sex Education. Some are. Some are not. And for a variety of reasons. Nice of you to so completely buy into Leftist propaganda like that, though.


----------



## on guard for thee (23 Jun 2006)

All,

Concept of Ops:  Good.

Higher Commanders intent:  Clear

Endstate (complete with route recce):  Lawyers (read The Court) to advise.


Other than what I have stated above (legal input), why do we need to talk about this?

2 cents from me


----------



## paracowboy (23 Jun 2006)

on guard for thee said:
			
		

> All,
> 
> Concept of Ops:  Good.
> 
> ...


if they're all like that, you should post more often


----------



## GAP (23 Jun 2006)

on guard for thee said:
			
		

> 2 cents from me



With this quote, I would suggest "on guard for thee" visit  the thread "Would Canada go to war over water. We need new blood....his


----------



## on guard for thee (23 Jun 2006)

Para,

I wish I had time...but thanks.

As for the new blood comment,

PM me anytime. This can be addressed offline (as I don't have an officer door here).


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (23 Jun 2006)

?


----------



## GAP (23 Jun 2006)

Just trying to lighten things up and get new wit into the thread.... ;D


----------



## paracowboy (23 Jun 2006)

on guard for thee said:
			
		

> As for the new blood comment,
> 
> PM me anytime. This can be addressed offline (as I don't have an officer door here).


I think you misunderstood. It was a complement.


----------



## on guard for thee (23 Jun 2006)

Para,

Ack. If that was the intent, I apologize.

Long week...kids gone for sleepover...dad having a refreshment or two...

I will lurk back into the corner now !


----------



## couchcommander (24 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I really like how you've managed to completely twist the original topic around, until it's an entirely new one. And a blatantly false one at that.
> 
> Not every person who is against sex education is a prudish Puritan. Some simply don't want strangers promoting their agenda or idea about sexuality onto their children. The "Right" is not against Sex Education. Some are. Some are not. And for a variety of reasons. Nice of you to so completely buy into Leftist propaganda like that, though.



I only follow where the winds are blowing...

And I was trying not to harp on the "right" or the "left", or any other specific group I don't think (I apologize if it came across that way), I was simply stating that sexual education in schools is for a good reason and has done a lot of good, IMO. 

What's your opinion on the topic anywho Mr. Paracowboy?


----------



## paracowboy (24 Jun 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> What's your opinion on the topic anywho Mr. Paracowboy?


on Sex Ed? For the most part, I'm for it. By the time my, or any of my friends' parents got around to The Talk, we'd already picked up everything and were starting to experiment, ourselves. So, I can imagine there are parents out there who are too uptight to teach their kids at all. Or too self-involved to care. And, when you throw in the Religious wackos, the demented, and the plain-ignorant...it's probably good to have some sort of base-line.

The only real con I can recall of it, it's too focussed on the physical aspects, and not enough on the psychological. Tells kids "This is how you do it." Not "This is what happens to your psyche". It does teach abstinence, as well as other forms of birth control/STD prevention, but didn't teach anything about what the act, and its' consequences, can do to developing young minds.

Personally, I think that there is no replacement for parents, in a matter this serious to their child's welfare. Screw the damn village, it takes parents to raise a child.


----------



## canadianblue (24 Jun 2006)

> In the end, out of my own curiosity, why would you not want to allow your child to be exposed to this beneficial information?



I'd let my kids go to sex ed if I had any, my parents let me go to sex ed classes and their pretty devout christians, as well as conservative.


----------



## boots (24 Jun 2006)

I agree that psychological aspects should be included as well. Did everyone else have to do the egg thing? I painted mine 

I think that society has a responsibility to offer sex ed. If individual parents want to opt out, they should be able to. But I hope they do it cause they plan to do it themselves, not because they are uptight and assume that ignorance leads to good choices

I also think it's kind of sad that both the right and the left all get painted with the same brushes that are used for the extremists on each end. Us centrists never get much attention, cause we don't tend to have so many crazy controversial points of view


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Jun 2006)

I'm really not seeing this as a sex ed issue, since the predators are pretty clear on how things work  :
Okay, into the big book of zipperhead_stories:
There is a guy that lives in Windsor (East Moor in the Villages, ask the neighbors for the specific address if you are in the area).  There are no less than twenty calls there, involving children.  This is the guys MO.  He has made it plain that run away children can find safe haven in his house, and by safe haven I am meaning they get supplied with weed, booze and ecstasy.  The last call I did there involved a 14 year old MHA girl trying to commit suicide in his bathroom.  She was also a run away, as were the two strung out boys (15 yrs old both) that I found in the basement.  This guy is the same one I dealt with last year at a near by skateboarding park, offering three twelve year old girls weed to go for a ride with him.  In searching the rest of the house, we found dozens of used weed pipes, foil, baggies etc.  During the animated "chit chat" that the guy and I had some facts came out.  He is 24 years old, and "likes to help people".  He admitted that he is in a sexual relationship with the MHA girl, but indicates "she just doesn't seem that young, so I just don't think about it".  Very convenient.  In speaking to the neighbors, they are at their wits ends.  They have reports of kids OD'ed on their lawns, dozens of kids watching through the kitchen window as the suspect had sex with a girl on his table in plain view.  They are about ready to lynch the guy, and I have to admit I didn't really do to much to talk them out of it.  While I was still in the house, this POS actually says "I thought the age of consent was 14?".  
THESE are the people the law is designed for.  Even if you don't trust your police to not lock up teenagers hooking up with teenagers, we have the judges ever-available to strike down anything that seems too "mean".  There is the law, then there is the discretion to enforce it.  I realize it kills some people dead to count on the concept of discretion, but it actually works in real life.  There are some truly wretched people among us.  
BTW, with regards to the actual age of consent, it isn't always 14.  In the case of sexual exploitation, from the Code:

153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or
(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person

As far as a person in a position of trust or authority:

(1.2) A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including

(a) the age of the young person;

(b) the age difference between the person and the young person;

(c) the evolution of the relationship; and

(d) the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

*Definition of “young person”* (2) In this section, “young person” means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.

 

There is just no good reason to argue against this.  I have to imagine that the people that rail against this thing don't have kids.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (24 Jun 2006)

How the heck do we let POS's like that exist in our society?

If what you wrote it true Zip (which I know it is), then this law is long overdue and doesn't quite do everything that needs to be done then, does it?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> How the heck do we let POS's like that exist in our society?
> 
> If what you wrote it true Zip (which I know it is), then this law is long overdue and doesn't quite do everything that needs to be done then, does it?



I'll wait and see what the big brains come up with in the way of wordings when the third reading comes around.  However, you are right.  Something has to be done.  
Also recall, it wasn't all that long ago the age was dropped from 16.  Another thing you can thank your local Lieberal MP for (if they still have a riding).


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (24 Jun 2006)

Unfortuneately where I am yes it is a panzy Liberal MP.  Wonder if he has any teenager daughters he would like to keep sicko's and perv's away from??


----------



## Derka Derka Jihad (2 Jul 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I can only hope that this bill passes unanimously in the House.  Having the age dropped to 14 was horrible.



It used to be 12 years and was raised to 14 in 1890.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060623.CONSENT23/TPStory/National


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Jul 2006)

From the Fed:


http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb993-e.htm
In summary then, except for the offences of buggery and gross indecency, the age of consent for sexual activity has at no time been set higher than 14 in Canada, although prior laws did make men vulnerable to prosecution for sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, 18, or even 21 in certain qualified circumstances. As noted above, the 1988 amendments to the Criminal Code repealing those provisions were contained in Bill C-15, which was introduced by the then Justice Minister, Ramon Hnatyshyn. Although a bill introduced in 1981 by previous Justice Minister Jean Chrétien had also proposed the repeal of the seduction offences, it would have retained a broader, gender-neutral version of the prohibition against sexual activity with a young person between 14 and 16. However, Bill C-53 was never passed and a later version, in the form of Bill C-127,(2) brought about significant changes to the criminal law in the area of sexual offences but did not specifically address the sexual exploitation of young persons.
So I guess it is a bit of a misinterpretation with regards to the age being lowered in the 80's.  I stand corrected  
However, the age still needs to be hiked up, or at least provide severe penalties for predators who try to board young kids.


----------



## Derka Derka Jihad (2 Jul 2006)

I concur completely.


----------



## paracowboy (2 Jul 2006)

Derka Derka Jihad said:
			
		

> I concur completely.


read your private messages


----------



## GAP (2 Jul 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> There is just no good reason to argue against this.  I have to imagine that the people that rail against this thing don't have kids.



I'm probably out in left field, but if he is so generous as to take in these kids under these false pretenses, then is he not acting as a guardian, thus violating the code by taking advantage of them when he is the guardian?   ???


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> I'm probably out in left field, but if he is so generous as to take in these kids under these false pretenses, then is he not acting as a guardian, thus violating the code by taking advantage of them when he is the guardian?   ???



Not a lawyer but from my experience (well my friend's experiences), you actually have to go through some paperwork and actually be appointed as a guardian (by a JP I would imagine) to be considered one.  Simply "looking after" the kids does not make some one a "legal" guardian.


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2006)

But it does make them the responsible adult, therefore it could be argued that they are the de facto guardian, and have violated that responsibility.  Well...it's an argument, probably wouldn't hold up in court, but would like to see someone take a run at it, if only to diminish that defense that "I was just helping out"


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> But it does make them the responsible adult, therefore it could be argued that they are the de facto guardian, and have violated that responsibility.  Well...it's an argument, probably wouldn't hold up in court, but would like to see someone take a run at it, if only to diminish that defense that "I was just helping out"



I would like to see some take a run at it as well, but I can understand if the police in a situation like this would be reluctant to charge, given that the crown attorney would probably laugh in their face and/or they would probably get some nasty verbal lecture from some bleeding-heart "forward-thinking" lib-left JP/Judge, right before they toss the charges.


----------



## Sheerin (3 Jul 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Like I said...be witness to a little girl (13-14) being torn from ear to ear during childbirth and then tell me that's on.
> The female body changes (in most cases) significantly between 14 and 16...it's called puberty and some females don't start to menstruate until they are 16...there are other growth & development issues as well.
> 
> HL



I can understand that.  I went to school in peterborough where it seemed everyother teenage girl was pregnant (or had an infant).  Now what i really want to know is how many of those 14 year old girls you've seen being split ear to ear were impregnated by someone who was more than 5 years older than them?  And how many were 10 years older etc?  I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the fathers were within a few years of the girls age.  How is this law going to prevent those girls from getting pregnant?  Wouldn't it be smarter to invest in proper sexual education and give the girls greater access to birth control and education and STI testing, than to make what they're doing a crime?  

Oh and please accept my apologies for the delay in my reply... been busy these past couple weeks.

I also wonder if there really is an epidemic of older men going after young girls?  But of course I suppose it all depends on your perspective.  I'm sure many here would say one 25 year old sleeping with a 14 year old is an epidemic, while others would say it isn't.  
I've been thinking about this for a while and I think my main problem with it is that the Federal government is trying to legislate morality.  And that once they start here what are they going to go after next?  If its wrong for a 15 year old to sleep with a 25 year old, then will it someday be wrong for a 17 year old to sleep with a 27 year old?  And what it really boils down to  is what exactly is the difference between a 14 year old and 16 year old, or more accurately a 15 year old and 16 year old?


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I also wonder if there really is an epidemic of older men going after young girls?  But of course I suppose it all depends on your perspective.  I'm sure many here would say one 25 year old sleeping with a 14 year old is an epidemic, while others would say it isn't.
> I've been thinking about this for a while and I think my main problem with it is that the Federal government is trying to legislate morality.  And that once they start here what are they going to go after next?  If its wrong for a 15 year old to sleep with a 25 year old, then will it someday be wrong for a 17 year old to sleep with a 27 year old?  And what it really boils down to  is what exactly is the difference between a 14 year old and 16 year old, or more accurately a 15 year old and 16 year old?


At present, as long as the girl is 14 and is supposedly consenting, the police have no tools to deal with it. This gives them the tools to deal with the pedophiles.

As to what the difference between a 14 year old and a 16 year old....maturity. For the most part, the 16 year old will not base her decisions on the same criteria as the 14 year old. It's amazing what the 2 years does for decision making. 

The law is not intended to make moral judgements on young people having consensual sex. Its' focus is to stop much older men or women from taking advantage of the immaturity of a 14 or 15 year old.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> But it does make them the responsible adult, therefore it could be argued that they are the de facto guardian, and have violated that responsibility.  Well...it's an argument, probably wouldn't hold up in court, but would like to see someone take a run at it, if only to diminish that defense that "I was just helping out"



A person in a position of trust and authority can be many things.  A baby sitter, a step parent, a doctor, a coach, a priest.  They don't have to be living together, just the young person has to perceive that the older person has an authoritative influence over them.  



			
				Sheerin said:
			
		

> I can understand that.  I went to school in peterborough where it seemed everyother teenage girl was pregnant (or had an infant).  Now what i really want to know is how many of those 14 year old girls you've seen being split ear to ear were impregnated by someone who was more than 5 years older than them?  And how many were 10 years older etc?  I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the fathers were within a few years of the girls age.  How is this law going to prevent those girls from getting pregnant?  Wouldn't it be smarter to invest in proper sexual education and give the girls greater access to birth control and education and STI testing, than to make what they're doing a crime?



This isn't an issue of sex education or unwanted births.  Those are issues, but not this issue.  The question at hand is one of exploitation.  Sex ed and birth control are social support concerns.  We are talking about law enforcement.  



			
				Sheerin said:
			
		

> I also wonder if there really is an epidemic of older men going after young girls?  But of course I suppose it all depends on your perspective.  I'm sure many here would say one 25 year old sleeping with a 14 year old is an epidemic, while others would say it isn't.



I take it the only time you use your computer is for this site?  And you don't read the paper or watch TV?  There is most certainly an epidemic of older men trying to get into young girls (and boys too).  Chat rooms are crammed with creeps trying to groom children over the internet for sexual purpose.  



			
				Sheerin said:
			
		

> I've been thinking about this for a while and I think my main problem with it is that the Federal government is trying to legislate morality.  And that once they start here what are they going to go after next?  If its wrong for a 15 year old to sleep with a 25 year old, then will it someday be wrong for a 17 year old to sleep with a 27 year old?  And what it really boils down to  is what exactly is the difference between a 14 year old and 16 year old, or more accurately a 15 year old and 16 year old?



You are really going to argue "slippery slope" against protecting children from sexual predators?  I'm not even going to try to rebut that.


----------



## couchcommander (8 Jul 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I've been thinking about this for a while and I think my main problem with it is that the Federal government is trying to legislate morality.  And that once they start here what are they going to go after next?  If its wrong for a 15 year old to sleep with a 25 year old, then will it someday be wrong for a 17 year old to sleep with a 27 year old?  And what it really boils down to  is what exactly is the difference between a 14 year old and 16 year old, or more accurately a 15 year old and 16 year old?



Sheerin,

A close read of the legislation would do you well. They have taken considerable measures to ensure that adolenscents within the same age range (i.e. +/- 5 years) will not be criminalised. What they are preventing, however, is an act which most of us have been socialized to perceive as being deviant - which is the basis of most of our laws. 

You'll be hard pressed to find firm "moral" grounding in anything we do, you'll just have to accept it's a normative decision, one which I, and a vast majority of people support. Thus, in the sense that society has declared it such, it is the "moral" action - but for no other reason than the people with the biggest stick think it is (kind of the basis of all "morality"). 

In the end, various theories on cognitive development don't really support the distinction between a 14 year olds decision making capacity and a 16 year olds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget). My girlfriend tells me (she's into developmental psychology) that many people will never reach the highest levels of reasoning, and that further most people cannot even begin to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions until their twenties (your brain just isn't developed enough). If we were to base our legislation on the research, sex, drinking, or any other really risky action should be differed to our guardians until such time.


----------



## Fry (10 Jul 2006)

Wow, quite a bit of discussion here on a topic that (as mentioned before), shouldn't have any complaints at all. However, I do have one complaint, I'm just curious as to why it isn't raised to 18, like everything else. I mean, hell, when you're 18, what you do is your own business, but at 16... Only a couple of years, but still. In my opinion, they're still kids at 16. Big kids, but kids. 

I think the age gap (mentality wise) from 16 to 18 or even 19 is far more significant here than 14-16.


----------

