Should Roman Polanski be extradited?

[lordpasternack]

Wrong. And your bias is obvious. A line drawn is arbitrary, but at least the 16-18 lines have some defensible basis on simple biology. Most thirteen year olds are incapable of informed consent, even with education. It's called the naivety of youth.

I'm sure many 13 year olds would disagree with you. Not to mention many older people who remember being 13.

I'm sure they would, and they'd be wrong. So very wrong.

With what authority do you assert this?

[Trolldor]

The example was to highlight the problem with amibiguous laws, such as the idea that we should have a 'flexible' age of consent.

The man was let off because the definition of consent meant that because she had an orgasm, because she 'enjoyed it', he could reasonably say she had consented. How do you demonstrate someone is capable of giving informed consent? A thirteen year old is more than capable of describing sex on both a biological and emotional level, but that doesn't mean they are emotionally able to deal with the reality.

With what authority do you assert this?

Simple. They're kids. I didn't use to understand such a simplistic argument, but when you spend some time in an environment where you have to engage them, you begin to understand a lot on how they think. And most importantly on how they don't think. If you say the right words to a self-conscious thirteen year old girl, you can own her. A grown woman can also easily be manipulated, but she is more likely to question the motives of someone.
As for thirteen year old guys, well they don't need to be manipulated - just say you're up for it and they'll be leg humping you before you're finished. But a few can be manipulated in to unhealthy relationships if the environment is right.
Yes, adults are subject to the same risks, but at the very least we can protect children from having to go through the pain of making a stupid mistake. They can wait till sixteen at the very least. If their relationship is so damn real, so damn sincere, they can damn well wait. They'll still have 64 years of their life after and can spend every day fucking everyone that'll have them if they want, but until then they should be protected.

[lordpasternack]

The example was to highlight the problem with amibiguous laws, such as the idea that we should have a 'flexible' age of consent.The man was let off because the definition of consent meant that because she had an orgasm, because she 'enjoyed it', he could reasonably say she had consented.

I consider it quite a false, or at least mucky analogy, actually. And I don't think that the law was actually ambiguous in the first place, as opposed to simply not addressing some pertinent factors at all in the first place - such as making the distinction between physical pleasure elicited fromt the act and true prior consent.

How do you demonstrate someone is capable of giving informed consent?

Good question. This applies at whatever arbitrary level you place the age of consent at. And as I have repeatedly stated - even where there has to be a line drawn in the sand - the law could do well to recognise the victimless crimes for what they are, and only dole out paltry punishments for them.

A thirteen year old is more than capable of describing sex on both a biological and emotional level, but that doesn't mean they are emotionally able to deal with the reality.

The reality of wanting and receiving a good consensual non-coercive shag? Forgive my flippancy - but the only 'reality' that I consider worth protecting underage teens from is potential coercive and abusive sexual relationships that they are likely to be more vulnerable to. They don't need protecting from sex, per se, IMHO. If they are involved in a relationship where the potential for abuse has been verified as not having been realised, where the sexual activity is non-coercive and consensual - then it is by definition a victimless crime. And it should be dealt with as a victimless crime.

With what authority do you assert this?

Simple. They're kids. I didn't use to understand such a simplistic argument, but when you spend some time in an environment where you have to engage them, you begin to understand a lot on how they think. And most importantly on how they don't think. If you say the right words to a self-conscious thirteen year old girl, you can own her. A grown woman can also easily be manipulated, but she is more likely to question the motives of someone.

As for thirteen year old guys, well they don't need to be manipulated - just say you're up for it and they'll be leg humping you before you're finished. But a few can be manipulated in to unhealthy relationships if the environment is right.

Right - but that still isn't quantifiable. I could go and speak with some 13yo girls and boys and reach a totally different conclusion from you. There needs to be some quantifiable data, based on tangible gauges of vulnerability to sexual abuse, in this, and not just collated intuition.

...If their relationship is so damn real, so damn sincere, they can damn well wait..

Which is why people should not have sex before marriage, either.

Seriously, it's just a non-argument in the first place. And even if their relationships aren't real or sincere, and they just want a bang: if it's consensual and non-coercive it's still a victimless crime.

[Trolldor]

marriage

Is a legal contract, not equatable to the emotional or intellectual capacity to provide reasonably informed consent.
Secondly, the law is not there to protect those who are unaffected, it's there to provide for those who are. Most thirteen year olds aren't emotionally able to provide informed consent, most won't be affected anyway, but there are still some who are. The law is there because not everybody can protect or provide for themselves. The age of consent is there to protect children who can not protect themselves.

[lordpasternack]

marriage

Is a legal contract, not equatable to the emotional or intellectual capacity to provide reasonably informed consent.

This is an extraneous tangent - I was only making a remark in response to your "they should wait" non-argument... And in any case, marriage is indeed a contract that one does require to be informed about to sign one's name against it...

Secondly, the law is not there to protect those who are unaffected, it's there to provide for those who are.

Precisely why there should be some distinction made as to where there is abuse and coercion and where there is not. There are going to be victimless crimes - and they deserve to be treated as victimless crimes, with petty penalties to match the nature of the indiscretion.

Most thirteen year olds aren't emotionally able to provide informed consent, most won't be affected anyway, but there are still some who are.

We still haven't adequately quantified the comparitive mental and emotional states of average or exceptional 13-year-olds, so stop pretending that we have.

And what exactly is "informed consent", and why does one have to be "emotionally able" to provide it?

My own personal stance is positioned with less weight placed on the idea of "informed consent", and a little more weight on mental resilience against being coerced and abused sexually. You don't need emotional and mental maturity to consent to and enjoy sexual activities - but you do need it to ward off potential abuse in that area. And as I said - I don't believe that minors need protecting from sex - but from sexual abuse.

The law is there because not everybody can protect or provide for themselves. The age of consent is there to protect children who can not protect themselves.

And I have never disputed this.

[Trolldor]

A law has to be specific, but it can not be variable, that's all there is to it. You can't make a law which says "except in, and when this" - that's the purpose of common law, Judge discretion. The law is there as a basis on which the judicial system operates, and sets the framework on which to operate. The age of consent must be a single age, and it must be reasonably balanced between the stages of child and adult. Thirteen is too young because many thirteen year olds are simply not emotionally developed. They are too focused on the moment, lack foresight, and have a dense naive romanticism or careless indifference. You might be able to show me a classroom of thirteen year olds who might be mature enough, and for every one of the children in that class I could show you a whole class room that isn't.
And, by the by, saying thirteen year olds should have the right to have empty sex is boring, and the biggest non-argument you could possibly ever venture to make.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

And in Yemen, it's 9.

Actually, in Yemen there is no age of consent as such. It is legal to be married at 9 years old with the parent's (read father's) consent but sex outside of marriage is illegal for everyone, irrespective of age, gender, nationality or sexual orientation.

[Animavore]

Bump.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

A law has to be specific, but it can not be variable, that's all there is to it. You can't make a law which says "except in, and when this" - that's the purpose of common law, Judge discretion. The law is there as a basis on which the judicial system operates, and sets the framework on which to operate.

(my emphasis)

Laws can be variable and in fact must be if they are to be workable - laws routinely provide exceptions, mitigating circumstances and scope for discretion on the part of the judge. In fact, US law with regard to 'age of consent' is extremely flexible. In California, the state in question in this case, it is less so than many states but even here it states that

the age of consent is 18, with a misdemeanor if the minor has 3 or fewer years of difference with the major. Penalties increase if the minor is under 16 and the major is above 21 or if the minor is more than 3 years younger.

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_co ... California

But the real point that I wish to make here is that, whatever the law states, it must be operated fairly. That includes honouring any plea-bargain that is made. To do otherwise renders the whole system of plea-bargaining unworkable. How many murderers would plead guilty in return for a guarantee that the death penalty would not be employed if the judge could change his mind afterwards? The judge in this case made a mockery of legal impartiality.

The age of consent must be a single age, and it must be reasonably balanced between the stages of child and adult.

This is NOT the case in California. Legally married persons below 18 from other states or countries are quite within their rights to fuck as often as they wish. There is no such concept as 'age of consent' in US law, British law, or the laws of most countries, merely laws pertaining to unlawful sexual congress, marriageable age, statutory rape, etc. There are effectively many ages of consent depending on circumstance: married/unmarried, whether the older party is in a position of responsibility over the younger, gay/straight, etc.

Thirteen is too young because many thirteen year olds are simply not emotionally developed. They are too focused on the moment, lack foresight, and have a dense naive romanticism or careless indifference. You might be able to show me a classroom of thirteen year olds who might be mature enough, and for every one of the children in that class I could show you a whole class room that isn't.

Purely your subjective opinion. There are whole countries that disagree with you.

And, by the by, saying thirteen year olds should have the right to have empty sex is boring, and the biggest non-argument you could possibly ever venture to make.

Not only subjective but grossly patronising to 13 year olds as well. You are implying that sex at 13 is, by definition, 'empty'? I can only presume that, in saying that, you are implying that it is purely physical and lacks any emotional content? Bullshit. A 13 year old is as capable of falling in love as anyone of any age. Personally, I haven't found any of the sex that I have had to be empty - I can only assume that that is because I started when I was older than 13.

[lordpasternack]

BAA - you are totally and utterly ignoring some of my points, and are merely reiterating arguments and assertions that I've already responded to quite well. I have no desire to continue to in such pointlessness. Please, if you have a worthy response to some of the subtle points that I've made - make it. If not, I have nothing more to say to you.