The legal definition says it is the age at which someone has the legal right to agree to something, usually used to describe the age at which a minor is legally entitled to make decision on whether they engage in sexual activities or not.
That being said, there are a lot of questions surrounding the rights of minors to make this choice, and around exactly what age someone can have that right, and of course- who's business it is.
All good questions. And, depending on what side of the fence you are standing on, all have very different answers.
As parents, I can imagine that most of us would be willing to raise the age to past full adulthood, have guidelines demanding that our children be married, have completed college, and be financially stable- before they are even allowed that first kiss.
Recalling our own youthful teenage years... it's understandable to know that many of our children think they should be able to make whatever choices they want and do whatever they want, almost as soon they realised that they have acquired the ability to reach the cookie jar. Or when it comes to sex, as soon as they have come to the conclusion that they may want to engage in it.
But, what is actually best for our kids? And who can really make that conclusion?
Yesterday I was passed a story about a group of underage girls who willingly engaged in sexual relations with an adult, which I wrote about. The girls where between 15 and 17, and the man was under 20. One of the girls even videoed the encounter. The judge in the case first refused to impose a sentence on the man relating to the felony counts against him for the sexual encounters. His belief was that the girls involved "consented" to the behavior.
In reality, the girls willingly participated in the sexual relationship. They even went as far as to encourage it. Now, you're saying "but Lilo, if they were willing to engage in the sex, then the judge was right... they consented". But they didn't because the law does not give them that right. The problem is that the law in Wisconsin the legal age of consent is 17. So, by state law.. the girls could not have consented.
The state attorney general's office intervened by securing a court order requiring the judge to proceed with sentencing... so he did. But then, in a show of "oh, how dare you go against me", the judge proceeded... and stayed the sentence for one hundred years.
Was he wrong? Yes, because whether he likes it or not- his job is to follow the law- not attempt to write it. Which in reality is what he is trying to do. If he disagrees with the laws on the books, he has the same right as the rest of us to contact his law makers and attempt tp convince them of the need to change the statues. He has the right to step down from his bench and refuse to participate in the judicial procedures- citing his disagreeance with the laws. He can go door to door and have petitions signed showing his contempt for the law as it stands. But he didn't do any of that. Instead, he decided to play both the role of the judicial branch and the legislative branch of government. And that my friends, is wrong.
As to the first questions I posed... what age should consent be acceptable, and who should make that decision, well those are difficult issues. Do I believe a 12 year old have the mental maturity to make well informed choices about sex? NO, but then I also know a few 30 somethings that don't have that ability either. How about 17 year old? Well, it's a loaded question. It depends entirely on the 17 year old in question, but more often than not- the answer is a bit fat NOPE. Think about it... is that 17 year old neighbor boy that's been eyeing your daughter thinking with his head, or with his hormones? But, there are exceptions. Unfortunately, the laws can not be developed on a case by case basis. So we have to agree on sensible, basic guidelines in which we hold everyone accountable.
If forced, I'd say the the age of consent be set- on a national level but through agreeance between states and not as a federal mandate- at 17, with a two year window of allowance. Meaning a 17 year old could consent to sexual relations with a 19 year old- but not a 20 year old. I'm not going to get into depth on my reasons for this conclusion at this time. But that's my thoughts on it.
All of that being said, it leads me back to the fact that these girls willingly engaged in sexual relations with this young man. What they did was also illegal. They should have been charged with conspiracy to commit a crime. Harsh, yes. But, as the judge concluded- these girls willingly engaged in sex with this man. They were old enough to understand that statutory laws could be applied, and yet- they conspired, and encouraged this man to commit these crimes.
Today's youth have a certain air about them, with every generation young people become more bold in efforts to prove themselves to be mature adults, teenagers constantly demand more and more rights, and in granting them those rights- we most also balance them with consequences. Not one person involved in this case made even a halfway decent decision.
In all fairness, young people are often more susceptible to peer pressure, and to negative influences, they are vulnerable to suggestion. I believe that they deserve some sort of reprimand for their actions in this particular case- but not to the same degree that I believe the adult should be held accountable. All parties took part in breaking the law, and all should be fairly punished for that.
This is a hard case, because the girls willingly participated, and yet are not able to legally consent to having sex with the man. He should have known better... they should have known better- but even more, the judge should have known better. Standing all parties next to one another, Kirk holds the most responsiblity. Because he was aware of the law, and the the obligation to follow it. That is what he is on the bench to do, not to pick and choose the laws he wants.
And that's my thoughts on it. Although, I am still free to add to them as I feel fit.
Categories: Misc,
That being said, there are a lot of questions surrounding the rights of minors to make this choice, and around exactly what age someone can have that right, and of course- who's business it is.
All good questions. And, depending on what side of the fence you are standing on, all have very different answers.
As parents, I can imagine that most of us would be willing to raise the age to past full adulthood, have guidelines demanding that our children be married, have completed college, and be financially stable- before they are even allowed that first kiss.
Recalling our own youthful teenage years... it's understandable to know that many of our children think they should be able to make whatever choices they want and do whatever they want, almost as soon they realised that they have acquired the ability to reach the cookie jar. Or when it comes to sex, as soon as they have come to the conclusion that they may want to engage in it.
But, what is actually best for our kids? And who can really make that conclusion?
Yesterday I was passed a story about a group of underage girls who willingly engaged in sexual relations with an adult, which I wrote about. The girls where between 15 and 17, and the man was under 20. One of the girls even videoed the encounter. The judge in the case first refused to impose a sentence on the man relating to the felony counts against him for the sexual encounters. His belief was that the girls involved "consented" to the behavior.
In reality, the girls willingly participated in the sexual relationship. They even went as far as to encourage it. Now, you're saying "but Lilo, if they were willing to engage in the sex, then the judge was right... they consented". But they didn't because the law does not give them that right. The problem is that the law in Wisconsin the legal age of consent is 17. So, by state law.. the girls could not have consented.
The state attorney general's office intervened by securing a court order requiring the judge to proceed with sentencing... so he did. But then, in a show of "oh, how dare you go against me", the judge proceeded... and stayed the sentence for one hundred years.
Was he wrong? Yes, because whether he likes it or not- his job is to follow the law- not attempt to write it. Which in reality is what he is trying to do. If he disagrees with the laws on the books, he has the same right as the rest of us to contact his law makers and attempt tp convince them of the need to change the statues. He has the right to step down from his bench and refuse to participate in the judicial procedures- citing his disagreeance with the laws. He can go door to door and have petitions signed showing his contempt for the law as it stands. But he didn't do any of that. Instead, he decided to play both the role of the judicial branch and the legislative branch of government. And that my friends, is wrong.
As to the first questions I posed... what age should consent be acceptable, and who should make that decision, well those are difficult issues. Do I believe a 12 year old have the mental maturity to make well informed choices about sex? NO, but then I also know a few 30 somethings that don't have that ability either. How about 17 year old? Well, it's a loaded question. It depends entirely on the 17 year old in question, but more often than not- the answer is a bit fat NOPE. Think about it... is that 17 year old neighbor boy that's been eyeing your daughter thinking with his head, or with his hormones? But, there are exceptions. Unfortunately, the laws can not be developed on a case by case basis. So we have to agree on sensible, basic guidelines in which we hold everyone accountable.
If forced, I'd say the the age of consent be set- on a national level but through agreeance between states and not as a federal mandate- at 17, with a two year window of allowance. Meaning a 17 year old could consent to sexual relations with a 19 year old- but not a 20 year old. I'm not going to get into depth on my reasons for this conclusion at this time. But that's my thoughts on it.
All of that being said, it leads me back to the fact that these girls willingly engaged in sexual relations with this young man. What they did was also illegal. They should have been charged with conspiracy to commit a crime. Harsh, yes. But, as the judge concluded- these girls willingly engaged in sex with this man. They were old enough to understand that statutory laws could be applied, and yet- they conspired, and encouraged this man to commit these crimes.
Today's youth have a certain air about them, with every generation young people become more bold in efforts to prove themselves to be mature adults, teenagers constantly demand more and more rights, and in granting them those rights- we most also balance them with consequences. Not one person involved in this case made even a halfway decent decision.
In all fairness, young people are often more susceptible to peer pressure, and to negative influences, they are vulnerable to suggestion. I believe that they deserve some sort of reprimand for their actions in this particular case- but not to the same degree that I believe the adult should be held accountable. All parties took part in breaking the law, and all should be fairly punished for that.
This is a hard case, because the girls willingly participated, and yet are not able to legally consent to having sex with the man. He should have known better... they should have known better- but even more, the judge should have known better. Standing all parties next to one another, Kirk holds the most responsiblity. Because he was aware of the law, and the the obligation to follow it. That is what he is on the bench to do, not to pick and choose the laws he wants.
And that's my thoughts on it. Although, I am still free to add to them as I feel fit.
Categories: Misc,
Comments
Perhaps the law should be written to include minors also break the law if they engage in sexual conduct and set an age window of say 15-17 years. There is something like that on the books in CA. I can't remember how it is written but it is made clear that minors break the law if they engage in sexual relations prior to their 18th birthday. I will research it if you wish.
The problem with age of consent laws is the following. If, as you explain, they have something to do with mental maturity, then the laws should prohibit any sexual relations until the Magic Age. But, of course, mental maturity is not their chief concern. Instead, they prohibit sexual congress between someone younger than the Age and someone older; maturity has nothing to do with it. They are not designed to prevent two immature people from having sex, as you suggest; instead, they are designed to discourage sexual contact between younger "immature" people and older people, "who should know better."
And which is worse: two immature people having sex legally and protected, or one "more mature" person having sex with someone who is "immature"? Certainly from an aggregated risk perspective, the former is more risky (emotions, STDs, pregnancy, etc.), assuming that maturity generally increases with age.
Fact is, American society has throughout its history expressed disdain for any kind of sexual relationship between female teenagers and older individuals. The quintessential American Girl has always been portrayed as being "pure" and "innocent" up until they turn the magic age of 18, and fathers have played the role of the Protector, a human chastity belt, if you will. It is from this notion that these laws were crafted. They are based on the preponderance of our society's moral views. Also, years ago, teenage sex was not as acknowledged or discussed, and information available to them was scant. However, as they say, times they are a'changin'. Teenagers are more active, contributing members of society and are often given adult-like responsibilities. And teenagers have sexual needs and desires just like adults do. In addition, information about sex and its consequences is more commonplace now than ever before. There is less of a need to protect teenagers from their own immaturity.
And what is the net effect of such laws? One could argue that if the law did not get involved, those involved in the case you cite would be happily going about their lives. Now, two of those involved are potentially facing jail time, and having to be demonized for the rest of their lives for having been indentifed as a sex ofender, potentially limiting their lifetime career prospects. All that for having a little (albeit risque) fun. For the teens that are "minors", the supposed victims of this heinous crime, they will have to live the rest of their teenage years trying to wrap their minds around how a little harmless fun with seemingly no one hurt could escalate to what this has become. Eh, nothing a little couseling can't fix....
I guess a lot in how you view this case has to do with your own personal views towards sex in general. If my future teenage daugter wants, at age 15, to have sex with a 20 year old guy, I would hope she would make these decisions in accordance with the wisdom I have instilled in her over the years. And I hope she would come to me if something went wrong. If I didn't like the guy, I would make that clear, but in the end it's just "consensual" sex. As long as she's happy, I'm happy. And if she's not happy, I will step in as a responsible parent and help her. If she's upset over it, she will get over it with a little positive nurturing. But it should't be criminal. Fathers and mothers need to get over themselves and recognize that teenagers have sex, and sometimes that sex is with older individuals. If handled by effective parenting, the law need not get involved.