5 ms·

Minors cannot consent because they can be convinced by someone more mature. Here's a simple example: let's say a 20 year old wants to have sex with a two year o

Minors cannot consent because they can be convinced by someone more mature. Here's a simple example: let's say a 20 year old wants to have sex with a two year old. Would you accept that the two year old consented because the 20 year old got them to say "yes"? The natural next question is, "where's the line?" A 20 year old and a two year old is obviously wrong, but a 25 year old and a 75 year old seems okay, if a bit weird. And yes, not every person the same age has the same amount of experience and maturity. But here's the thing: the law can't take that into account. The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it. And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot. Just like one day makes the difference between being able to vote, or drink, or get a driver's license.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
You didn’t address the case where two kids of the same age had sex. If the law cannot take that into account, both are responsible of a crime. Also many states have age difference exceptions as well (so an 18 year old can have sex with a consenting 17 year old); the federal government most definitely has this (4 year delta).
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  I'm not trying to comprehensively define what does and does not qualify as statutory rape, just explain the general logic behind "minors cannot consent".
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    But you misrepresented the legal mechanism as lacking any exceptions. That clearly isn’t true.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      I'm sure there's plenty I've omitted; again, I'm explaining why "minors cannot consent", not trying to comprehensively describe statutory rape laws in the U.S.
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        No, you specifically said: > The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it. But that isn’t true in reality for kids/adults close in age, nor is it a fixed line for every jurisdiction in the states. You actually have to know the law.
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        >> The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it. > But that isn’t true in reality for kids/adults close in age, nor is it a fixed line for every jurisdiction in the states. You actually have to know the law. Of course you have to know the law. But the law is well-defined, and you can figure out with 100% certainty whether you'd be breaking local statutory rape laws given your age and your partner's. I suppose it's possible that there exists an unclear statutory rape law somewhere in the world, but most laws are written to avoid ambiguity. Can you cite a U.S. statutory rape law where it would be ambiguous whether or not sex qualifies as rape given the parties' ages?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        Many states have exceptions for people who are married, also age isn’t the only factor that is taken into account (mental ability is as well). There are a lot of little things like that in these laws, but the biggest one is if you go inter jurisdictional (or even extra territorial) and federal law becomes involved (must be under 16, 4+ year age difference). Anyways, given that the girl Minsky allegedly slept with was 17, I’m not sure why the underage argument came into play at all given what I know about federal law, at least. But then IANAL. Anyways, all the articles I’ve read about Minsky in this affair say trafficking was involved but not specifically child trafficking, so I wonder if the fed’s case was based more around the trafficking and coercion aspects and not the ages of the girls involved Also, another thing to consider: age of consent is often different when prostitution is involved, so guy could have legal consensual sex with a 16 year old, but not if they or someone else paid for it.
  - 007435throwaway 7y ago
    Do you also agree that minors should never be charged as adults if they commit heinous crimes?
- objectivetruth 7y ago
  Parent didn't address it because it doesn't need to be addressed. In most states, the law is not written "it's illegal to have sex with a 15-year-old PERIOD." Instead, the law is usually "it's illegal FOR AN ADULT to have sex with a 15-year-old." You are correct that -- for states that a) don't have the "for an adult" clause and b) don't have "Romeo & Juliet" clause -- the law as written DOES imply both kids are guilty. And I'd bet the cost of a nice dinner that, in some of those jurisdictions, both kids in a case like that WERE charged.
- eesmith 7y ago
  It should have been "Minors cannot consent, with few limited exceptions", or "minors below the age of consent for the sexual relationship they are having cannot consent." Two common exceptions are: 1) similarity in age, and 2) sex with spouse, if married. Exceptions can have their own exceptions. For example, if a 17 year old has sex with a 25 year old, it may be legal for an exception based on similarity in age. However, the law may also prohibit that exception if there is sex between a teacher and a student in the teacher's class. So martinky24 was wrong in writing "Minor's cannot consent". It's an understandable wrong, as those exceptions aren't really that relevant to the topic at hand. But jelliclesfarm is also wrong in thinking the argument is that minors are "non-beings". Minors are beings with fewer freedoms than adults. Depending on their age, they can be forced to attend school and to follow juvenile curfew laws. They can be prevented from purchasing alcohol, and from driving vehicles, or having a full-time job. All of these remove some of their free agency. Just like restrictions on who minors are free to have sex with.
- megous 7y ago
  Here, two 15 year olds can have sex, legally. 15 year old and 17.9 year old can have sex. 15 and 18 can't, but do, because the law is demented - if you have two partners, say 15 and 17, as they age, they will first be able to legally have sex, then for a few years they will not, until again, they will.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> But here's the thing: the law can't take that into account. Why? > The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it. Why does that need a "bright and clear line"? There are plenty of things that are illegal where there is no "bright and clear line" in that same sense, and that seems to work just fine, and actually even better in many cases. Like, I dunno, tax fraud is in principle tax fraud even at a single cent, but it's absolutely not "you paid all the taxes you owed, you are fine, you under-reported one cent of your income, now you lose your job and go to jail". > And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot. Which seems to be the case. Now, why is that a good approach? > Just like one day makes the difference between being able to vote, or drink, or get a driver's license. So, maybe we should fix those as well? Why shouldn't you get a fractional vote starting at age 10, increasing linearly to a full vote at 18, say?
- objectivetruth 7y ago
  As parent said, there needs to be a "bright and clear line." We don't give 12-year-olds a 2/3 fractional vote because a) that introduces a ton of complexity for not much gain, and because b) children are essentially legally "owned" by their parents so the odds of their compulsion to vote a certain way rise dramatically. (Some people didn't want to give women suffrage last century because they figured it would just double the exact ratio of the existing men's vote tallies. And now a century later we have wives that still vote only to please their husband.) Some things might work -- I don't think this would fly in the US but maybe you could allow 19-year-olds to buy beer (not liquor) like in some states in the 70s. But how does that work for kids and sex? You want to embed the "first base, second base" junior high sex metaphor into the LAW? A 19-year-old can fondle a 16-year-old's breasts but not her genitals? Again: "bright" and "clear" have legal and common-sense context here.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > We don't give 12-year-olds a 2/3 fractional vote because a) that introduces a ton of complexity for not much gain Which might be true or not, but in any case does not support the claim that it is somehow inherently impossible. > and because b) children are essentially legally "owned" by their parents so the odds of their compulsion to vote a certain way rise dramatically. Well, no, children are not in any sense of the word owned by their parents. Compulsion should not be possible in any sane voting system, as elections are secret. What remains is that chances are that the younger a person, the more their parents tend to have influence over their decisionmaking, which might be a reason to limit their ability to vote accordingly. But you might have noticed that people don't switch from "no clue how to make an independent decision" to "completely mature and independent" on their 18th birthday? So, if your goal is to limit their political influence according to their independence/maturity, why is a hard cut-off at 18 the best solution? > Some people didn't want to give women suffrage last century because they figured it would just double the exact ratio of the existing men's vote tallies. Which is obviously a bullshit argument? You don't want to change who can vote because you fear that it won't change the result of the election? And the solution is to make sure that the result of the election doesn't change? Wut? > And now a century later we have wives that still vote only to please their husband. See above, secret ballot and all that. > But how does that work for kids and sex? Well, the claim was that the difference between "17 years and 364 days" and "18 years" was not a meaningful difference in reality (I would agree), but that somehow it was impossible to make a law that takes that into consideration, and so we don't have any other choice but to have a law that maps one of those to no consequences at all while the other is life-ruining. Which is obviously bullshit, as you obviously trivially can make a law that specifies that the punishment, say, linearily increases from none at 18 years to whatever the maximum is at 14 or whatever. That would be perfectly objective criteria that statistically map much better to the actual lack of maturity of the victim, without any hard cut-off where insignificant differences in the facts of the matter (and thus honest mistakes) result in massively diverging consequences.
jelliclesfarm 7y ago
Right. I hear you with the 20 year old wanting to have sex with a 2 year old. Is a measure of puberty sufficient to give consent? I am not saying that it is..but perhaps it’s closer to a better situation. Older societies had coming of age ceremonies and welcoming pre pubescents into young adulthood. Perhaps there was more value in the old traditions and rituals that we have given up in our modern times. It clarified to a young adult the changes that happen physically and hormonally..an opportunity to talk about things and take personal responsibility. A responsibility that means freedom as well as risk. I am just throwing this out there..we have handed over societal bonding over to the state and legal system. It has certainly made us weak. And allowed more predation of the truly vulnerable while curtailing the freedom of those who are aware of risks and responsibilities.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Cool, we're on the same page with "minors cannot give consent" for at least some definition of "minor". > Is a measure of puberty sufficient to give consent? I am not saying that it is..but perhaps it’s closer to a better situation. The problem is, how do we measure "sufficient"? If we just mean people's opinions, we can be more nuanced — for example, I think a grown person who has sex with an 18 year old is just as gross as one who has sex with a 17 year old, but I don't have an exact line in my head as to when it would become okay. Everyone's exact line will differ, and that's okay too! On the other hand, if the law is trying to measure "sufficient", then we need something objective because people need to know when they would be breaking it. "Puberty" is pretty squishy — for example, do we count when a boy's voice deepens? When he starts growing facial hair? Whereas if we measure an objective fact like age, then if I know that fact I can be 100% sure whether or not I'm allowed to have sex with this person. I agree with you that age an imperfect measure of maturity, which is what we really care about. But it seems to be the best measure we can come up with that's both objective and correlated.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

You didn’t address the case where two kids of the same age had sex. If the law cannot take that into account, both are responsible of a crime. Also many states have age difference exceptions as well (so an 18 year old can have sex with a consenting 17 year old); the federal government most definitely has this (4 year delta).

jakelazaroff 7y ago
I'm not trying to comprehensively define what does and does not qualify as statutory rape, just explain the general logic behind "minors cannot consent".
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  But you misrepresented the legal mechanism as lacking any exceptions. That clearly isn’t true.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    I'm sure there's plenty I've omitted; again, I'm explaining why "minors cannot consent", not trying to comprehensively describe statutory rape laws in the U.S.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      No, you specifically said: > The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it. But that isn’t true in reality for kids/adults close in age, nor is it a fixed line for every jurisdiction in the states. You actually have to know the law.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        >> The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it. > But that isn’t true in reality for kids/adults close in age, nor is it a fixed line for every jurisdiction in the states. You actually have to know the law. Of course you have to know the law. But the law is well-defined, and you can figure out with 100% certainty whether you'd be breaking local statutory rape laws given your age and your partner's. I suppose it's possible that there exists an unclear statutory rape law somewhere in the world, but most laws are written to avoid ambiguity. Can you cite a U.S. statutory rape law where it would be ambiguous whether or not sex qualifies as rape given the parties' ages?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        Many states have exceptions for people who are married, also age isn’t the only factor that is taken into account (mental ability is as well). There are a lot of little things like that in these laws, but the biggest one is if you go inter jurisdictional (or even extra territorial) and federal law becomes involved (must be under 16, 4+ year age difference). Anyways, given that the girl Minsky allegedly slept with was 17, I’m not sure why the underage argument came into play at all given what I know about federal law, at least. But then IANAL. Anyways, all the articles I’ve read about Minsky in this affair say trafficking was involved but not specifically child trafficking, so I wonder if the fed’s case was based more around the trafficking and coercion aspects and not the ages of the girls involved Also, another thing to consider: age of consent is often different when prostitution is involved, so guy could have legal consensual sex with a 16 year old, but not if they or someone else paid for it.
- 007435throwaway 7y ago
  Do you also agree that minors should never be charged as adults if they commit heinous crimes?
objectivetruth 7y ago
Parent didn't address it because it doesn't need to be addressed. In most states, the law is not written "it's illegal to have sex with a 15-year-old PERIOD." Instead, the law is usually "it's illegal FOR AN ADULT to have sex with a 15-year-old." You are correct that -- for states that a) don't have the "for an adult" clause and b) don't have "Romeo & Juliet" clause -- the law as written DOES imply both kids are guilty. And I'd bet the cost of a nice dinner that, in some of those jurisdictions, both kids in a case like that WERE charged.
eesmith 7y ago
It should have been "Minors cannot consent, with few limited exceptions", or "minors below the age of consent for the sexual relationship they are having cannot consent." Two common exceptions are: 1) similarity in age, and 2) sex with spouse, if married. Exceptions can have their own exceptions. For example, if a 17 year old has sex with a 25 year old, it may be legal for an exception based on similarity in age. However, the law may also prohibit that exception if there is sex between a teacher and a student in the teacher's class. So martinky24 was wrong in writing "Minor's cannot consent". It's an understandable wrong, as those exceptions aren't really that relevant to the topic at hand. But jelliclesfarm is also wrong in thinking the argument is that minors are "non-beings". Minors are beings with fewer freedoms than adults. Depending on their age, they can be forced to attend school and to follow juvenile curfew laws. They can be prevented from purchasing alcohol, and from driving vehicles, or having a full-time job. All of these remove some of their free agency. Just like restrictions on who minors are free to have sex with.
megous 7y ago
Here, two 15 year olds can have sex, legally. 15 year old and 17.9 year old can have sex. 15 and 18 can't, but do, because the law is demented - if you have two partners, say 15 and 17, as they age, they will first be able to legally have sex, then for a few years they will not, until again, they will.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

> But here's the thing: the law can't take that into account. Why? > The law needs a bright and clear line, so you can know how not to break it. Why does that need a "bright and clear line"? There are plenty of things that are illegal where there is no "bright and clear line" in that same sense, and that seems to work just fine, and actually even better in many cases. Like, I dunno, tax fraud is in principle tax fraud even at a single cent, but it's absolutely not "you paid all the taxes you owed, you are fine, you under-reported one cent of your income, now you lose your job and go to jail". > And so even though there's not really a difference between 17 years 364 days vs. 18 years, one can consent to sex with an adult while the other cannot. Which seems to be the case. Now, why is that a good approach? > Just like one day makes the difference between being able to vote, or drink, or get a driver's license. So, maybe we should fix those as well? Why shouldn't you get a fractional vote starting at age 10, increasing linearly to a full vote at 18, say?

objectivetruth 7y ago
As parent said, there needs to be a "bright and clear line." We don't give 12-year-olds a 2/3 fractional vote because a) that introduces a ton of complexity for not much gain, and because b) children are essentially legally "owned" by their parents so the odds of their compulsion to vote a certain way rise dramatically. (Some people didn't want to give women suffrage last century because they figured it would just double the exact ratio of the existing men's vote tallies. And now a century later we have wives that still vote only to please their husband.) Some things might work -- I don't think this would fly in the US but maybe you could allow 19-year-olds to buy beer (not liquor) like in some states in the 70s. But how does that work for kids and sex? You want to embed the "first base, second base" junior high sex metaphor into the LAW? A 19-year-old can fondle a 16-year-old's breasts but not her genitals? Again: "bright" and "clear" have legal and common-sense context here.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > We don't give 12-year-olds a 2/3 fractional vote because a) that introduces a ton of complexity for not much gain Which might be true or not, but in any case does not support the claim that it is somehow inherently impossible. > and because b) children are essentially legally "owned" by their parents so the odds of their compulsion to vote a certain way rise dramatically. Well, no, children are not in any sense of the word owned by their parents. Compulsion should not be possible in any sane voting system, as elections are secret. What remains is that chances are that the younger a person, the more their parents tend to have influence over their decisionmaking, which might be a reason to limit their ability to vote accordingly. But you might have noticed that people don't switch from "no clue how to make an independent decision" to "completely mature and independent" on their 18th birthday? So, if your goal is to limit their political influence according to their independence/maturity, why is a hard cut-off at 18 the best solution? > Some people didn't want to give women suffrage last century because they figured it would just double the exact ratio of the existing men's vote tallies. Which is obviously a bullshit argument? You don't want to change who can vote because you fear that it won't change the result of the election? And the solution is to make sure that the result of the election doesn't change? Wut? > And now a century later we have wives that still vote only to please their husband. See above, secret ballot and all that. > But how does that work for kids and sex? Well, the claim was that the difference between "17 years and 364 days" and "18 years" was not a meaningful difference in reality (I would agree), but that somehow it was impossible to make a law that takes that into consideration, and so we don't have any other choice but to have a law that maps one of those to no consequences at all while the other is life-ruining. Which is obviously bullshit, as you obviously trivially can make a law that specifies that the punishment, say, linearily increases from none at 18 years to whatever the maximum is at 14 or whatever. That would be perfectly objective criteria that statistically map much better to the actual lack of maturity of the victim, without any hard cut-off where insignificant differences in the facts of the matter (and thus honest mistakes) result in massively diverging consequences.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago

Right. I hear you with the 20 year old wanting to have sex with a 2 year old. Is a measure of puberty sufficient to give consent? I am not saying that it is..but perhaps it’s closer to a better situation. Older societies had coming of age ceremonies and welcoming pre pubescents into young adulthood. Perhaps there was more value in the old traditions and rituals that we have given up in our modern times. It clarified to a young adult the changes that happen physically and hormonally..an opportunity to talk about things and take personal responsibility. A responsibility that means freedom as well as risk. I am just throwing this out there..we have handed over societal bonding over to the state and legal system. It has certainly made us weak. And allowed more predation of the truly vulnerable while curtailing the freedom of those who are aware of risks and responsibilities.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
Cool, we're on the same page with "minors cannot give consent" for at least some definition of "minor". > Is a measure of puberty sufficient to give consent? I am not saying that it is..but perhaps it’s closer to a better situation. The problem is, how do we measure "sufficient"? If we just mean people's opinions, we can be more nuanced — for example, I think a grown person who has sex with an 18 year old is just as gross as one who has sex with a 17 year old, but I don't have an exact line in my head as to when it would become okay. Everyone's exact line will differ, and that's okay too! On the other hand, if the law is trying to measure "sufficient", then we need something objective because people need to know when they would be breaking it. "Puberty" is pretty squishy — for example, do we count when a boy's voice deepens? When he starts growing facial hair? Whereas if we measure an objective fact like age, then if I know that fact I can be 100% sure whether or not I'm allowed to have sex with this person. I agree with you that age an imperfect measure of maturity, which is what we really care about. But it seems to be the best measure we can come up with that's both objective and correlated.