4 ms·

> 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 tha

> 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.
jakelazaroff 7y ago
> 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". There is absolutely a bright and clear (albeit very complicated) line for tax fraud. The IRS probably won't go after you if you underpay by a penny — but you're still breaking the law if you do it intentionally. >> 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? Because — with regard to statutory rape — if I know someone's age I can be 100% sure whether or not I would be breaking the law by having sex with them.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > There is absolutely a bright and clear (albeit very complicated) line for tax fraud. In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line? > The IRS probably won't go after you if you underpay by a penny — but you're still breaking the law if you do it intentionally. In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line? Like, you are claiming that there is, and then provide the evidence that there isn't. All you are showing is that there is something that you want to call a "bright and clear line", but then you don't show anything in reality that actually matches that description in any meaningful sense. > Because — with regard to statutory rape — if I know someone's age I can be 100% sure whether or not I would be breaking the law by having sex with them. OK, so suppose we were to make the rule that if you under-report your income by any amount, whether intentionally or not, whether knowingly or not, you go to jail for ten years. That would be a bright and clear line, right? If you know that you reported all your income, you can be 100% sure whether you are going to jail. Why wouldn't that be a good approach? Or would it be?
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    IANAL, but: >> There is absolutely a bright and clear (albeit very complicated) line for tax fraud. > In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line? There is. A “bright and clear line” means a test is objective, not that it’s simple [1]. >> The IRS probably won't go after you if you underpay by a penny — but you're still breaking the law if you do it intentionally. > In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line? There is. Just because something is not consistently enforced doesn’t mean it’s not clearly illegal. Cops may not fine you if they see you jaywalking, but you’re still unambiguously breaking the law if you cross the street outside of the crosswalk. > OK, so suppose we were to make the rule that if you under-report your income by any amount, whether intentionally or not, whether knowingly or not, you go to jail for ten years. That would be a bright and clear line, right? If you know that you reported all your income, you can be 100% sure whether you are going to jail. Why wouldn't that be a good approach? Or would it be? Most crimes (although not statutory rape) require intent to be shown [2]. No justice system is perfect; innocent people get convicted and guilty people go unpunished. A good law should allow people to unambiguously know when they would break it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

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.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

> 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". There is absolutely a bright and clear (albeit very complicated) line for tax fraud. The IRS probably won't go after you if you underpay by a penny — but you're still breaking the law if you do it intentionally. >> 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? Because — with regard to statutory rape — if I know someone's age I can be 100% sure whether or not I would be breaking the law by having sex with them.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> There is absolutely a bright and clear (albeit very complicated) line for tax fraud. In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line? > The IRS probably won't go after you if you underpay by a penny — but you're still breaking the law if you do it intentionally. In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line? Like, you are claiming that there is, and then provide the evidence that there isn't. All you are showing is that there is something that you want to call a "bright and clear line", but then you don't show anything in reality that actually matches that description in any meaningful sense. > Because — with regard to statutory rape — if I know someone's age I can be 100% sure whether or not I would be breaking the law by having sex with them. OK, so suppose we were to make the rule that if you under-report your income by any amount, whether intentionally or not, whether knowingly or not, you go to jail for ten years. That would be a bright and clear line, right? If you know that you reported all your income, you can be 100% sure whether you are going to jail. Why wouldn't that be a good approach? Or would it be?
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  IANAL, but: >> There is absolutely a bright and clear (albeit very complicated) line for tax fraud. > In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line? There is. A “bright and clear line” means a test is objective, not that it’s simple [1]. >> The IRS probably won't go after you if you underpay by a penny — but you're still breaking the law if you do it intentionally. > In other words: There isn't a bright and clear line? There is. Just because something is not consistently enforced doesn’t mean it’s not clearly illegal. Cops may not fine you if they see you jaywalking, but you’re still unambiguously breaking the law if you cross the street outside of the crosswalk. > OK, so suppose we were to make the rule that if you under-report your income by any amount, whether intentionally or not, whether knowingly or not, you go to jail for ten years. That would be a bright and clear line, right? If you know that you reported all your income, you can be 100% sure whether you are going to jail. Why wouldn't that be a good approach? Or would it be? Most crimes (although not statutory rape) require intent to be shown [2]. No justice system is perfect; innocent people get convicted and guilty people go unpunished. A good law should allow people to unambiguously know when they would break it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea