18 Year Old Girl Facing Felony for Dating 15 Year Old Girl

[Resora]

Because the necessity of obtaining consent is intrinsically connected to views on the harm of taking autonomy from individuals.

No its not. You can say "no" when asked for consent.

I don't see how that disagrees with anything I wrote.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Curiously enough, the article mentions a same-sex relationship, not a sexual relationship. There is a huge world of difference between being romantically attached and having sex.

I could understand the case for felony if there actually was sex (specifically non-consensual sex) involved, but so far it looks to me that the charges against Kaitlyn are on thin ice.

There was sex and it was Illegal. They have the polar ice caps underneath them.

Only it wasn't illegal, as has now been shown, but since you apparently missed it:

The law was created because of the serious problem of high school aged people being named as sex offenders because they engaged in a consensual sex relationship with a person aged 14-17. The very serious consequences that follow being named a sex offender have a devastating impact on the accused’s opportunities for employment, attend school functions of their children, and where the accused may live. The sex offender registry does not distinguish between ‘Romeo and Juliet’ offenders and others who actually did engage in sex with minors that pose a serious societal risk.

Please note that you only can do this if you meet the very strict eligibility requirements:

You had sex of a consensual nature with a minor who was between the ages of 14 and 17;
You were a maximum of four years older than the minor person when you had consensual sex;
You were convicted of sexual battery, as described in Florida Statute 794.011, or lewd and lascivious offense, as described in Florida Statute 800.04;
You have to register as a sex offender ONLY because of the offense described above; and
You have not been convicted of any other sex-related crimes in your life.

-- Source

[Evraim]

Why not?

Because the necessity of obtaining consent is intrinsically connected to views on the harm of taking autonomy from individuals.

This presumes that all individuals are equally capable of exercising their autonomy, and that human beings are undistinguishable from Locke's rational automaton. I, and most of society, reject these assertions.

[Resora]

Because the necessity of obtaining consent is intrinsically connected to views on the harm of taking autonomy from individuals.

This presumes that all individuals are equally capable of exercising their autonomy, and that human beings are undistinguishable from Locke's rational automaton. I, and most of society, reject these assertions.

Not really. It simply means for certain individuals removing autonomy causes less harm than granting it to them. A tad parochial, but not a defense of draconian punishments for victimless crimes.

[Cosara]

This presumes that all individuals are equally capable of exercising their autonomy, and that human beings are undistinguishable from Locke's rational automaton. I, and most of society, reject these assertions.

Not really. It simply means for certain individuals removing autonomy causes less harm than granting it to them. A tad parochial, but not a defense of draconian punishments for victimless crimes.

Fifteen Years in Prison, Probation and a lifetime as a SO is a bit harsh, but it is what statutory rape calls for.

[Resora]

Not really. It simply means for certain individuals removing autonomy causes less harm than granting it to them. A tad parochial, but not a defense of draconian punishments for victimless crimes.

Fifteen Years in Prison, Probation and a lifetime as a SO is a bit harsh, but it is what statutory rape calls for.

It's not only harsh, it undermines the entire purpose of the law, to prevent harm.

[Cosara]

Fifteen Years in Prison, Probation and a lifetime as a SO is a bit harsh, but it is what statutory rape calls for.

It's not only harsh, it undermines the entire purpose of the law, to prevent harm.

Not really. This law is doing it's job. The only person being hurt is the rapist.

[Page]

It's not only harsh, it undermines the entire purpose of the law, to prevent harm.

Not really. This law is doing it's job. The only person being hurt is the rapist.

What about their partners who consented and don't want to be separated from the person they love? Are they not harmed?

[Antares XII]

On the one hand, the two had been together for a while, and the older girl was only arrested and charged after she turned 18, which smells suspiciously like someone was just waiting for the chance to legally do something about it. Which is a dick move in my opinion, if nothing was done in the previous time (they were both minors beforehand - whatever happened to parents telling their kids what to do? If you don't want them doing something, don't let them. Waiting to get the other girl in legal trouble intentionally is just... ugh). On the other hand, the older girl had six months and two days before she was arrested to tell her girlfriend "we have to wait a year or so according to the law, then we can be together again"... but she didn't.

Bottom line?

People are stupid. ಠ_ಠ

[Resora]

It's not only harsh, it undermines the entire purpose of the law, to prevent harm.

Not really. This law is doing it's job. The only person being hurt is the rapist.

Punishment should match the crime.

Unless you believe capital punishment is fitting for jaywalkers.

[Cosara]

Not really. This law is doing it's job. The only person being hurt is the rapist.

What about their partners who consented and don't want to be separated from the person they love? Are they not harmed?

They didn't consent. They are below the age of consent and there for cannot give consent, so it is for all intensive purposes rape.

[Condunum]

It's not only harsh, it undermines the entire purpose of the law, to prevent harm.

Not really. This law is doing it's job. The only person being hurt is the rapist.

No, the law is not doing it's job. The law should not be absolute. Ever.

[Resora]

intensive purposes

Mistakes like these are a diamond dozen, unfortunately.

[Cosara]

Not really. This law is doing it's job. The only person being hurt is the rapist.

Punishment should match the crime.

Unless you believe capital punishment is fitting for jaywalkers.

Capital Punishment is something that should be limited to torture, mass murder or crimes of the such.

[Resora]

Punishment should match the crime.

Unless you believe capital punishment is fitting for jaywalkers.

Capital Punishment is something that should be limited to torture, mass murder or crimes of the such.

I disagree. Are you saying you're defending jaywalkers? Capital punishment for jaywalking is appropriate. After all, it only hurts the jaywalking criminal. It's just the law doing its job.

[Page]

What about their partners who consented and don't want to be separated from the person they love? Are they not harmed?

They didn't consent. They are below the age of consent and there for cannot give consent, so it is for all intensive purposes rape.

You were talking about harm. You cannot bring up a matter of ethics and then retreat back to your "law is my morality" doctrine.

[Resora]

They didn't consent. They are below the age of consent and there for cannot give consent, so it is for all intensive purposes rape.

You were talking about harm. You cannot bring up a matter of ethics and then retreat back to your "law is my morality" doctrine.

He's been doing that the entire thread. If it wasn't against the rules, I might insinuate he's not being genuine.

[Cosara]

They didn't consent. They are below the age of consent and there for cannot give consent, so it is for all intensive purposes rape.

You were talking about harm. You cannot bring up a matter of ethics and then retreat back to your "law is my morality" doctrine.

This is not a question of morality.

[The New Earth Coalition]

On the one hand, the two had been together for a while, and the older girl was only arrested and charged after she turned 18, which smells suspiciously like someone was just waiting for the chance to legally do something about it. Which is a dick move in my opinion, if nothing was done in the previous time (they were both minors beforehand - whatever happened to parents telling their kids what to do? If you don't want them doing something, don't let them. Waiting to get the other girl in legal trouble intentionally is just... ugh). On the other hand, the older girl had six months and two days before she was arrested to tell her girlfriend "we have to wait a year or so according to the law, then we can be together again"... but she didn't.

Bottom line?

People are stupid. ಠ_ಠ

People are inherently stupid. Eventually and hopefully they learn and adapt to those around them.

[Page]

You were talking about harm. You cannot bring up a matter of ethics and then retreat back to your "law is my morality" doctrine.

This is not a question of morality.

Clearly.

[Dusk_Kittens]

I think you don't understand the meaning of one of the quotes in your signature:

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." -Jimi Hendrix

Doesn't mean that you have to give Lesbian Rapists a get out of jail free card.

Circular reasoning and negatively-emotive language. Wow.

[Condunum]

Doesn't mean that you have to give Lesbian Rapists a get out of jail free card.

Circular reasoning and negatively-emotive language. Wow.

He's the resident double-thinking homophobe. It's not very surprising.

[Solsteim]

While it's nice to see the laws regarding sex crimes are being utalised on females in the same way they would on males, i feel that i can't condone this. While we need an age of consent, and it will always be arbitrary, i feel that there needs to be a level of tolerance for people close to the age of consent. After all most couples are separated by more than 3 years, when it the wrong 3 years then one of the partners is a criminal. In cases of statutory rape where the 'victim' is close to the age of consent then the older person should just be let off with a warning.

[Quelesh]

Cars. Theatres. The beach.

Public bathrooms, schools, the local habadashery, the list truly could go on forever . . .

Stop it; my exhibitionist side is getting turned on.

It reminds me of the two teens making out in Wisconsin, and the parents turned in each others' kids for statutory rape because they were both under age and consent did not matter under state law, and the DA went ahead and prosecuted them!

These sex offender laws need serious revision.

We get all up in arms because of poor little victims like Amber, and then pass harsh laws that punish all kinds of innocent people.

Who's Amber?

The namesake of the Amber Alert.

They're challenging the legitimacy of the laws in question, Cos.

Fuck that shit. My proposal:

Age of Consent: 18

Anyone having sex below that age shall be charged with statutory rape. That's the law here in Texas.

That's not even true. The age of consent in Texas is 17.

I would argue that you're making a ridiculously overbroad generalization, and that different people develop, both physically and mentally, at radically different rates. Age is like race: differences within groups are greater than differences between groups.

I would contest that assertion. I do concede that I made a generalization, but I think it a rather fair one. Most fifteen year olds are not as mature as most eighteen year olds. Or do you question the legitimacy of this statement?

If "maturity" were simple and concrete enough to meaningfully measure on some kind of test, and you gave this test to a very large sample of 15-year-olds and a very large sample of 18-year-olds, it is quite possible (maybe over a 50% probability) that the 18-year-olds would have a slightly higher average score than the 15-year-olds. I suspect, though, that the standard deviations in the two samples would be significantly larger than the difference of the averages.

This is quite hypothetical, though, as "maturity" is a highly vague and amorphous quality. It's an abstraction that we, as a society, largely made up.

I challenge the legitimacy of any law. Law does not determine morality.

Morality is subjective. Subjective morality determines laws that must be applied consistently and with optimal objectivity. Hence, why generalizations might prove instrumental in differentiating between a legal and illegal act.

Yes, I agree that morality is subjective. It's also all that really matters to me in this case. I don't particularly care what the law says; I care about the morality or lack thereof of actions.

The question is far too complex to answer with a simple yes/no. Not only do different people develop at different rates, but maturity, cognitive capacity, intelligence, understanding of sexuality, etc., are continua, not discrete yes/no points like an on/off switch. The question cannot be answered simply even for a single individual, since any given individual will be in different places on the continua of the various mental qualities that constitute what we call "capacity to consent." It certainly cannot be answered for an entire demographic.

How do you propose to incorporate these factors into a viable legal framework? Also, would an exceptionally precocious eight year old capable of attaining these criteria be able to consent to sexual intercourse with a fifty year old? This is hypothetical, mostly. I do recognize that such a case would be exceedingly rare and peculiar, but for the purposes of this discussion please consider the conundrum.

To answer your first question, I don't, really. I could talk about hypothetical legal systems where the capacity to consent is determined on a case-by-case basis, where, for example, people of any age could take some kind of test that measures, somehow, their "maturity," along with their knowledge of sexuality and other factors, and can get a "license to have sex" if they pass the test. But that comes with its own set of problems, and it still involves some component of society (bureaucrats, perhaps, instead of legislators), making moral decisions for others and judging, I think unfairly, other people's mental competence.

I am much more inclined to simply ask the purported victim if the sex was consensual or not, and then to believe them, as they are in a much better position to know than I am.

To answer your second question, yes, but again this cannot be meaningfully measured, I think. How do we know whether this hypothetical 8-year-old has "attained these criteria"? We don't.

Yes. I think that all government-imposed age restrictions are inherently arbitrary and unjust, and should be abolished. Such things should be determined on a case-by-case basis as necessary.

I see. My personal opinion is that such a system would lack anything resembling consistency or objectivity. In fact, the absence of these characteristics might make it difficult to protect actual victims or to convict actual predators because it is too subjective.

It would be subjective, but so is morality, and I prefer for my actions to be guided by my own sense of right and wrong than by what a bunch of legislators somewhere thought was best a few decades ago.

[Dusk_Kittens]

If people don't want to listen to the law, they can go live in a different country where such laws don't exist.

Classic example of False Dilemma:
"America - Love it or leave it."

Why is it a False Dilemma?

Well, the obvious answer is because there are more than those two options, but to point out one specifically: "Work to improve it to the point that it is lovable."

The exact same thing is happening here.