[PASSED] Repeal "Child Protection Act"

[Mousebumples]

Reasons to Repeal:

1. Child abuse is not criminalized.
2. Children who are being abused have the right to remain with their abusive parent(s) throughout the investigative process.
3. Children have the right to remain with their parent(s), even if their parents are ... in the hospital, fighting a war overseas, etc.
4. Children deserve better protection than that given through the unclear text of this resolution.

As previously discussed during my repeal of "Habeas Corpus Act",when I was working on that one ... I discovered all sorts of shortcomings in GA#19, Child Protection Act. I decided then to move that res onto my list of Resolutions To Be Repealed, and I now have a draft.

Of course, considering the topic at hand, this isn't one that I wanted to repeal without setting up a replacement to follow its (hopefully) successful repeal. When I was trying to figure out who to poke about that, I thought of Sanctaria, who has successfully passed Rights of the Orphaned Child. Plus, we've discussed a potential International Adoption Act in the past as well.

Anyhow, Sanct has a replacement just about finished and ready to post up posted here, so I figured this was as good of a time as any to post this up for some feedback prior to its submission.

Version III

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the aim of GAR#19, Child Protection Act, which is to protect children from abuse.

REGRETS, however, that shortcomings within this resolution cause it to fall short of successfully achieving this goal.

UNDERSTANDS that repealing this resolution will not prevent WA member nations from continuing their efforts to protect children within their borders.

ACCEPTS that physical and emotional abuse of children should be considered criminal acts within WA member states.

NOTES, however, that although this resolution states that "A child is entitled to ... not to be physically or emotionally abused" it fails to criminalize such actions.

FEELS that while giving children the right to not be abused is laudable, this resolution does not go far enough in working to prevent such horrific actions against children.

RECOGNIZES that this resolution's text also permits the continued abuses of children as Clause 3 reads: "A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated".

OBSERVES that such wording, at minimum, permits WA member nations to leave abused children in the care of those who are abusing them until such abuse can be proven, which may result in children remaining with their abusers throughout the investigative process.

BELIEVES that children should be protected from those who are accused of abusing them throughout the investigative and judicial process.

REALIZES that the wording of the aforementioned Clause 3 means that children have a right to remain with their parents or guardians, which would include those who may be:

1. Detained in prison, for a crime unrelated to child abuse.
2. Fighting in a war in a foreign country.
3. Hospitalized for an extended period of time due to a severe illness or injury.

PROTESTS that this resolution clouds the issue of child protection rather than serving to clarify it through defining a child as “being under the age of consent or majority.” The wording of this clause is ambiguous, and it may permit WA member nations to pick and choose which definition they wish to employ in a given situation, depending on what best serves their governmental interests, versus serving the best interests of the child.

HOPES for future legislation that comprehensively ensures the protection of children.

REPEALS GAR#19, Child Protection Act.

Version II

Repeal "Child Protection Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#19 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

ADMIRES that GAR#19, Child Protection Act, aims to protect children from abuses;

ACCEPTS that physical and/or emotional abuse of children should be considered criminal acts within WA member states;

NOTES, however, that although this resolution states that "A child is entitled to ... not to be physically or emotionally abused" it fails to criminalize such actions;

FEELS that while giving children the right to not be abused is laudable, it does not go far enough in working to prevent such horrific actions against children;

RECOGNIZES that this resolution's text also permits the continued abuses of children;

DETAILS that Clause 3 reads: "A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated;"

OBSERVES that such wording, at minimum, permits WA member nations to leave abused children in the care of those who are abusing them until such abuse can be proven, which may result in children remaining with their abusers throughout the investigative process;

BELIEVES that children should be protected from those who are accused of abusing them throughout the investigative and judicial process;

REALIZES that the wording of the aforementioned Clause 3 means that children have a right to remain with their parents or guardians, which would include those who may be:

1. Detained in prison, for a crime unrelated to child abuse.
2. Fighting in a war in a foreign country.
3. Hospitalized for an extended period of time due to a severe illness or injury.

PROTESTS additional aspects of this resolution that cloud the issue of child protection rather than serving to clarify it:

1. The resolution defines a child as “being under the age of consent or majority.” The use of or within this clause is ambiguous, as it may permit WA member nations to pick and choose which definition they wish to employ in a given situation, depending on what best serves the governmental interests, versus serving the best interests of the child.
2. No exception is made for those children that have been legally emancipated.
3. No close-in-age exemption is allowed for the purposes of consentual sexual contact, if the child is legally under the age of consent.

HOPES for future legislation that better ensures the true protection of children;

REPEALS GAR#19, Child Protection Act.

Repeal "Child Protection Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#19 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

ADMIRES that GAR#19, Child Protection Act, aims to protect children from abuses;

ASSERTS that physical and/or emotional abuse of children should be criminal acts within WA member states;

NOTES, however, that although this resolution states that "A child is entitled to ... not to be physically or emotionally abused" it fails to criminalize such actions;

FEELS that while giving children the right to not be abused is laudable, it does not go far enough in working to prevent such horrific actions against children;

RECOGNIZES that this resolution's text also permits the continued abuses of children;

DETAILS that Clause 3 reads: "A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated;"

OBSERVES that such wording, at minimum, permits WA member nations to leave abused children in the care of those who are abusing them until such abuse can be proven, which may result in children remaining with their abusers throughout the investigative process;

BELIEVES that children should be protected from those who are accused of abusing them throughout the investigative and judicial process;

REALIZES that the wording of the aforementioned Clause 3 means that children have a right to remain with their parents or guardians, which would include those who may be:

1. Detained in prison, for a crime unrelated to child abuse.
2. Fighting in a war in a foreign country.
3. Hospitalized for an extended period of time due to a severe illness or injury.
4. Deceased, which may result in children staying in crypts or being buried alive in the same coffin.

HOPES for future legislation that better ensures the true protection of children;

REPEALS GAR#19, Child Protection Act.

Comments are, of course, welcome.

[Sanctaria]

In favour. I suppose.

[The German Reich of Nationalist Regimes]

Good now my WA puppet can have child slaves aswell

[Sanctaria]

Good now my WA puppet can have child slaves aswell

This repeals the CPA, not the Ban on Slavery.

[Ossitania]

The Ossitanian delegation offers its support to this fine effort from Mousebumples. We would also like to express our heartfelt terror at the prospect of one of our own resolutions being on your repeal list.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

BELIEVES that children should be protected from those who are accused of abusing them throughout the investigative and judicial process;

What ever happened to the presumption of innocence? Don't parents have an interest in keeping their children with them until it has been proven that they've done something wrong? Don't children have an interest in not being "protected" from their parents in cases of wrongful or malicious accusation?

[Mousebumples]

BELIEVES that children should be protected from those who are accused of abusing them throughout the investigative and judicial process;

What ever happened to the presumption of innocence? Don't parents have an interest in keeping their children with them until it has been proven that they've done something wrong? Don't children have an interest in not being "protected" from their parents in cases of wrongful or malicious accusation?

And what happens if the child who was originally just knocked around a bit ends up being knocked down the stairs and cracking their head open during the course of the investigation? What if a young girl who has accused her father/uncle/neighbor of sexual abuse ends up being continually abused/raped and ends up pregnant throughout the course of the investigation?

In my mind child abuse is a serious concern, and children deserve to be protected. I'd rather err on the side of caution and temporarily remove a child from a potentially abusive home than risk leaving them in such an abusive environment where they could be subjected to retaliation from their abuser.

However, please bear in mind that this is a REPEAL. There is nothing in this text that will force your nation to remove the victims of abuse accusations from their homes if you don't wish to do so. And, if you read the text of Sanctaria's replacement, I don't believe that that forces you to do so either. However, that text is at least open-ended enough to allow for children to be placed in temporary protective custody, should delegations (such as my own) elect to follow that path.

[The Republic of Lanos]

But...think of the children!

Oh wait. For.

[Mousebumples]

But...think of the children!

Oh wait. For.

Hee. Thanks!

And thanks to all the other ambassadors who have expressed their support for this draft to-date.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

And what happens if the child who was originally just knocked around a bit ends up being knocked down the stairs and cracking their head open during the course of the investigation? What if a young girl who has accused her father/uncle/neighbor of sexual abuse ends up being continually abused/raped and ends up pregnant throughout the course of the investigation?

In my mind child abuse is a serious concern, and children deserve to be protected. I'd rather err on the side of caution and temporarily remove a child from a potentially abusive home than risk leaving them in such an abusive environment where they could be subjected to retaliation from their abuser.

However, please bear in mind that this is a REPEAL. There is nothing in this text that will force your nation to remove the victims of abuse accusations from their homes if you don't wish to do so. And, if you read the text of Sanctaria's replacement, I don't believe that that forces you to do so either. However, that text is at least open-ended enough to allow for children to be placed in temporary protective custody, should delegations (such as my own) elect to follow that path.

Don't get me wrong, I think both you and Sanctaria are on the right track. I especially enjoyed your argument that CPA gives children the right to accompany their parents to jail while they serve out their armed robbery conviction - I agree that's a bizarre "right" to grant a child. And I do understand that this is just a repeal and doesn't constitute legislation on the subject.

But I don't like the argument that a resolution is flawed because it prevents an abuse of due process. Families should not be torn apart by mere accusations of abuse. I get that child abuse is a serious concern - we're on the same page on that one. But I'm not prepared to say that CPA is flawed because it prevents nations from ripping children away from their parents upon any accusation of abuse. On the contrary, anything less would violate the sacred principle that a person ought to be presumed innocent and ought not to be punished for unproved accusations. Call me old fashioned, but I don't like to think that a proposal is flawed for epitomizing that principle.

Incidentally, CPA states that it is children who have the right to remain with their parents, not the other way around. An abused child could presumably waive that right and be taken out of the home post haste.

In any case, I'm supportive of this repeal and replacement and am simply trying to provide constructive criticism in the way I know how.

Best Regards.

[Gatchina Ministry of Foreign Affairs]

We like it! You have the support of the Imperial Government! We look forward to voting for this repeal when it comes to the floor for a vote.


-Col. George Hentzau
Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Supreme & Exalted Empire of Gatchina
The Holy Moosean Empire

[Sanctaria]

Don't get me wrong, I think both you and Sanctaria are on the right track. I especially enjoyed your argument that CPA gives children the right to accompany their parents to jail while they serve out their armed robbery conviction - I agree that's a bizarre "right" to grant a child.

I knew it was a good idea to include that. And people called me daft...

[Mousebumples]

But I don't like the argument that a resolution is flawed because it prevents an abuse of due process. Families should not be torn apart by mere accusations of abuse. I get that child abuse is a serious concern - we're on the same page on that one. But I'm not prepared to say that CPA is flawed because it prevents nations from ripping children away from their parents upon any accusation of abuse. On the contrary, anything less would violate the sacred principle that a person ought to be presumed innocent and ought not to be punished for unproved accusations. Call me old fashioned, but I don't like to think that a proposal is flawed for epitomizing that principle.

Incidentally, CPA states that it is children who have the right to remain with their parents, not the other way around. An abused child could presumably waive that right and be taken out of the home post haste.

A couple of things - one of which may be overstated in these parts. The law does what the law says. While it is possible that a child could waive their right to do so - nations are not required to allow such a thing. Such a possibility creates the possibility that some WA member nations use this resolution to counteract the intentions of this resolution's author and potentially actively HARM children.

I can't speak for your nation, of course. My nation looks at the evidence in question when deciding how to handle abuse cases. If an accusation is against a family member (be it a parent, sibling, etc.), the child is generally removed on a provisional basis - with every hope of returning the child home in short order. However, the care and safety of the child is our first priority as they are - arguably - not able to protect themselves.

(OOC: I can't speak for wherever you live IRL, but I know that both the U.S. and Ireland have similar policies. So, seriously, I'm baffled why you feel that such an objection within the repeal text is inappropriate.)

Thanks for your support,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Cowardly Pacifists]

A couple of things - one of which may be overstated in these parts. The law does what the law says. While it is possible that a child could waive their right to do so - nations are not required to allow such a thing. Such a possibility creates the possibility that some WA member nations use this resolution to counteract the intentions of this resolution's author and potentially actively HARM children.

I can't speak for your nation, of course. My nation looks at the evidence in question when deciding how to handle abuse cases. If an accusation is against a family member (be it a parent, sibling, etc.), the child is generally removed on a provisional basis - with every hope of returning the child home in short order. However, the care and safety of the child is our first priority as they are - arguably - not able to protect themselves.

(OOC: I can't speak for wherever you live IRL, but I know that both the U.S. and Ireland have similar policies. So, seriously, I'm baffled why you feel that such an objection within the repeal text is inappropriate.)

Where I come from (OOC), a screening of the allegations (to determine if there is a credible threat to the child's well-being that warrants an immediate response) and an emergency safety assessment (which involves interviews the child, the child’s caregivers, the child’s immediate family members, and all others involved with the child who have relevant knowledge such as teachers or medical professionals) are both conducted before a determination can be made to remove the child from their parents. I've never heard of a jurisdiction that summarily removes children from their homes without any investigation or determination of wrongdoing, and I have serious doubts that such a policy would comply with due process of law.

I hope this makes my objection more clear. The policies that you refer to all involve some amount of proof of wrongdoing. Your suggestion is that GA #29 is flawed because it also requires such proof before a child can be removed from the home. I object to the insinuation that GA #29 is flawed for protecting the due process rights of the parents. They have a right to be confronted with some proof of their wrongdoing before their children are taken away.

But I withdraw my objection on other grounds. Upon reviewing the text of GA #29, it appears that nations are under no obligation to terminate parental rights even if child abuse allegations are brought and proved. GA #29 simply provides an amorphous entitlement to be free from various forms of abuse and includes no direct language requiring nations to separate children from their abusers. Your argument could really be broadened to observe that GA #29 permits nations to leave children in the custody and control of their abusers even after the parents have been found guilty abusing the child.

Best Regards.

[Sanctaria]

I've never heard of a jurisdiction that summarily removes children from their homes without any investigation or determination of wrongdoing, and I have serious doubts that such a policy would comply with due process of law.

Neither have I. During an investigation, however...

It's pretty common for children who accuse an immediate family member (i.e. a family member who they live with) of abuse to be moved/relocated/fostered while the investigation is ongoing. For their safety and for impartiality in the investigation too.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Approved, at the very least it will give me a chance to teach kids how things were back in the good 'ol days until the replacement passes.

[Pollepao]

Pollepao would support this repeal, we agree that the current act has several loopholes and clauses that can purposely be interpreted to defeat the entire resolutions purpose.

[Paper Flowers]

Having read the arguments in the repeal, we agree that there is room for an improved version of this resolution that would tackle the points highlighted. We share the authors concerns about ensuring there is a suitable replacement in place first.

With regards to the argument as to when a child should be removed from the parents during an investigation, this is something we may comment on in more depth during discussion of a replacement draft however our basic stand point is that one should not be removed simply because of a few words of accusation, but if any proof can be found to back up the claim then the child should not stay in harms way.

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

*walks off to read the draft he spotted by Sanctaria*

[Merfurian]

We're happy with it

Tes-driving of the langauge needed again?

"gets out test-driving hat"

Dr Jonas K Lazareedes

[Southern Patriots]

Tentative support. It's good to see old resolutions being taken down and overhauled.

[Quelesh]

I support the repeal of GAR19. I am extremely skeptical, however, of the idea of replacing it, and I am unlikely to support a replacement.

That said, a few comments on the current draft:

ASSERTS that physical and/or emotional abuse of children should be criminal acts within WA member states;

This clause could be interpreted as attempting to legislate in a repeal. I know that this is not the intent here, but it's something to watch out for.

Deceased, which may result in children staying in crypts or being buried alive in the same coffin.

I think that this line is a little silly; it's quite a stretch, and I think the draft would be improved by removing it.

I also have a few other notes about GAR19, mostly regarding clause 2 of that resolution and its subclauses, that may be helpful, though I doubt that you will use all of them:

Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,

I have two objections to this definition.

First, I object to the fact that it not only relies upon chronological age as a dividing line, but relies solely on chronological age at the exclusion of any other bases that member states may use to distinguish competent people from incompetent people. This resolution assumes that all member states will use chronological age, and chronological age alone, as their dividing line, and indeed attempts to require that they do so. This fails to protect incompetent people above the AoC/AoM, and places undue restrictions on competent people below the AoC/AoM - in this respect it is both underinclusive and overinclusive.

It also opens the door to abuse. Quelesh has long used bases other than chronological age to make determinations of competence, where such determinations must be made. Quelesian law regarding sexual activity also does this - determinations of competence are made on a case-by-case basis as needed. However, since GAR16 and GAR19 require us to use chronological age, it was necessary for us to set in statute the age of sexual consent equal to the moment of birth, in order to remain in technical compliance while still using bases other than chronological age to discriminate. We could actually repeal our law prohibiting sex with individuals unable to consent to it, and therefore allow people to have sex with infants, and this would not violate international law, because sex with people younger than our AoC (the moment of birth) would still be prohibited. We have no intention of doing this, of course, but we could, and other nations could as well. I'm sure you see how this is problematic.

Any replacement should not mention sexual activity at all (since GAR16 also covers that, albeit in a manner that is also very problematic). The definition of "child" in any replacement should simply refer to people who are not competent to make decisions regarding their own wellbeing, leaving the method for making such determinations to member states. Member states would still be able to use a flat age limit (e.g. an age of majority) if they think it appropriate, but would also be able to use other bases for making determinations of competence.

My second problem with the above definition is its ambiguous inclusion of both an age of consent and an age of majority. This leaves it unclear, each time the word "child" is used later in the resolution, whether "people younger than the AoC" or "people younger than the AoM" is meant. The word "adult" is also used in the resolution, and it is unclear whether "people older than the AoM" or "people older than the AoC" is meant.

Defines the age of consent to be an age set by the state at which it deems a child able to assent or dissent to sex

I find the inclusion of "or dissent" in this definition to be very odd and problematic. Anyone, no matter how competent or incompetent she is, and no matter how old she is, should have the legal right to dissent against sex. This definition implies that people younger than the AoC are not legally allowed to dissent against sex. Later clauses in the resolution contradict this implication, but the inclusion of dissent in the definition of AoC is really strange.

A good resolution on sexual consent laws (if both GAR19 and GAR16 were repealed) would, in my opinion, draw a distinction between the ability to consent to sex and the ability to dissent against sex.

2. For this resolution, sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real for the purposes of sexual gratification of the adult or others, between an adult and a child, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question

a) It is illegal to sexually abuse a child

The intent here is benevolent, but there are numerous problems with this.

First, clause 2 says "a child under the age of consent," but 2(a) says simply "a child," not mentioning the AoC, which means, due to the ambiguity in the definition of "child" above, it is unclear whether 2(a) refers to people under the AoC or under the AoM.

Second, clause 2 uses the word "adult," but it is unclear if this is referring to people over the AoM or over the AoC.

Third, and most significant in my opinion, this does not allow for any close-in-age exception or defense whatsoever. A member state with an AoC and AoM of 14, for example, is required by this clause to criminalize mutually voluntary sex between a 14-year-old and a 13-year-old, and is prohibited from having any close-in-age exception. (In the case of a member state with an AoC of 14 and an AoM of 16, it's more ambiguous, because it's unclear whether "adult" refers to 14+ or 16+.)

At least this resolution, unlike GAR16, does not require the criminalization of mutually voluntary sex between two people both of whom are younger than the AoC. That is a flaw of GAR16 that GAR19 does not share.

I think that, at least, the fact that GAR19 does not allow for any close-in-age exemption or defense whatsoever should be mentioned in the repeal.

c) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal

I suspect that you will not use this argument in your repeal, and this is understandable, but I'll make it anyway: member states should not be required to criminalize the mere possession of child pornography. Member states should be free to devote law enforcement resources toward catching people who actually sexually victimize others, and to treat images depicting abuse as evidence of a crime rather than as a crime in itself.

Further, this subclause makes no distinction between, for example, a video of an adult raping a toddler on the one hand and a picture depicting a 16-year-old and a 15-year-old (in a member state with an AoC of 16) having mutually voluntary sex on the other hand. Both are criminalized, and equally criminalized. If member states do criminalize such images, a distinction should be made between images depicting egregious abuse and images that do not depict actual abuse.

e) Involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse is also illegal, however, if it can be proven that it was an unknowing involvement, leniency may be afforded due to the discretion of the nation’s judicial system

This clause is ambiguous, but my major objection to it is that it requires member states to criminalize unknowing involvement (leniency is allowed, but criminalization is still required). If a person genuinely does not know that she is involved in something, then she should not be criminally punished for the involvement of which she had no knowledge.

I hope my comments have been helpful.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Wisconsin9]

We will support this, on the condition that a replacement is drafted and we believe it has the support necessary to pass through the Assembly. 'Tis better to have it poorly regulated than not at all.

[Cenetra]

Repeal supported for the reasons mentioned in the OP.

Also:

c) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal

Robbing banks is illegal, too. Under this logic, viewing security camera footage of a bank robbery should therefore be illegal.

e) Involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse is also illegal, however, if it can be proven that it was an unknowing involvement, leniency may be afforded due to the discretion of the nation’s judicial system

Aside from the fact that, as Quelesh mentioned, this mandates the criminalization of unknowing involvement in a crime, it makes no reference whatsoever to unwilling involvement. This is a very unfortunate oversight.

Consider the hypothetical case of multiple knowing, willing adults abducting an adult and a child, then forcing the two, at gunpoint, to have sexual intercourse.
Under the CPA as it currently stands, the adult victim would be held criminally responsible for sexually abusing the child.
For that matter, if the criminals abducted two children and forced them at gunpoint to sexually stimulate one another, both children could prosecuted.
But it gets even worse. Because the CPA fails to clearly define "involvement," the cashier at the hardware store which sold the criminals the can of spray paint used to write "FREE CANDY" on the side of their van may also be prosecuted for sexual abuse of a minor.

f) Exempting law enforcement authorities and court officials that may become involved in such acts to apprehend criminals, provided the agent/s are on duty and materials are relevant to the case

Consider the following case: a vigilante is running around murdering suspected child molesters.
The police department decides to set a trap for said vigilante. They accomplish this by acquiring and sexually assaulting children, filming the event and distributing the film in such a way that the vigilante easily discovers the location of the crime and charges headlong into the trap.
As it stands, the CPA exempts the police from responsibility for these actions.

Think that's too far-fetched to ever happen? Two words: Murphy's Law. Just as if there is a way for an idiot to break something, some idiot will break it, as long as there is a loophole in a WA law, some depraved monster will exploit it.

[Methoria]

Acknowledging the shortcomings of the old resolution, we support the repeal, provided there is a reasonable alternative and this won`t be used as a backdoor to repeal protection from abuse at all.

[Quelesh]

Another potential argument for the repeal: GAR19 makes no allowance whatsoever for emancipated minors. The provisions of the resolution apply to anyone younger than a nation's AoC/AoM, even if that person is legally emancipated and otherwise has the legal status of an adult.

c) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal

Robbing banks is illegal, too. Under this logic, viewing security camera footage of a bank robbery should therefore be illegal.

I'm not seeing this effect. Viewing the security camera footage would only be a crime if the footage "involves sexual abuse of a child."

e) Involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse is also illegal, however, if it can be proven that it was an unknowing involvement, leniency may be afforded due to the discretion of the nation’s judicial system

Aside from the fact that, as Quelesh mentioned, this mandates the criminalization of unknowing involvement in a crime, it makes no reference whatsoever to unwilling involvement. This is a very unfortunate oversight.

Consider the hypothetical case of multiple knowing, willing adults abducting an adult and a child, then forcing the two, at gunpoint, to have sexual intercourse.
Under the CPA as it currently stands, the adult victim would be held criminally responsible for sexually abusing the child.

Good point here.

For that matter, if the criminals abducted two children and forced them at gunpoint to sexually stimulate one another, both children could prosecuted.

I don't think that this is actually true though, with regard to GAR19 (though GAR16 may in fact have this effect), since GAR19 defines sexual abuse as sexual activity "between an adult and a child."

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador