Civil disobedience and the age of consent

Beppo

Throughout history there have been unjust laws, such as persecution on the grounds of skin color, sexuality or religion. These laws were unjust because there was no justification for their existence, other than blind hatred and ignorance. When people disobey these unjust laws it is called civil disobedience.

Age of consent laws vary across the world, from 18 in the USA to 14 in Italy. Clearly there is no consensus in regard to what age one becomes capable of consenting to sex, or at what age sex ceases to be a harmful activity. There is no universal age of consent, yet the law imposes absolutist age based restrictions on sexual activity. Actions must be proven to be harmful in some way in order for them to be illegal, yet there is no evidence suggesting sex with persons under the age of consent is harmful. For example much of the research only looks at individuals admitted to psychiatric hospitals, disregarding the potentially higher number of unharmed individuals who experienced under age sex.

Adding to the complexity of the issue is the role of adults in the lives of persons under the age of consent. For example there is no law preventing parents feeding their children junk food resulting in obesity. Another issue is that of criminal responsibility, it's not uncommon for persons under the age of consent to be tried as an adult - this implies persons under the age of consent can understand the implications of their actions. Finally there are different ages at which one can drive, serve in the army and drink alcohol - all adding to the inconsistency of age based laws. Martin Luther King said "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".


My question is this:

Is it civil disobedience when an adult has sex with a person under the age of consent providing there is no evidence of harm?

source

It's a very relevant law, the reason for the law is to stop people who are themselves only kids from getting pregnant and having kids, which they are unable to raise correctly, possibly leaving the state to raise the child. It also affects the new young parents, if they keep the child, in their future lives. Unless they have good parents who will look after the child, they wind up leaving school early to work to support the newborn child.

The law is a good one, and is there for a good reason. The only issue I have is that the law discriminates against males, by having a different age of consent for males and females. Say 2 people a male and a female have sex, now lets say they're both 16, in the eyes of the law, the male is legally allowed to have sex but the female isn't. This makes the male guilty of the offence of statutory rape. That is the real issue with the legislation.

chunkylover4

The age of consent is also there to safe guard children from adults taking advantage of them. A massive power imbalance generally exists between an adult and a child and it is very difficult to gauge whether consent is freely given due to that power imbalance.

These laws have strong reasoning behind them.
Also why should civil disobiediance be used in this state? perhaps potentially raping a child is not the best example to use.

Delancey

Beppo wrote: »

My question is this:

Is it civil disobedience when an adult has sex with a person under the age of consent providing there is no evidence of harm?

No , it is a serious criminal offence.

While the OP does make some interesting points it must be borne in mind that the laws exist for the protection of young people , there is an assumption that a girl of say 13 years old is not able to make a decision of informed consent in relation to sexual intercourse.

Young people are easily misled and without age of consent laws would be easy prey to unscrupulous individuals and indeed paedophiles.

Delancey

Delancey wrote: »

Young people are easily misled and without age of consent laws would be easy prey to unscrupulous individuals and indeed paedophiles.

There is a massive difference between someone who is attracted to a pubescent teenager and a prepubescent child. The former is actually a quite natural evolutionary response, we are supposed to be attracted to them. The latter is utterly disgusting and should be protected against at all costs. However to blur the line between the 2 and to call both paedophiles is both inaccurate and unhelpful in dealing with the problem.

That is not to say that I disagree with the age of consent at 17. I think it's absolutely correct for all sorts of social reasons but the OP does raise a reasonable point that the line is, admittedly, arbitrary and that it is important for a society to justify laws that are by necessity arbitrary in order to allow its citizens to fully accept the rationale behind them.

I think some European ages of consent (Italy for example) are extremely dangerous but I do see the rationale behind not criminalising an action that is, inherently, natural. Perhaps reviewing the law to make it a crime for a person 18 or over to engage in sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 17 but not to criminalise the act between persons below 18 would eliminate what I think we all have to recognise is an unworkable and unjustifiable position in our laws?

Beppo

Thank you for your replies everyone.

source wrote: »

the reason for the law is to stop people who are themselves only kids from getting pregnant and having kids

You assume underage sex results in pregnancy - this is not true as contraception can be used.

The denial of child sexuality and criminalisation of young people results in pregnancy. This is due to young people being unable to get contraception without being prosecuted.

chunkylover4 wrote: »

A massive power imbalance generally exists between an adult and a child and it is very difficult to gauge whether consent is freely given due to that power imbalance.

Then why don't we criminalise all relationships with age gaps? A 20 year old is naive and lacks life experience, should it be legal for a 40 year old to have sex with them? Is it fair to assume coercion and harm without evidence?

chunkylover4 wrote: »

These laws have strong reasoning behind them.

No they don't. They are arbitrary and moralistic, if they weren't all nations would have the same age of consent.

Delancey wrote: »

there is an assumption that a girl of say 13 years old is not able to make a decision of informed consent in relation to sexual intercourse.

And yet the age of criminal responsibility is 12 (previously 7 until recently). So a 12 year old understands exactly what they're doing except when they consent to sex. Interesting.

Delancey wrote: »

Young people are easily misled and without age of consent laws would be easy prey to unscrupulous individuals and indeed paedophiles.

Your definition of paedophile is incorrect - a paedophile rapes toddlers and babies, teenagers are physically mature and want to have sex. The majority of people convicted of underage sex are not rapists but the partners of underage individuals, why do you assume they have sinister intentions?

Deleted User wrote: »

That is not to say that I disagree with the age of consent at 17.

Don't people over 17 need protection from the unscrupulous?

Deleted User wrote: »

I think some European ages of consent (Italy for example) are extremely dangerous

Dangerous why? Is this real or imagined danger? Clearly the Italians don't think it's dangerous.

If having sex with an under 17 was traumatic shouldn't we condemn nations with lower ages of consent, such as the UK (16) and Spain (13)?

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps reviewing the law to make it a crime for a person 18 or over to engage in sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 17 but not to criminalise the act between persons below 18 would eliminate what I think we all have to recognise is an unworkable and unjustifiable position in our laws?

How is this fair? Under your proposed system a 15 year old could have sex with another 15 year old but not a 20 year old - what difference does it make? Either they are old enough to have sex or they aren't. Ironically it would probably be less risky for the 15 year old to have sex with a 20 year old, the older partner would be more likely to use contraception!

Why do we need an 'age of consent'? Why can't we just criminalise all sex if it's harmful, coercive, exploitative etc?

I look forward to reading your replies.

chunkylover4

Then why don't we criminalise all relationships with age gaps? A 20 year old is naive and lacks life experience, should it be legal for a 40 year old to have sex with them? Is it fair to assume coercion and harm without evidence?

Because as this is a preventative measure there needs to be some kind of cut off point. At 20 you are legally an adult and are assumed to be able to make rational decisions as opposed to a 14 year old, who can't even make a contract, save for necessary goods

MagicSean

The age of criminal responsability is 12 because that is when you are assumed to know right from wrong. The age at which you can enter a contract is 18 because that's the age you are considered able to weigh up the consequences of your actions.

Beppo

chunkylover4 wrote: »

Because as this is a preventative measure there needs to be some kind of cut off point.

A cut off point is counter-productive and unfair. There should be flexibility, each case is unique.

chunkylover4 wrote: »

At 20 you are legally an adult and are assumed to be able to make rational decisions as opposed to a 14 year old,

In Ireland. But not in Italy, Spain, Germany, Portugal and Austria where 14 year olds can consent to sex with adults of any age.

Do you really think 20 year olds are as sensible and safe as 30 year olds? You're certainly very naive, but I suppose being raised in an intolerant Catholic nation is unconducive to critical thinking.

MagicSean wrote: »

The age at which you can enter a contract is 18 because that's the age you are considered able to weigh up the consequences of your actions.

This is a good point. However why is it 18 and not 20? Or 17? Is the number 18 in some way special or magical? Or has it been chosen randomly?

Beppo

Beppo wrote: »

A cut off point is counter-productive and unfair. There should be flexibility, each case is unique.

Nonsense. If that were the case then nobody would ever know when they were committing a serious offence and when they were just performing a perfectly natural act.

Beppo wrote:

Do you really think 20 year olds are as sensible and safe as 30 year olds? You're certainly very naive, but I suppose being raised in an intolerant Catholic nation is unconducive to critical thinking.

This is a good point. However why is it 18 and not 20? Or 17? Is the number 18 in some way special or magical? Or has it been chosen randomly?

At some stage society has to choose. Simple as that. There's probably no way to make a perfect law in this area and a certain level of judicial discretion is necessary to cover over the odd situations that would crop up but, in general, to protect the younger members of our society from older persons we need to pick and age and say "for us, as a society, this is the age that we deem to be the minimum for consensual sex".


You clearly have your own opinion so why not share it with us and let us comment and debate upon it?

Victor

Beppo wrote: »

Your definition of paedophile is incorrect - a paedophile rapes toddlers and babies,

Its more than just that.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paedophile+

World English Dictionary
paedophile or esp (US) pedophile (ˈpiːdəʊˌfaɪl)
—n
a person who is sexually attracted to children

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child

World English Dictionary
child (tʃaɪld)
—n , pl children
1. a. a boy or girl between birth and puberty

teenagers are physically mature and want to have sex.

I am physically capable of and want to kill person X. Should I be allowed?

The majority of people convicted of underage sex are not rapists but the partners of underage individuals

"Partner" might be quite loaded there.

Society makes judgements on many things, some age based, some not. Society differs from country to country, so societies' rules also change.

A teenager being pregnant in Ireland has certain implications for the teenager. In a different country, those implications may also be different.

Peregrinus

Beppo wrote: »

My question is this:

Is it civil disobedience when an adult has sex with a person under the age of consent providing there is no evidence of harm?

In theory it could be, but I suspect it normally isn’t.

Generally a breach of the law is characterized as civil disobedience if it is committed in order to protest against the injustice of the law, or to protest some wider political injustice. So if you have sex with a fifteen-year old in order to protest against the injustice of age-of-consent laws, that’s civil disobedience. But if you have sex with a fifteen-year-old because you’re feeling randy, or because you’re in love, that’s not civil disobedience even if, as it happens, you believe that age-of-consent laws are unjust.

It should be pointed out that an offence committed by way of civil disobedience is still an offence, and you still get convicted and sentenced for it. Gandhi, one of the leading exponents of civil disobedience, also emphasized respect for the law, and those engaged in civil disobedience must submit to authority, not retaliate or express anger, submit to arrest and trial, pay fines, serve prison time, etc. All of these actions were part of their protest. Thus claiming that you are engaged in “civil disobedience” is in no sense a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Beppo wrote: »

Why do we need an 'age of consent'? Why can't we just criminalise all sex if it's harmful, coercive, exploitative etc? . . .

However why is it 18 and not 20? Or 17? Is the number 18 in some way special or magical? Or has it been chosen randomly?

Fair questions. The fact is that we do criminalise all sex which is coercive; we call it rape. Given that, do we need an age of consent as well?

The age of consent in Ireland is 17. This number is neither special nor magical, but nor has it been chosen randomly, and this is easily shown.

The age of consent in EU countries varies between a low of 13 (Spain) and a high of 18 (Malta), but in fact nearly all EU countries fall within the range 14 to 16. This is a fairly narrow range, when we consider that humans live to 80. The unsurprising conclusion is that the age limits are not randomly chosen, but are related to the easily-observed phenomenon of adolescence, a period of human development which is associated with the development of physical, psychological, emotional and moral aptitude for sexual relationships.

We don’t have a simple test for sexual readiness, so to speak, and it’s not easy to draw a precise line saying when someone is “ready for sex”. Even if we could, readiness would presumably vary from person to person. So picking a particular age, and applying it across the board is a fairy crude approach.

But it’s not without its advantages. Particularly when we’re talking about defining crimes, people have a right to certainty. If we had some nebulous medical/psychological/emotional test which applied to determine whether having sex was an offence, no-one would ever know at the time whether having sex was an offence, which is hardly a satisfactory position. (Unless, of course, you find risk a turn-on!)

The fact that it’s difficult to draw a precise line between sexually immature and sexually mature doesn’t mean (a) that there is no difference between these two states of human development, or (b) that the difference is unimportant. We can say with reasonable confidence that the great bulk of people under 17 are not sexually mature, and that the great bulk of people over 17 are. So, crude and all as this line is, it is more useful, and a closer reflection of reality, than pretending that there is no difference, or that the difference is unimportant. (And we also recognize the fairly blurry nature of the line by providing different penalties according to whether the the young person is over or under 15.)

We use the fixed age approach a lot. You can’t (mostly) be convicted of an offence if you are under the age of 12. You can get a driving licence at 17. You can vote and buy alcohol at 18. You can marry without the consent of any other person at 21. In every case you can point to people just over the line, or just under it, for whom the legally-prescribed treatment seems inappropriate. But at least people know where they stand and, in most cases, the legal treatment is not inappropriate.

So, you have a boyfriend or girlfriend who is under the age of 17? Well, it may be irksome, but look on the bright side. You know exactly what the position is. You need to keep it in your pants.

Zambia

OP with the greatest of respect this all falls flat on its face when you have a kid.

Lets say you have a 14 year old niece or daughter. They come home one day with their 45 Year old sex buddy they met online.

Sorry you cant be OK with that. Neither would most of society so as law is made up of the general wish of most of society it becomes law. Without such a law our 45 year old net trawler commits no crime.

We have to draw a line somewhere so it may as well be around the time we start expecting kids to make decisions about college careers etc.

In the case of similar ages their should be some leeway for example a year in age difference should be no offence.

I would like to ask you a question and feel free not to answer do you have kids?

johnnyskeleton

Peregrinus wrote: »

It should be pointed out that an offence committed by way of civil disobedience is still an offence, and you still get convicted and sentenced for it. Gandhi, one of the leading exponents of civil disobedience, also emphasized respect for the law, and those engaged in civil disobedience must submit to authority, not retaliate or express anger, submit to arrest and trial, pay fines, serve prison time, etc. All of these actions were part of their protest. Thus claiming that you are engaged in “civil disobedience” is in no sense a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Interesting point. So to be really committing civil disobedience in relation to this, the offender should perhaps call the gardai himself and make a full confession and then stand trial to make their point. Otherwise, if they get away with it, their point is lost on the wider public.

Beppo

Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

MagicSean

Beppo wrote: »

Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

Read Lost and Found by Jaycee Dugard.

Avatargh

Beppo wrote: »

Is it civil disobedience when an adult has sex with a person under the age of consent providing there is no evidence of harm?

Why is the question even relevant?

What is the point of asking if something is "civil disobedience"? What is the supposed consequence of that?

Indeed, you seem to have some assumption that they concept of "civil obedience" is linked to a concept of "harm". That may be, but so what? We don't deal in "civil disobedience" or "civil obedience". We deal in legal or illegal and, when discussion the prior right or wrong as to what may our ought to be illegal or legal, we tend to talk in either moral or some form of moral terms.

This reads like you have a pre-conception all worked out already.

Avatargh

Beppo wrote: »

Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

Well, why not just leave it then on the basis that you and a lot of others will disagree over what "harm" means.

Christ...

Procrastastudy

A friend of mine moved to Canada with two young daughters back when the age of consent was 14 (or he may have just thought it was still 14). He said to me on the one had the age of consent was 14, on the other hand the gun control laws where very lax!

That not particular funny anecdote aside - the most sensible solution in my opinion is to have an overall age of consent say 18 but have a restricted age of consent - perhaps 14 where if the two parties consent and the age gap is less than a year or so it is not considered statutory rape. Even the current dogs dinner that is the 2006 Act in Ireland has a provision for this.

While its a perfectly natural part of growing up to discover your sexuality in your teens it is not acceptable for a adult to take advantage of this bonk 15 year olds! Teenagers engaging in underage sex is one thing an adult should have the self control and morals to understand that the teenager is the venerable party.

Honestly lads women aren't that hard to get - just try Coppers ot Break for the Border on a Fri/Sat night. I like like Martin Clunes on a bad day and even I don't have an issue. (before I was married of course!) While I'm sure this is a purely legal question for academic purposes - if it's not for anyone reading this thread seek help now!

Finnbar01

Beppo wrote: »

Read 'The Trauma Myth' by Susan Clancy - most children enjoy doing sex, society makes them feel bad about it afterwards. If something is harmless there is no justification for its prohibition.

We could say that necrophilism is harmless but I doubt if we should justify it.