Comments on: Have a writ sandwich, Hairshirt Hamilton

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:45:18 +0000

I don’t disagree with your point that the difference between 16-15 y.o relationship and a 66-15 y.o. relationship is a moral distinction (albeit a widely shared one)… but in reality allowing romeo & juliet laws at least prevent a significant number of normal people being classed as criminals.

By: justinjefferson

justinjefferson — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:53:47 +0000

The problem with the Romeo and Juliet laws is that they enshrine in law a particular sexual morality, and there is no reason based on child protection why those who don’t want to comply with them, should. It would be like a religious party succeeding in criminalising adultery: they might think it’s offensive, but why should other mature and consenting people be forced to complywith them just because they think so?

By: Fleeced

Fleeced — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:40:14 +0000

There is certainly an inconsistency between legal ages for different activities (sex, drinking, voting, movie ratings, etc), but I see no reason these should all be set to the same value.

I certainly don’t think that 16 year olds should be able to vote, since they are (generally) not contributing members of society. Yeah, sometimes they’re not after that either, but it’s never going to be perfect.

I don’t agree that age of consent should be increased as terje suggested. If there was going to be a change to the age of consent laws (to decrease) based on “physical maturity”, then I think the aforementioned “Romeo and Juliet” laws might be in order.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:52:09 +0000

I know that “R” rating is for 18+, but most movies have a M15 rating, which is for people 15+.

By: Antibush

Antibush — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:41:45 +0000

Bush and the Republicans were not protecting us on 9-11, and we aren’t a lot safer now. We may be more afraid due to george bush, but are we safer? Being fearful does not necessarily make one safer. Fear can cause people to hide and cower. What do you think? How does that work in a democracy again? How does being more threatening make us more likeable?Isn’t the country with
the most weapons the biggest threat to the rest of the world? When one country is the biggest threat to the rest of the world, isn’t that likely to be the most hated country?
If ever there was ever a time in our nation’s history that called for a change, this is it!
The more people that the government puts in jails, the safer we are told to think we are. The real terrorists are wherever they are, but they aren’t living in a country with bars on the windows. We are.

By: Terje (say tay-a)

Terje (say tay-a) — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:00:15 +0000

their = there

By: Terje (say tay-a)

Terje (say tay-a) — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:59:30 +0000

In NSW the law says you can not sell cigarettes to those that are under 16. Presumably you can sell them sex.

The age limit to watch adult movies (R and X) is 18.

I agree that these things don’t all need to line up. However their currently seems to be a lot of inconsistent logic.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:09:33 +0000

The smoking age used to be 16… did they change it?

You have to be 17 to get a drivers licence, 16 to fly an airplane solo with a student’s licence and 17 to get a full flying licence. The age for being able to watch non-kiddy movies is 15.

I’m not sure if we need to bring all of these age limits into line… but if we do, then I would prefer that they were relatively low. There is already some support for allowing those >16 to vote and most 16 & 17 y.o’s already have access to alcohol.

Of course, these are just the legal minimums. Parents can create additional home rules if they want.

By: terje (say tay-a)

terje (say tay-a) — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:43:05 +0000

At 16 you can legally exchange bodily fluids (and risk pregnancy or STDs) but you can’t legally drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, gamble or visit a strip club. If we are going to protect teenagers from self harm I would think sexual encounters pose a more immediate and enduring risk than any of these other activities. I personally think that parents have the primary responsibility for protecting children from themselves, however in so far as the state does get involved it should do so with some semblance of consistency and logic. Rather than yielding to pressures to lower the legal age of consent it makes more sence in my view to moderate the sanctions involved.

I don’t agree with using the courts as an early gateway into adult status. I don’t think the real need is great enough and I think that there are two many downsides. Not least being the potential rift between parents and their offspring through court based power struggles. I suspect also that some parents would use it as a way to wash their hands of responsibility. The family law courts have not historically delivered satisfaction to those involved.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:37:43 +0000

I have a lot of sympathy with what JJ wrote… though I’m not sure that I can think of any appropriate resolution with regards to the legal age of consent.

JC asks about a sexual relationship between a 30 & 14 year old. Most people would find that age gap confronting. But under the current system it is illegal for a 16 & 15 y.o. couple to have sex but it is perfectly legal for a 50 & 16 y.o to have sex.

In some states in America they have introduced “romeo & juliet” laws to cater for the 16/15 example.

One important move we could make now is to be more clear about the distinction between illegal sex and child sex crimes.

Recently I was thinking about the idea that a child can legally declare themselves an adult at any time and be treated as such (including their choice about sex).

Effectively we could treat them as being part of an implicit contract with their parents & government as soon as they are born (Parent protect child; child obey parent; govt treats child differently) and they can renounce that contract when they choose. A more moderate alternative is that they can apply to a court to “divorce” their parents if they can show a sufficient level of maturity.