NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1591688,00.html?cnn=yes

Background: 17-year old boy (Wilson) at a party gets convicted of child molestation for oral sex with a 15-year old girl. ((Other boys are also charged, but plea out and end up mostly with probation)). The law at the time makes any sex with someone under 16 a felony, so he is convicted under the current law and sentenced to serve 10 years in prison and register as a sex offender for life.

His case, among others, led to a public outcry resulting in the passage of a "Romeo and Juliet" law under which Wilson's offense would have simply been a misdemeanor, with no sex-offender registration. However, the GA General Assembly decided not to include language which would have allowed the law to be retroactively applied to those already convicted.

Ok, so lets sum up so far. The people think that it is unjust for a teen to go to jail for 10 years for consensual (or as consensual as it gets when you're that young) sex with another teen. The General Assembly passes a law that would make such an offense a misdemeanor - agreeing with the people that it would be unjust to make it a felony conviction. However, they basically say to all the teen offenders already in jail, "Sorry, we know you're in jail unjustly, but we don't care. You're screwed!"

From the article:
Sen. Eric Johnson, the Republican president pro tempore of the Georgia senate, argued that the bill would mean having to reopen more than 1,100 cases where young people were convicted of sexual offenses against younger teens. "Even in Genarlow Wilson's case," Johnson told TIME, "he was indicted, convicted by a jury unanimously and sentenced by a judge, so why should a bunch of politicians second-guess the process just because he has a defense attorney who has hired a publicist and turned this into a media circus?"

I actually used to live in this guy's district. Yes, he's an asshole, but does he listen to himself? He's basically just said two really stupid things:

1) It would be inconvenient to seek actual justice for 1,100 offenders, so lets just leave their lives ruined anyways. How could we possibly reopen 1,100 cases when the General Assembly has made the crimes they committed misdemeanors, rather than felonies?

2) A jury convicted him, so why should politicians second guess the process? Um....Sen. Johnson, isn't that what you just did when you decided that it was wrong for the offense to be listed as a felony and require sex offender registration?

*sigh*

So, what do you think? Is the inconvenience of reopening 1,100 cases so bad that we can't actually seek justice for the offenders in those cases? Should those 1,100 teenage offenders sit in jail for a decade or so because we're too lazy to apply the law as we have changed it (admitting that the old law was unjust) to them as well?

Stories like this are why I find the pairing of the words "Law & Justice" in college course catalogues to be an enormous contradiction in terms.

Ah, Dempublicents, if they HAD put in retroactive aspects, that law would have been unconstitutional. Ex post facto legislation is specifically prohibited.

Ah, Dempublicents, if they HAD put in retroactive aspects, that law would have been unconstitutional. Ex post facto legislation is specifically prohibited.

I thought of that, too, but I see that stipulation in the Constitution as meaning that you can't convict someone ex post facto, not necessarily that you can't review prior convictions when a new law redefines the offense.

I mean, obviously justice takes a break when it's just too hard to get those kids our of jail...we wouldn't want to inconvenience the justice system with justice, after all. That would take time away from our reelection campaigns.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/06/26/520/01375

It seems those Romeo and Juliet laws don't apply to gay teens. And why should they? After all, it's called Romeo and Juliet, not Romeo and Julio.

it would be too time consuming and expensive to retry 1100 cases.

the governor should convene a committee to review the cases and anyone who was convicted of a crime that would not be a crime under the new statute should be pardoned and his record expunged.

Frankly, justice should be sought at any price, and the senator cited is evidently a parsnip/human hybrid.

Frankly, justice should be sought at any price, and the senator cited is evidently a parsnip/human hybrid.

Well, not ANY price, but it should be one of our priorities.

We're too puritan in our sex laws anyway. IMO, anyone over 14 can have sex with anyone under 30 if they're both okay with it.

2) A jury convicted him, so why should politicians second guess the process? Um....Sen. Johnson, isn't that what you just did when you decided that it was wrong for the offense to be listed as a felony and require sex offender registration? Well, as much as I agree with you in general, I doubt that Johnson was one of those who were for the law in the first place. He certainly doesn't sound like it and the article mentions that the law was only passed after a heated battle in the Senate. So yeah, I guess he's actually being less hypocritical than it seems, as much as it pains me to say.

What's almost worse is the reason they're actually bringing up now for not freeing Wilson: he didn't just have sex with the girl, he had sex in a way that we find nasty and that's why he should stay in prison. Can't have people having nasty sex now, can we?


it would be too time consuming and expensive to retry 1100 cases.

the governor should convene a committee to review the cases and anyone who was convicted of a crime that would not be a crime under the new statute should be pardoned and his record expunged.Indeed. Isn't this what would be the usual thing to do anyway? I mean, this isn't a case where the punishment for a certain crime has been changed, it's a case where the "crime" has been de-criminalized. So yes, one would think they would go and do exactly what you said. One would also assume they would do so without having to be prompted, let alone being fought tooth and nail. :rolleyes:

Yeah, politicians think about what they're saying: Whether or not it'll get them re-elected.

We're too puritan in our sex laws anyway. IMO, anyone over 14 can have sex with anyone under 30 if they're both okay with it.

If I had a 14 year old daughter and a twenty year old guy showed up to take her out on a date I'd be in prison.

Can't have people having nasty sex now, can we?


:eek:
*thunder rolls*

We're too puritan in our sex laws anyway. IMO, anyone over 14 can have sex with anyone under 30 if they're both okay with it.

Which one are you? The just-over-14-and-gagging-for-any, or the almost-30-with-a-penchant-for-the-barely-teens?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/06/26/520/01375

It seems those Romeo and Juliet laws don't apply to gay teens. And why should they? After all, it's called Romeo and Juliet, not Romeo and Julio.

I disagree with the wording "members of the opposite sex" in the law, however I think that the 17 year sentence of this particular crime may have other extenuating circumstances. I noticed that this happened at a school for the developmentally disabled. Obviously I don't know for sure whether this actually happened, but it seems very possible that one of the boys may have cajoled a retarded person into sexual acts. Someone that was mentally 5 or 6 in other words. This seems like a likely reason for such a large sentence in that case.

The other reason of course would be a homophobic jury, but I think that in this case the former is more likely.

We're too puritan in our sex laws anyway. IMO, anyone over 14 can have sex with anyone under 30 if they're both okay with it.

Let me guess, you are the 20-something guy who doesn't want to be called a pedophile for liking 14-year old girls.

If I had a 14 year old daughter and a twenty year old guy showed up to take her out on a date I'd be in prison.

*shrugs* She's your daughter, you can legally tell her not to go out with someone. But if the parents are fine with it, then why should the government care?

Which one are you? The just-over-14-and-gagging-for-any, or the almost-30-with-a-penchant-for-the-barely-teens?

I'm 19, engaged to a 21 year old.

Let me guess, you are the 20-something guy who doesn't want to be called a pedophile for liking 14-year old girls.

I'm 19, engaged to a 21 year old.

*shrugs* She's your daughter, you can legally tell her not to go out with someone. But if the parents are fine with it, then why should the government care?

Same reason they care when a guy decides to fuck a mildly retarded girl. There is no informed consent.

Oh and woot for my rank upgrade to Joltbot Shoeshiner.

Ah, Dempublicents, if they HAD put in retroactive aspects, that law would have been unconstitutional. Ex post facto legislation is specifically prohibited.

No, trying someone for something that was not illegal at the time or now carries a harsher penalty is unconstitutional. It is not unconstitutional to lessen a sentence based on new legislation. In fact, if it were, states which banned the death penalty would still have to execute anyone on death row.

If, tomorrow, we decided that marijuana should not be illegal, it would not be at all unconstitutional to release those in prison on marijuana-based charges.

I'm 19, engaged to a 21 year old.

All right, so you simply want to excuse the actions of scum who want to be able to fuck young girls. Not much of an improvement there.

All right, so you simply want to excuse the actions of scum who want to be able to fuck young girls. Not much of an improvement there.

I don't see them as scum just because they're attracted to someone.

it would be too time consuming and expensive to retry 1100 cases.

the governor should convene a committee to review the cases and anyone who was convicted of a crime that would not be a crime under the new statute should be pardoned and his record expunged.

To be fair, we aren't really talking about retrying them. I think by "reopen", he meant "review." From my understanding, courts can reduce sentences or overturn them in the appeals process.


I disagree with the wording "members of the opposite sex" in the law, however I think that the 17 year sentence of this particular crime may have other extenuating circumstances. I noticed that this happened at a school for the developmentally disabled. Obviously I don't know for sure whether this actually happened, but it seems very possible that one of the boys may have cajoled a retarded person into sexual acts. Someone that was mentally 5 or 6 in other words. This seems like a likely reason for such a large sentence in that case.

Did you also notice the fact that the 18-year old was, himself, "developmentally disabled"? This obviously wasn't a case of a teen picking on a guy who was mentally disabled. If anything, they both were. And the act seems to have been one case of the 18-year old performing oral sex on the younger boy, not a large number of sex acts.

Meanwhile, nothing changes the fact that the exact same case, were the younger teen to have been female, would have resulted in no more than 15 month term in jail.

The other reason of course would be a homophobic jury, but I think that in this case the former is more likely.

Actually, it's most likely a number of factors. Homophobia in the jury is extremely likely. Homophobia in the legislature is downright obvious.

Ah, Dempublicents, if they HAD put in retroactive aspects, that law would have been unconstitutional. Ex post facto legislation is specifically prohibited.

incorrect.

Ex post facto bars means you can not arrest someone for committing an act that was legal at the time they committed it but later made illegal.

If stealing from someone's trash is legal today, and today I go off and swipe something from a dumpster, and tomorrow that is made illegal, I constitutionally can not be charged.

ex post facto restrictions mean that if I did something that was legal at the time that I did it I can not be convicted under a law tha makes the same act illegal at a later date.

You CAN add legislation that would void existing sentences, that's fine. A state may always give MORE rights than the constitution allows. It simply can not restrict beyond.

"Do politicians ever think about what they're saying?"

Did you look for the obvious answer to that before saying it?

All right, so you simply want to excuse the actions of scum who want to be able to fuck young girls. Not much of an improvement there.

when I was 16 I was pretty interesting in fucking most of the women I encountered daily.

The majority of them were under 18.

Same reason they care when a guy decides to fuck a mildly retarded girl. There is no informed consent.Depends on the 14-year old.

I don't see them as scum just because they're attracted to someone.

I see. So the younger party can give full consent can they? They are not being targeted by a predator? I'm sure that the 14 year old can give striking conversation to keep the adult interested. That must be it. And why have the arbitrary line of 14? Why not 13, or 12? No reason we can't let adults screw them as well right? As long as we are giving excuses for these predators I'm sure we can also go down the route that says that these children know exactly what they are doing and maybe even "seduced" the guy. That must be it! So why not let these bastards feed their sickness. There are no moral absolutes anyway, right? So why the fuck not?

I see. So the younger party can give full consent can they? They are not being targeted by a predator? I'm sure that the 14 year old can give striking conversation to keep the adult interested. That must be it. And why have the arbitrary line of 14? Why not 13, or 12? No reason we can't let adults screw them as well right? As long as we are giving excuses for these predators I'm sure we can also go down the route that says that these children know exactly what they are doing and maybe even "seduced" the guy. That must be it! So why not let these bastards feed their sickness. There are no moral absolutes anyway, right? So why the fuck not?

congratulations, you entirely missed the point.

Unless you don't see the difference between ATTRACTION and ACTION. You equate someone as scum because they are ATTRACTED to younger people. Strong difference between thinking something and acting on that thought. Seems you don't understand that.

You must be catholic

when I was 16 I was pretty interesting in fucking most of the women I encountered daily.

The majority of them were under 18.

He was advocating that it should be just fine for a 30yr old to have sex with a 14yr old. I find that NOT to an acceptable action nor should anyone else.

As for the topic of the OP I certainly think two underage people having a sexual act isn't the same as the above example. 14 is old enough if the other partner is also underage so I do think those cases mentioned need to be reviewed.

You must be catholico.O

Depends on the 14-year old.

Laws cannot be passed or enforced if they're to be specifically tailored to each and every individual. You've got to draw a line somewhere. It should be in a place where you balance protection for those who need it with liberty for those that deserve it.

congratulations, you entirely missed the point.

Unless you don't see the difference between ATTRACTION and ACTION. You equate someone as scum because they are ATTRACTED to younger people. Strong difference between thinking something and acting on that thought. Seems you don't understand that.

You must be catholic

I am most certainly not Catholic, I despise religion entirely.

I don't see how an attraction to kids is ok. People are weak creatures so it is not that far of a leap of logic that they will try to ACT on their simple ATTRACTION. So I am not going to feel any sympathy for those people who have such THOUGHTS. They are a DANGER to children so I have no problem viewing those who want to have sex with those who are underage as SCUM.

o.O

you know, the whole "impure thoughts are as much of a sin as impure deeds" thing?

EDIT: sorry, I see how it could be read as "you must be catholic because you are stupid". My general point was the catholic religion, as dogma, treats thinking bad things as bad, or at least almost as bad as doing bad things.

He was advocating that it should be just fine for a 30yr old to have sex with a 14yr old. I find that NOT to an acceptable action nor should anyone else.

The legal age in Sweden is 15. There is no big, substantial difference between 14 and 15 IMO. So, what you find "an acceptable action" is of no consequence to what anyone else should find, so spare us your pseudo-puritanism.

The legal age in Sweden is 15. There is no big, substantial difference between 14 and 15 IMO. So, what you find "an acceptable action" is of no consequence to what anyone else should find, so spare us your pseudo-puritanism.

Thank you for your moral relativism. I simply don't care for it as I can only see such an argument as excusing the acts of child molesters. Since when have we stopped trying to protect our children? We are supposed to feel it is just fine for an adult to have sex with kids at such an age? I would like to see society remain believing that our children do not know everything and that they simply can not rationally consent to such an act. They are still "minors" aren't they? As I see it a society should be judged on how it treats its children. Giving a pass on this makes me sick. If you decide that my belief that 14 year olds shouldn't be having sex with adults is simple puritanism then I can only say that your exaggeration has no place here.

It is not as if I think our kids need to be protected from any influences that may teach them about sexuality or that we should have abstinence only sex ed classes or something dumb like that. I simply believe that adults should stay the hell away from our young people. I'm hardly going to feel that this view is somehow wrong.

Laws cannot be passed or enforced if they're to be specifically tailored to each and every individual. You've got to draw a line somewhere. It should be in a place where you balance protection for those who need it with liberty for those that deserve it.Actually, you're wrong there. Law in Germany states that once you're 14, you can sign limited contracts, can be tried for crimes, and can consent to sex.
§ 149. Sexueller Mißbrauch von Jugendlichen. (1) Ein Erwachsener, der einen Jugendlichen zwischen vierzehn und sechzehn Jahren unter Ausnutzung der moralischen Unreife durch Geschenke, Versprechen von Vorteilen oder in ähnlicher Weise dazu mißbraucht, mit ihm Geschlechtsverkehr auszuüben oder geschlechtsverkehrsähnliche Handlungen vorzunehmen, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Verurteilung auf Bewährung bestraft. (2) Die Strafverfolgung verjährt in zwei Jahren.
Translation:
Article 149. Sexual abuse of youths. (1) An adult (note: in Germany, an adult is someone 21 years of age or older) that abuses a youth between fourteen and sixteen years of age by means of using their moral immaturity by means of presents, promise of benefits or similar manner, to engage in sexual intercourse or similar actions, shall be punished with incarceration for two years or probation. (2) Statute of limitations is two years.

Whether the sexual immaturity was abused or not determines whether there was abuse or not.

So, yeah, it can be legislated.

The legal age in Sweden is 15. There is no big, substantial difference between 14 and 15 IMO. So, what you find "an acceptable action" is of no consequence to what anyone else should find, so spare us your pseudo-puritanism.

Sweden is not Georgia. So, the legal age in Sweden is of no consequence.

Actually, you're wrong there. Law in Germany states that once you're 14, you can sign limited contracts, can be tried for crimes, and can consent to sex.

Translation:
Article 149. Sexual abuse of youths. (1) An adult (note: in Germany, an adult is someone 21 years of age or older) that abuses a youth between fourteen and sixteen years of age by means of using their moral immaturity by means of presents, promise of benefits or similar manner, to engage in sexual intercourse or similar actions, shall be punished with incarceration for two years or probation. (2) Statute of limitations is two years.

Whether the sexual immaturity was abused or not determines whether there was abuse or not.

So, yeah, it can be legislated.
No, you're proving me right. I said laws can't specifically be tailored to individuals. You pass one law for everyone. If the law says that the legal age is 14, you can't have a special age of consent for precocious 13 year old or for a particularly gullible 15 year old.

I mean, obviously justice takes a break when it's just too hard to get those kids our of jail...we wouldn't want to inconvenience the justice system with justice, after all. That would take time away from our reelection campaigns.

A point at which I applaud your sarcasm sir.

I don't see them as scum just because they're attracted to someone.

Woah there. Do you ever think about WHY they are attracted to them? Because they just want sex. Do you think that person is going to care when the 14-year-old girl is pregnant and having to drop out of school and attempt to find some job that will hire her at that age for below minimum wage while she works 60 hours a week trying to raise this child? Not one bit.

I have ti disagree with two major points here.
1) It would be inconvenient to seek actual justice for 1,100 offenders, so lets just leave their lives ruined anyways. How could we possibly reopen 1,100 cases when the General Assembly has made the crimes they committed misdemeanors, rather than felonies?
Because they were felonies when the committed them. The point of the law is to discourage bad acts, but if the offenders aren't punished in accordance with the rules as they were written at the time of the infraction, then the law loses prescriptive force.

The law that applied at the time the acts took place made those acts felonies. As such, those offenders should be punished as felons.
2) A jury convicted him, so why should politicians second guess the process? Um....Sen. Johnson, isn't that what you just did when you decided that it was wrong for the offense to be listed as a felony and require sex offender registration?
No. The jury decided that these people had violated the law. They were right. The law has now changed, but the law can't change retroactively. If it could, it could declare that what you did yesterday was a capital crime and executive you for it, even though you had no reason to expect that consequence when you did it. How would that be justice? Ex post facto law is always a terrible idea; the law needs to be applied as it was written at the time the act took place.

If the country bans flag burning, is it now allowed to throw in prison anyone who burned a flag back when it wasn't illegal yet? Of course not. And the same reasoning applies here.

These kids knew what they were doing was illegal (or they should have - it's every citizen's responsibility to know the laws that govern him), and they did it anyway. Rewarding them because the government had a change of heart creates hope for ALL OTHER OFFENDERS that the same might happen to the law they're considering breaking, and thus they no longer fear punishment as a certain outcome. They can now credibly hope that the law will be changed to their benefit, and thus the law will utterly fail to deter bad acts.

No, you're proving me right. I said laws can't specifically be tailored to individuals. You pass one law for everyone. If the law says that the legal age is 14, you can't have a special age of consent for precocious 13 year old or for a particularly gullible 15 year old.That would depend on how you mean "specifically tailored to individuals" then. The law is flexible in the manner that children (in Germany, anyone under the age of fourteen) are protected from adults and youths, and different levels of maturity are taken into account when youths and adults engage in sex. Likewise, a precocious 13 year old can have sex; as long as the partner is under 14, neither can be tried.

Thank you for your moral relativism. I simply don't care for it as I can only see such an argument as excusing the acts of child molesters. Since when have we stopped trying to protect our children? We are supposed to feel it is just fine for an adult to have sex with kids at such an age? I would like to see society remain believing that our children do not know everything and that they simply can not rationally consent to such an act. They are still "minors" aren't they? As I see it a society should be judged on how it treats its children. Giving a pass on this makes me sick. If you decide that my belief that 14 year olds shouldn't be having sex with adults is simple puritanism then I can only say that your exaggeration has no place here.

It is not as if I think our kids need to be protected from any influences that may teach them about sexuality or that we should have abstinence only sex ed classes or something dumb like that. I simply believe that adults should stay the hell away from our young people. I'm hardly going to feel that this view is somehow wrong.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I just don't take casual sex very seriously, so I don't see how casual sex between a 14-year-old and a 30-year-old, both untied to others, both consenting*, and both able, then it's just physical pleasure for both, and more power to them.

*You argue that a 14 year old would be damaged for life (or something along those lines) if they were to have sex? No? Just for people over 18? What about 18 year olds? An 18 year old and a 14 year old banging eachother. That's okay? Alright, then what's the difference between 18 and 19? 19 and 20? 20 and 21? I don't think these differences add up to anything in terms of damaging a person younger than them.

Also, keep in mind, this "18" thing is mostly a USA deal. Like others have said, Sweden and Germany are just two examples where they get on just fine with younger limits.

That would depend on how you mean "specifically tailored to individuals" then. The law is flexible in the manner that children (in Germany, anyone under the age of fourteen) are protected from adults and youths, and different levels of maturity are taken into account when youths and adults engage in sex. Likewise, a precocious 13 year old can have sex; as long as the partner is under 14, neither can be tried.

Your comment "depends on the 14 year old", I interpreted as meaning some 14 year olds are able to give consent and others aren't. I was saying that we can't test each and every individual and set a separate age of consent for him or her.

I have ti disagree with two major points here.

Because they were felonies when the committed them. The point of the law is to discourage bad acts, but if the offenders aren't punished in accordance with the rules as they were written at the time of the infraction, then the law loses prescriptive force.

The law that applied at the time the acts took place made those acts felonies. As such, those offenders should be punished as felons.

Even though we, as a society, have decided that treating this particular crime as a felony is, itself, unjust?

Sounds wonderful. We have to continue unjust treatment of these people because we used to have an unjust law. :rolleyes:

I suppose you also think that, if a particular state decides to get rid of the death penalty, they should still execute everyone already on death row?

No. The jury decided that these people had violated the law. They were right. The law has now changed, but the law can't change retroactively. If it could, it could declare that what you did yesterday was a capital crime and executive you for it, even though you had no reason to expect that consequence when you did it. How would that be justice? Ex post facto law is always a terrible idea; the law needs to be applied as it was written at the time the act took place.

....unless the law as it was written was an unjust law in the first place, as this one was.

If the country bans flag burning, is it now allowed to throw in prison anyone who burned a flag back when it wasn't illegal yet? Of course not. And the same reasoning applies here.

No, it doesn't. In that case, the government has decided to further restrict the actions of individuals. One cannot apply that restriction to someone who took the action when it was not restricted.

On the other hand, in this case, we have decided that the law, as it stood, was unreasonable. To go with your example, we have decided that imprisoning flab burners is unreasonable and unjust - that they should instead be fined. As such, it would be perfectly reasonable to let the flag burners currently in prison out of prison, since it was unjust to put them there in the first place.

These kids knew what they were doing was illegal (or they should have - it's every citizen's responsibility to know the laws that govern him), and they did it anyway. Rewarding them because the government had a change of heart creates hope for ALL OTHER OFFENDERS that the same might happen to the law they're considering breaking, and thus they no longer fear punishment as a certain outcome. They can now credibly hope that the law will be changed to their benefit, and thus the law will utterly fail to deter bad acts.

:rolleyes: Nice little ridiculous slippery slope argument you've got there. Yes, I'm sure that murderers will all "credibly hope" that murder will be made legal tomorrow.

I have ti disagree with two major points here.

Because they were felonies when the committed them. The point of the law is to discourage bad acts, but if the offenders aren't punished in accordance with the rules as they were written at the time of the infraction, then the law loses prescriptive force.

The law that applied at the time the acts took place made those acts felonies. As such, those offenders should be punished as felons.

When we change a law we are saying that we had made a mistake with the previous sentence. If it is now different how can we keep those convicted previously for an outdated sentence? It is simply wrong to keep someone imprisoned when the crime they committed is no longer considered to be of the same seriousness as it once was. The sentences should be adjusted to reflect the new law.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I just don't take casual sex very seriously, so I don't see how casual sex between a 14-year-old and a 30-year-old, both untied to others, both consenting*, and both able, then it's just physical pleasure for both, and more power to them.

*You argue that a 14 year old would be damaged for life (or something along those lines) if they were to have sex? No? Just for people over 18? What about 18 year olds? An 18 year old and a 14 year old banging eachother. That's okay? Alright, then what's the difference between 18 and 19? 19 and 20? 20 and 21? I don't think these differences add up to anything in terms of damaging a person younger than them.

Also, keep in mind, this "18" thing is mostly a USA deal. Like others have said, Sweden and Germany are just two examples where they get on just fine with younger limits.
Keep in mind that the human brain continues developing until your early to mid twenties and that a 14 year old has less life experience than an 18 year old. Those two things make a big difference. The 14 year old may not be "damaged for life", but may still regret a decision made while the brain's skills at judgement are still rudimetary and based on very limited life experience.

The following link explores teenage brain development and it's effect on judgement. It doesn't deal with decisions about sex, but rather with risky driving behavior. Still it indicates that the brain hasn't reached it's full potential until well after 14.

A National Institutes of Health study suggests that the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25, a finding with implications for a host of policieshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52687-2005Jan31.html

When we change a law we are saying that we had made a mistake with the previous sentence. If it is now different how can we keep those convicted previously for an outdated sentence? It is simply wrong to keep someone imprisoned when the crime they committed is no longer considered to be of the same seriousness as it once was. The sentences should be adjusted to reflect the new law.

Precisely. It's basically us saying, "Whoops! We were wrong! This crime doesn't warrant this punishment at all!" It doesn't make sense to say, "We were wrong, but we're going to continue our unjust punishment of the people we were wrong about."

"Romeo and Juliet" law
What, the "if they're from a family that hates yours, even if the girl is thirteen years old, it's all good" law or something?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I just don't take casual sex very seriously, so I don't see how casual sex between a 14-year-old and a 30-year-old, both untied to others, both consenting*, and both able, then it's just physical pleasure for both, and more power to them.

*You argue that a 14 year old would be damaged for life (or something along those lines) if they were to have sex? No? Just for people over 18? What about 18 year olds? An 18 year old and a 14 year old banging eachother. That's okay? Alright, then what's the difference between 18 and 19? 19 and 20? 20 and 21? I don't think these differences add up to anything in terms of damaging a person younger than them.

I am questioning whether a minor can make an informed decision. They cannot. An adult should know better then to take advantage of someone simply because of their inexperience in life. Minors are supposed to be protected by adults you know. The idea that society is supposed to simply accept otherwise is sickening. I suppose you could try to argue that sex is sex no matter what the age of the people involved. But I would like to think that we have some kind of standards and that adults can be perfectly content with others their own age and not feel the need to sexually abuse our youth. I suppose this is more of that moral relativism but I can't figure how anyone can argue that there shouldn't be a line drawn between adults and children.

Also, keep in mind, this "18" thing is mostly a USA deal. Like others have said, Sweden and Germany are just two examples where they get on just fine with younger limits.

There is an "18 thing" because the age of 18 is when you are a legal adult in this country. Therefore you can make decisions on your own at this time. Before then you should be protected by the adults around you, not taken advantage by them.

When we change a law we are saying that we had made a mistake with the previous sentence. If it is now different how can we keep those convicted previously for an outdated sentence? It is simply wrong to keep someone imprisoned when the crime they committed is no longer considered to be of the same seriousness as it once was. The sentences should be adjusted to reflect the new law.

Precisely. It's basically us saying, "Whoops! We were wrong! This crime doesn't warrant this punishment at all!" It doesn't make sense to say, "We were wrong, but we're going to continue our unjust punishment of the people we were wrong about."

What, the "if they're from a family that hates yours, even if the girl is thirteen years old, it's all good" law or something?

No, it's the, "If you're both underage or within a certain age limit, we don't charge either one of you with statutory rape or child molestation for having sex with each other" law.


There is an "18 thing" because the age of 18 is when you are a legal adult in this country. Therefore you can make decisions on your own at this time. Before then you should be protected by the adults around you, not taken advantage by them.

While I agree with you in principle, this is going a bit far. There is nothing magical that takes an irresponsible person incapable of making their own decisions at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds and turns them into a perfectly capable adult at exactly 18 years of age. "18" is a somewhat arbitrarily set standard at which we think most people will be competent adults capable of making decisions for themselves. But since this is a development process, that means that many are able to do so well before 18 and some aren't able to do so until well after.

Keep in mind that the human brain continues developing until your early to mid twenties and that a 14 year old has less life experience than an 18 year old. Those two things make a big difference. The 14 year old may not be "damaged for life", but may still regret a decision made while the brain's skills at judgement are still rudimetary and based on very limited life experience.

The following link explores teenage brain development and it's effect on judgement. It doesn't deal with decisions about sex, but rather with risky driving behavior. Still it indicates that the brain hasn't reached it's full potential until well after 14.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52687-2005Jan31.html

Teenagers do things they regret all the time. 20-year-olds do, as well. I wish I hadn't started smoking, I wish I'd gone out with that one guy, I wish I'd tried harder in school - but they're still held accountable for it and treated as if they knew what they were doing. That's what permanent records are. They keep a track of what the student did that they'll most likely regret later on, but still be condemned for doing so.

I am questioning whether a minor can make an informed decision. They cannot. An adult should know better then to take advantage of someone simply because of their inexperience in life. Minors are supposed to be protected by adults you know. The idea that society is supposed to simply accept otherwise is sickening. I suppose you could try to argue that sex is sex no matter what the age of the people involved. But I would like to think that we have some kind of standards and that adults can be perfectly content with others their own age and not feel the need to sexually abuse our youth. I suppose this is more of that moral relativism but I can't figure how anyone can argue that there shouldn't be a line drawn between adults and children.

Well look at it this way - when we're growing up, we're attracted to people of all ages. We're not limited to just teenagers. The only sameness being beauty - reason for attraction. Whether she's 14 or 40 - if she's hot, a teenager will want to bang her. Age doesn't matter. Then BAM as soon as you hit 18, you're cut off from the age group you've been around your entire life - such an arbitrary line doesn't make any sense. Suddenly, age is supposed to matter, when your entire life, it hasn't. For what?

There is an "18 thing" because the age of 18 is when you are a legal adult in this country. Therefore you can make decisions on your own at this time. Before then you should be protected by the adults around you, not taken advantage by them.

Legal adult age being 18. Legal sexual age differing in different states - going from 13 to 16 and I'm sure one or two has them limited to 18. So why even have a legal sexual age? Also, I doubt the youth of Sweden are in dire need of protection just because they're allowed to have sex with people at age 15. It's just another arbitrary line.

Going back to the "regret" thing - teenagers are going to have sex. Regardless. You can't do anything about that. So why make it okay for a teenager to regret having sex with someone their own age, as opposed to someone who's five years older than them? What does it matter?

Teenagers do things they regret all the time. 20-year-olds do, as well. I wish I hadn't started smoking, I wish I'd gone out with that one guy, I wish I'd tried harder in school - but they're still held accountable for it and treated as if they knew what they were doing. That's what permanent records are. They keep a track of what the student did that they'll most likely regret later on, but still be condemned for doing so.



<snipped>

Yeah, that's why we delay the right to do certain things. In New Jersey I think the age of consent is 16, to drive it's 17, to vote it's 18, and to drink alcohol it's 21. I might not agree with the whole age breakdown, for example I don't see why we should delay drinking until 21, but I agree with the principle that certain rights and privelages shouldn't be given until it can be reasonably assumed that a certain ammount of maturity and mental development can be achieved.

The idea is to minimize the risk of an immature person making decisions that would negatively impact on society and on the individual.

While I agree with you in principle, this is going a bit far. There is nothing magical that takes an irresponsible person incapable of making their own decisions at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds and turns them into a perfectly capable adult at exactly 18 years of age. "18" is a somewhat arbitrarily set standard at which we think most people will be competent adults capable of making decisions for themselves. But since this is a development process, that means that many are able to do so well before 18 and some aren't able to do so until well after.

I know the age of 18 is arbitrary but we have to draw the line at some point. People are different and they are able to make certain decisions at different points in their lives. But we can't pick and choose with each individual. So the age of 18 is the best way we can attempt to make sure those too young to understand what they are doing are protected. I can't think of a better or more efficient way to do this. Because of this I am not going to allow adults to be able to sleep with what we decide to be "mature" teenagers. While I usually don't care for the "slippery slope" argument, in this case I am willing to make an exception.

Well look at it this way - when we're growing up, we're attracted to people of all ages. We're not limited to just teenagers. The only sameness being beauty - reason for attraction. Whether she's 14 or 40 - if she's hot, a teenager will want to bang her. Age doesn't matter. Then BAM as soon as you hit 18, you're cut off from the age group you've been around your entire life - such an arbitrary line doesn't make any sense. Suddenly, age is supposed to matter, when your entire life, it hasn't. For what?

Look, I believe it to be a matter of simple morality. Adults are supposed to be able to realize that people as young as teenagers can not make rational decisions that people who have lived longer can more easily make. Sure, some teens are more "mature" then others but I am not going to start making exceptions. We don't allow our youth to be taken advantage of by adults. Which is the only right thing to do. I am not going to allow adults to abuse teens simply because the youth is "hot" and will just have sex with someone their own age anyway. We don't repeal laws because someone is "going to do it anyway". I see no reason for this to be any different.

Look, I believe it to be a matter of simple morality. Adults are supposed to be able to realize that people as young as teenagers can not make rational decisions that people who have lived longer can more easily make. Sure, some teens are more "mature" then others but I am not going to start making exceptions. We don't allow our youth to be taken advantage of by adults. Which is the only right thing to do. I am not going to allow adults to abuse teens simply because the youth is "hot" and will just have sex with someone their own age anyway. We don't repeal laws because someone is "going to do it anyway". I see no reason for this to be any different.

Morality is very relative. Teenagers can make rational decisions - you make them out to be vegged out coma patients. They're not as mature as 20 year olds, yes, but so what? Since when did maturity matter?

I believe it to be a simple matter of logic. Logic is less relative than morals, and since we're just using two different sets of thinking, we probably won't come to a common ground on this one - I never set out to do so in the first place.

Morality is very relative. Teenagers can make rational decisions - you make them out to be vegged out coma patients. They're not as mature as 20 year olds, yes, but so what? Since when did maturity matter?

I believe it to be a simple matter of logic. Logic is less relative than morals, and since we're just using two different sets of thinking, we probably won't come to a common ground on this one - I never set out to do so in the first place.

You exaggerate my views. Teens aren't drooling idiots but the idea that teenagers can understand the full consequences of their sex is simply impossible. And to let adults take advantage of their ignorance is simply appalling. If we are going to ignore the boundaries we have established between adult and child then I really can't fathom how we can maintain our claim to any moral high ground.

I know the age of 18 is arbitrary but we have to draw the line at some point. People are different and they are able to make certain decisions at different points in their lives. But we can't pick and choose with each individual. So the age of 18 is the best way we can attempt to make sure those too young to understand what they are doing are protected. I can't think of a better or more efficient way to do this. Because of this I am not going to allow adults to be able to sleep with what we decide to be "mature" teenagers. While I usually don't care for the "slippery slope" argument, in this case I am willing to make an exception.

And if the "adult" is 18 and the "teenager" is 16? What then? They are of the same age group, even though one of them has crossed that imaginary line.

What if the "adult" is mentally 13, while the teen is mentally 16?

I don't think we should do away with all statutory rape laws, believe me. But I think we have to apply them as rationally as possible, so that the law itself doesn't end up harming people. It's almost certain that someone has been taken advantage of when a mentally competent 30-year old sleeps with a 14-year old, but all cases aren't that clear-cut.

And if the "adult" is 18 and the "teenager" is 16? What then? They are of the same age group, even though one of them has crossed that imaginary line.

What if the "adult" is mentally 13, while the teen is mentally 16?

I don't think we should do away with all statutory rape laws, believe me. But I think we have to apply them as rationally as possible, so that the law itself doesn't end up harming people. It's almost certain that someone has been taken advantage of when a mentally competent 30-year old sleeps with a 14-year old, but all cases aren't that clear-cut.

I do agree with the idea that a 19 year old sleeping with a 17 year old or something similar is not the same thing as the 30/14 yr olds. My argument is that those who are clearly adults have no business being anywhere near those who are under 18. I see this to be very clear-cut. In the more clouded example like the 19/17 yr olds a more complicated system needs to be worked out but I really wish there wasn't any kind of debate with the 30/14 example.

You exaggerate my views. Teens aren't drooling idiots but the idea that teenagers can understand the full consequences of their sex is simply impossible. And to let adults take advantage of their ignorance is simply appalling. If we are going to ignore the boundaries we have established between adult and child then I really can't fathom how we can maintain our claim to any moral high ground.

I think you confuse "they aren't mentally capable of knowing" to "they just don't care".

Ah, Dempublicents, if they HAD put in retroactive aspects, that law would have been unconstitutional. Ex post facto legislation is specifically prohibited.
No, sorry, but that's incorrect.
Because they were felonies when the committed them. The point of the law is to discourage bad acts, but if the offenders aren't punished in accordance with the rules as they were written at the time of the infraction, then the law loses prescriptive force.
Not after the law has been changed / repealed. Then it would be unproblematic to stop the punishment.

No. The jury decided that these people had violated the law. They were right. The law has now changed, but the law can't change retroactively. If it could, it could declare that what you did yesterday was a capital crime and executive you for it, even though you had no reason to expect that consequence when you did it. How would that be justice? Ex post facto law is always a terrible idea; the law needs to be applied as it was written at the time the act took place.
You're wrong. It's really quite simple: No Ex post facto laws may impose new or harsher punishments. You may however have retroactive legislation that decriminalizes certain acts or imposes more lenient punishments. There is no reason to complain when it benefits the citizen. When for example homosexuality was legalised nobody needed to worry about being punished for the gay sex they had done in secret.

If the country bans flag burning, is it now allowed to throw in prison anyone who burned a flag back when it wasn't illegal yet? Of course not. And the same reasoning applies here.
No it doesn't.

These kids knew what they were doing was illegal (or they should have - it's every citizen's responsibility to know the laws that govern him), and they did it anyway. Rewarding them because the government had a change of heart creates hope for ALL OTHER OFFENDERS that the same might happen to the law they're considering breaking, and thus they no longer fear punishment as a certain outcome. They can now credibly hope that the law will be changed to their benefit, and thus the law will utterly fail to deter bad acts.
That's just silly.

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

If you want to say I'm wrong, that's fine. I often am. However:

READ THE FUCKING THING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

If you want to say I'm wrong, that's fine. I often am. However:

READ THE FUCKING THING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!

And you are still wrong. The prohibition refers to making something illlegal or the punishment for a crime harsher and then trying to retroactively apply the law. It does not refer to decriminalizing an action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto

Repealing a law or decriminalizing an action and then applying the change to those who have already been convicted under the old law is not considered to be an ex post facto law, even though it does have ex post facto effects.

And this makes sense. What were the writers of the Constitution trying to avoid with this prohibition? They were trying to avoid the situation in which a person does something that is perfectly legal, and is then punished for it as a crime because a new law is passed. That would be unjust, as it was not illegal at the time. They were not trying to prevent us from recognizing unjust laws as unjust, and ensuring that those who have already been treated poorly are helped.

When we change a law we are saying that we had made a mistake with the previous sentence.
No we're not. We're saying that the law should no longer be what it is. But it still has been that up until now, and all outstanding penalties need to reflect that.
If it is now different how can we keep those convicted previously for an outdated sentence? It is simply wrong to keep someone imprisoned when the crime they committed is no longer considered to be of the same seriousness as it once was. The sentences should be adjusted to reflect the new law.
We're not punishing them because they deserve it. What purpose would that serve? It would just be vindictive. No, we punish people to deter future crimes, but that only works if the punishment is consistent and predictable. Your proposal ruins that.

No we're not. We're saying that the law should no longer be what it is. But it still has been that up until now, and all outstanding penalties need to reflect that.

And why should the law no longer be what it was? Oh, because we think it was WRONG to inflict such a harsh punishment for a crime that should not have been a felony in the first place. Since we, as a society, have determined that such a punishment is, in and of itself, wrong, it is wrong to inflict it upon someone just because they happened to go to trial when the unjust law was in place.

If we were to find out tomorrow that a person who was 17 slept with a 15 year old a year ago, what law would they be tried under? We'd use the new law which we believe to be the correct one - the one that isn't unjust. Thus, by your logic, a person who committed the exact same crime at the exact same time should get a vastly different punishment based on when their case actually came to trial. Yeah, that's justice right there. :rolleyes:

We're not punishing them because they deserve it. What purpose would that serve? It would just be vindictive. No, we punish people to deter future crimes, but that only works if the punishment is consistent and predictable. Your proposal ruins that.

If we change the punishment, it has ceased to be "consistent and predictable." Under your logic, a person who committed the exact same crime at the exact same time as Wilson, but who has not yet been charged, should be treated vastly differently than Wilson simply because he was lucky enough to not get caught yet. It is much more consistent and predictable to apply the new punishment, which we think is actually appropriate, to those who already committed the crime.

And you are still wrong. The prohibition refers to making something illlegal or the punishment for a crime harsher and then trying to retroactively apply the law. It does not refer to decriminalizing an action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto

Repealing a law or decriminalizing an action and then applying the change to those who have already been convicted under the old law is not considered to be an ex post facto law, even though it does have ex post facto effects.

And this makes sense. What were the writers of the Constitution trying to avoid with this prohibition? They were trying to avoid the situation in which a person does something that is perfectly legal, and is then punished for it as a crime because a new law is passed. That would be unjust, as it was not illegal at the time. They were not trying to prevent us from recognizing unjust laws as unjust, and ensuring that those who have already been treated poorly are helped.

You are completely wrong. Go back and re-read your own article. Repealing a law prevents it's continued application - it does nothing about those already convicted. Those people can be pardoned, certainly, but to retroactively state that no law was broken is just as prohibited as writing a law to convict people of something that was legal when they did it.

Even though we, as a society, have decided that treating this particular crime as a felony is, itself, unjust?
I'm not sure how justice enters into it. But even if we have, we have to live with our previous error. Changing the punishment ex post facto damages the power of law overall.
I suppose you also think that, if a particular state decides to get rid of the death penalty, they should still execute everyone already on death row?
Absolutely, and for exactly the same reasons.
....unless the law as it was written was an unjust law in the first place, as this one was.
No. That's immaterial. The only time the law should fail to be executved is when it is an illegal law - that is, when it violates a law of a higher order. This is what happens when laws are rules unconstitutional. Those laws should be struck down, and all punishment ever meted out by them should immedately be stopped, because the law was never valid. And this is again the same reasoning as above, because we have to choose between damanging the constitution or damaging the lesser law, and the constitution should always win.
No, it doesn't. In that case, the government has decided to further restrict the actions of individuals. One cannot apply that restriction to someone who took the action when it was not restricted.

On the other hand, in this case, we have decided that the law, as it stood, was unreasonable. To go with your example, we have decided that imprisoning flab burners is unreasonable and unjust - that they should instead be fined. As such, it would be perfectly reasonable to let the flag burners currently in prison out of prison, since it was unjust to put them there in the first place.[/quote]
What's the difference? In one case, the government is choosing to add restrictions and in the other they are removing them. But the two are relevantly similar. Both rob the people of the ability to know what laws govern them at the time of their actions.
:rolleyes: Nice little ridiculous slippery slope argument you've got there. Yes, I'm sure that murderers will all "credibly hope" that murder will be made legal tomorrow.
Perhaps they'll hope that the punishment for certain typoes of murder will be significantly reduced. Any uncertainty deprives the citizens of access to knowledge, and its knowledge they need to plan their lives.

You are completely wrong. Go back and re-read your own article.

Why? It doesn't say anything that conflicts with what I am saying.

Repealing a law prevents it's continued application - it does nothing about those already convicted.

It can if the new law specifically states that it does. In fact, quite a few such laws have been passed and have never been blocked due to constitutionality.

Those people can be pardoned, certainly, but to retroactively state that no law was broken is just as prohibited as writing a law to convict people of something that was legal when they did it.

Is it? Then why has it been permitted? Why aren't legal analysts in this area sputtering about how it can't be done, instead of complaining that it wasn't done?

A new law can (and has) affected the sentences of those already convicted of a crime. Under your logic, a state which decided to ban the death penalty would still have to execute all prisoners already on death row, as their sentence was already made. However, this does not happen. The law banning the use of corporal punishment generally contains a clause for what will be done with prisoners already awaiting execution and the new sentencing for crimes which would have warranted execution. Generally, their sentences become life in prison instead.

Likewise, in this case, the legislature was decriminalizing an action and altering the sentence for that action. And, just as in the case above, the legislature could have provided guidelines for how to treat those already serving the sentence prescribed under the old law, as well as providing new sentencing standards for the crime under question.

This is an ex post facto effect, not an ex post facto law.

I'm not sure how justice enters into it. But even if we have, we have to live with our previous error. Changing the punishment ex post facto damages the power of law overall.

No, it doesn't. In fact, it strengthens the power of the law, as the people do not see the law itself as unjust. If the law is to have any power at all over the people, the people must trust the law. If we apply unjust laws and don't fix the mistakes we make in doing so, the law itself is untrustworthy. It is no longer protecting people, but harming them instead. And the law loses what power it had.

Absolutely, and for exactly the same reasons.

That is a disgusting viewpoint.

No. That's immaterial.

Then there is no place for law in our lives at all. If the fact that a law is unjust is "immaterial," then we should all revolt against the law. It does nothing but harm us.

What's the difference? In one case, the government is choosing to add restrictions and in the other they are removing them.

You just answered your own question.

No, not really. Politicians are to concerned as being seen as being "tough on crime." as opposed to "strong on intelligence and reasoning ability."

You exaggerate my views. Teens aren't drooling idiots but the idea that teenagers can understand the full consequences of their sex is simply impossible.

So the age of consent should be 20?

Or are we forgetting that 18 an 19 year olds are still teenagers?

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

If you want to say I'm wrong, that's fine. I often am. However:

READ THE FUCKING THING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!
I've read it and I know what I'm talking about. So now the only difference is that you're wrong in big red letters. Congratulations.
You are completely wrong. Go back and re-read your own article. Repealing a law prevents it's continued application - it does nothing about those already convicted. Those people can be pardoned, certainly, but to retroactively state that no law was broken is just as prohibited as writing a law to convict people of something that was legal when they did it.
No, he's right. But nobody is saying (as far as I can see) that anything happens automatically to those who are convicted. We're only saying the principle of prohibiting ex post facto laws does not come into play when the change or the law is beneficial to the citizen. As such, there would be no problem and not unconstitutional to pass a law saying that all of them should be free, or reducing their sentences, or pardoning them outright.

Why? It doesn't say anything that conflicts with what I am saying.



It can if the new law specifically states that it does. In fact, quite a few such laws have been passed and have never been blocked due to constitutionality.



Is it? Then why has it been permitted? Why aren't legal analysts in this area sputtering about how it can't be done, instead of complaining that it wasn't done?

A new law can (and has) affected the sentences of those already convicted of a crime. Under your logic, a state which decided to ban the death penalty would still have to execute all prisoners already on death row, as their sentence was already made. However, this does not happen. The law banning the use of corporal punishment generally contains a clause for what will be done with prisoners already awaiting execution and the new sentencing for crimes which would have warranted execution. Generally, their sentences become life in prison instead.

Likewise, in this case, the legislature was decriminalizing an action and altering the sentence for that action. And, just as in the case above, the legislature could have provided guidelines for how to treat those already serving the sentence prescribed under the old law, as well as providing new sentencing standards for the crime under question.

This is an ex post facto effect, not an ex post facto law.

No, it is an Ex Post Facto Law. The reason none of these have been challenged is NOT because they are Constitutional - they aren't - but because no one has both the standing and the desire to challenge them.

In order for someone to challenge the Constitutionality of a law, he must have standing, i.e. the law MUST AFFECT THEM. If you're not affected by a law, you can't challenge it.

Additionally, a challenge to a law is an active use of the courts, and usually must travel the entire length of the Judicial System, from local court to the Supreme Court of the USA, hitting ALL courts in-between. This is hideously expensive and massively time consuming.

And those with standing are benefitting from the bill. So they have no desire to challenge it.

Finally, the Supreme Court cannot consider the constitutionality of a bill if it has not been challenged.

End result? A lot of illegal laws that nevertheless will never be declared so. But they still are unconstitutional.

You are completely wrong. Go back and re-read your own article. Repealing a law prevents it's continued application - it does nothing about those already convicted. Those people can be pardoned, certainly, but to retroactively state that no law was broken is just as prohibited as writing a law to convict people of something that was legal when they did it.

once again, you are simply incorrect. As a matter of legal interpretation, the clause against ex post facto laws has only, ONLY been held to prevent increasing in punishment.

Disagree with me? Then find one, just one case that stands for the proposition you are saying. No typing in big red print, no arguing.

Find me a case, and shepardize it. Give me one, single, valid precident.

Until then, shut up.

No, it is an Ex Post Facto Law. The reason none of these have been challenged is NOT because they are Constitutional - they aren't - but because no one has both the standing and the desire to challenge them.

In order for someone to challenge the Constitutionality of a law, he must have standing, i.e. the law MUST AFFECT THEM. If you're not affected by a law, you can't challenge it.

Additionally, a challenge to a law is an active use of the courts, and usually must travel the entire length of the Judicial System, from local court to the Supreme Court of the USA, hitting ALL courts in-between. This is hideously expensive and massively time consuming.

And those with standing are benefitting from the bill. So they have no desire to challenge it.

Finally, the Supreme Court cannot consider the constitutionality of a bill if it has not been challenged.

End result? A lot of illegal laws that nevertheless will never be declared so. But they still are unconstitutional.

in other words...you don't have a single source to back up your claim.

Alright.

once again, you are simply incorrect. As a matter of legal interpretation, the clause against ex post facto laws has only, ONLY been held to prevent increasing in punishment.

Disagree with me? Then find one, just one case that stands for the proposition you are saying. No typing in big red print, no arguing.

Find me a case, and shepardize it. Give me one, single, valid precident.

Until then, shut up.

Don't be silly, Athais. Have you ever known me to shut up?

As for precedent, I have something better:

Article 1, Section 9.

So the age of consent should be 20?

Or are we forgetting that 18 an 19 year olds are still teenagers?

I think that age of consent should be 16 or 18, but common sense should be used.

Don't be silly, Athais. Have you ever known me to shut up?

As for precedent, I have something better:

Article 1, Section 9.

The interpretation of the constitution has not always been held to its literal meaning. For example:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

the 5th amendment makes no mention of civil cases, only criminal ones. To quote the 5th amendment, without context, would suggest that the 5th amendment right to self incrimination applies ONLY to criminal cases.

It does not. And simply quoting the text of the constitution devoid of context is worthless. And you don't have a single case to back up your assertion that it has been interpreted the way you interpret it, do you?

Last time I checked, unless you're a judge, your interpretation of the constitution has no importance. Your opinion has no weight, so your opinion on what that clause means is of no legal significance what so ever.

Your opinion is not law. And if you want to argue that your opinion of what the law says is in fact an accurate reflection of what the law really is, you need to supply an interpretive opinion of someone whose opinion really DOES matter.

And you just can't. You don't have a single source to validate that your opinion. You don't even have dicta.

and just for the sake of completion:

The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798)

1798, but still good law. The supreme court has interpreted the ex post facto clause to encompass ONLY those law that inflicts a greater punishment

That is the prevailing opinion on that section of the constitution, and as a matter of law, their opinion matters. Yours does not.

The interpretation of the constitution has not always been held to its literal meaning. For example:



the 5th amendment makes no mention of civil cases, only criminal ones. To quote the 5th amendment, without context, would suggest that the 5th amendment right to self incrimination applies ONLY to criminal cases.

It does not. And simply quoting the text of the constitution devoid of context is worthless. And you don't have a single case to back up your assertion that it has been interpreted the way you interpret it, do you?

Last time I checked, unless you're a judge, your interpretation of the constitution has no importance. Your opinion has no weight, so your opinion on what that clause means is of no legal significance what so ever.

Your opinion is not law. And if you want to argue that your opinion of what the law says is in fact an accurate reflection of what the law really is, you need to supply an interpretive opinion of someone whose opinion really DOES matter.

And you just can't. You don't have a single source to validate that your opinion. You don't even have dicta.

Au Contraire. You have hit upon a fundamental difference between Constitution and Law, Arthais. Law is written so as to be interpreted by courts, lawyers, and other professionals. The Constitution is written so as to be clear and understandable by laymen.

I have made it clear as to why laws such as these are not challenged as to their constitutionality. I cannot find a ruling on thse laws, because of that.

But neither can you.

If you wish to say "These laws have never been challenged", I will entirely agree with you. I would go further: They never will be, because it is in no one's interest to do so.

That still doesn't change Article 1, Section 9, though.

and just for the sake of completion:



1798, but still good law. The supreme court has interpreted the ex post facto clause to encompass ONLY those law that inflicts a greater punishment

That is the prevailing opinion on that section of the constitution, and as a matter of law, their opinion matters. Yours does not.

Actually, the ruling is a LOT more complex than that.

And my opinion matters as much as any Americans.

Actually, the ruling is a LOT more complex than that.

Please, tell me how the ruling in some way is opposite or runs counter to what I said.

my opinion matters as much as any Americans.

Which is to say...not at all.

So you do not have a single source to validate your claims? Then why should I listen to you?

So you do not have a single source to validate your claims? Then why should I listen to you?

Because I'm right.:D

More seriously, in a real sense we are both right. You're arguing interpretation, I'm arguing the straight-up boilerplate of the Constitution. I think I have the edge, because interpretations change somewhat more often than amendments occur.

(Plus, I probably wouldn't have gone nutso on the board if someone had set this all out, rather than just saying "No, you're wrong" four times more than was necessary...)

Au Contraire. You have hit upon a fundamental difference between Constitution and Law, Arthais. Law is written so as to be interpreted by courts, lawyers, and other professionals. The Constitution is written so as to be clear and understandable by laymen.

Nonsense. There is no special provision that said our constitution was written "for the laymen". I it were the entire principle of judicial review would be irrelevant. As would the federalist papers. Why would something written for a layman need both an extensive commentary AND an agency committed to its interpretation?

The constitution is a law. Same as any other law, with one crucial difference, a supremacy clause.


But neither can you.

I already did.

That still doesn't change Article 1, Section 9, though.

Nor does it change he fact that the fifth amendment, literally translated, only barres a requirement for one to incriminate himself in criminal cases

Actually, the ruling is a LOT more complex than that.

And my opinion matters as much as any Americans.

The law is very clear. All ex post facto laws are retrospective, but not all retrospective laws are ex post facto laws.

Calder v. Bull (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=3&invol=386#390), 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798):

I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. [3 U.S. 386, 391] All these, and similar laws, are manifestly unjust and oppressive. In my opinion, the true distinction is between ex post facto laws, and retrospective laws. Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law: The former, only, are prohibited. Every law that takes away, or impairs, rights vested, agreeably to existing laws, is retrospective, and is generally unjust; and may be oppressive; and it is a good general rule, that a law should have no retrospect: but there are cases in which laws may justly, and for the benefit of the community, and also of individuals, relate to a time antecedent to their commencement; as statutes of oblivion, or of pardon. They are certainly retrospective, and literally both concerning, and after, the facts committed. But I do not consider any law ex post facto, within the prohibition, that mollifies the rigor of the criminal law; but only those that create, or aggravate, the crime; or encrease the punishment, or change the rules of evidence, for the purpose of conviction. Every law that is to have an operation before the making thereof, as to commence at an antecedent time; or to save time from the statute of limitations; or to excuse acts which were unlawful, and before committed, and the like; is retrospective. But such laws may be proper or necessary, as the case may be. There is a great and apparent difference between making an UNLAWFUL act LAWFUL; and the making an innocent action criminal, and punishing it as a CRIME. The expressions 'ex post facto laws,' are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors. The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone, in his commentaries, considers an ex post facto law precisely in the same light I have done. His opinion is confirmed by his successor, Mr. Wooddeson; and by the author of the Federalist, who I esteem superior to both, for his extensive and accurate knowledge of the true principles of Government.


See also Ex parte Garland (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=71&invol=333#377), 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333, 377 (1867); Burgess v. Salmon (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=97&invol=381#384), 97 U.S. 381, 384 (1878).

Or check your Black's Law Dictionary, which also makes this distinction clear.

(I had a more detailed post but my computer ate it.)

Because I'm right.:D

More seriously, in a real sense we are both right. You're arguing interpretation, I'm arguing the straight-up boilerplate of the Constitution. I think I have the edge, because interpretations change somewhat more often than amendments occur.

(Plus, I probably wouldn't have gone nutso on the board if someone had set this all out, rather than just saying "No, you're wrong" four times more than was necessary...)

Meh.

The question isn't whether an ex post facto law is prohibited by the Constitution. It clearly is.

The question is what is an ex post facto law. It is there where you have the wrong end of the stick.

As for interpretations changing, the definition of ex post facto law has remained constant since 1798 (and actually dates back to English common law before that).

The age of consent is 16 in Canada but I don't think anyone would prosecute a 17 year old for having consensual relations with a 15 year old. That's insane. While I do think there should be Age of Consent laws, it is lunacy to prosecute teenagers for having sex, those laws are there to protect teenage girls from predatory men, not from teens doing it with each other. I think 16 is an appropriate age of consent, you can drive and work. 18 seems too puritan and 14 is definetly too young. There should be a three year age exemption though so if you are within three years of the younger persons age its not illegal and after that the penalties get harsher as the age difference grows. It's the fairest way to do it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1591688,00.html?cnn=yes

Background: 17-year old boy (Wilson) at a party gets convicted of child molestation for oral sex with a 15-year old girl. ((Other boys are also charged, but plea out and end up mostly with probation)). The law at the time makes any sex with someone under 16 a felony, so he is convicted under the current law and sentenced to serve 10 years in prison and register as a sex offender for life.

His case, among others, led to a public outcry resulting in the passage of a "Romeo and Juliet" law under which Wilson's offense would have simply been a misdemeanor, with no sex-offender registration. However, the GA General Assembly decided not to include language which would have allowed the law to be retroactively applied to those already convicted.

Ok, so lets sum up so far. The people think that it is unjust for a teen to go to jail for 10 years for consensual (or as consensual as it gets when you're that young) sex with another teen. The General Assembly passes a law that would make such an offense a misdemeanor - agreeing with the people that it would be unjust to make it a felony conviction. However, they basically say to all the teen offenders already in jail, "Sorry, we know you're in jail unjustly, but we don't care. You're screwed!"

From the article:


I actually used to live in this guy's district. Yes, he's an asshole, but does he listen to himself? He's basically just said two really stupid things:

1) It would be inconvenient to seek actual justice for 1,100 offenders, so lets just leave their lives ruined anyways. How could we possibly reopen 1,100 cases when the General Assembly has made the crimes they committed misdemeanors, rather than felonies?

2) A jury convicted him, so why should politicians second guess the process? Um....Sen. Johnson, isn't that what you just did when you decided that it was wrong for the offense to be listed as a felony and require sex offender registration?

*sigh*

So, what do you think? Is the inconvenience of reopening 1,100 cases so bad that we can't actually seek justice for the offenders in those cases? Should those 1,100 teenage offenders sit in jail for a decade or so because we're too lazy to apply the law as we have changed it (admitting that the old law was unjust) to them as well?

Because the thread took a stupid detour over the meaning of ex post facto laws, I thought it a good idea to requote the OP.

Senator Johnson is an idiot and the Wilson case is an unfortunate travesty.

Thank you for your moral relativism.

So, basically you have no argument except "my morality is right because I say so" and "US teenagers are more stupid and indigent than those in Sweden because somehow Swedish 15-year-olds can manage to deal with this, oh, so crippling emotional trauma of deciding over their own bodies and sexuality, while those in the US become empty husks of what used to be people".

Or are you claiming that the 26-year-old I gladly and willingly (oh, boy, was I willing!) blew when I was around 16 somehow harmed me? Funny, because I would claim the direct opposite. He did me quite well.

No we're not. We're saying that the law should no longer be what it is. But it still has been that up until now, and all outstanding penalties need to reflect that.

The very fact that a law's penalty has been changed therefore means that the government is admitting that they were wrong with the previous penalty. If we are making such an admission it would then be wrong in every conceivable way to keep people imprisoned for the previous harsher penalty. We are supposively a society that treats its people correctly so if we change a penalty but keep those previously convicted people locked up with an outdated sentence then I would say that the supposition was been proven incorrect.

We're not punishing them because they deserve it. What purpose would that serve? It would just be vindictive. No, we punish people to deter future crimes, but that only works if the punishment is consistent and predictable. Your proposal ruins that.

Prison is meant to deter future crimes though in many cases I would question the effectiveness of this. However if we were going to be consistent and predictable we would not change the law's sentence to begin with. It was as it was decided that the sentence was incorrect...

*repeats the above paragraph*

So the age of consent should be 20?

Or are we forgetting that 18 an 19 year olds are still teenagers?

Technically they are still teens. But they are now legal adults. Some may still lack that maturity but since the law sees them as grown up, that is the end of it.

So, basically you have no argument except "my morality is right because I say so" and "US teenagers are more stupid and indigent than those in Sweden because somehow Swedish 15-year-olds can manage to deal with this, oh, so crippling emotional trauma of deciding over their own bodies and sexuality, while those in the US become empty husks of what used to be people".

Or are you claiming that the 26-year-old I gladly and willingly (oh, boy, was I willing!) blew when I was around 16 somehow harmed me? Funny, because I would claim the direct opposite. He did me quite well.

The entire point of the laws is that a majority of youth do not understand the full range of consequences at such an age. It is a generalization yes, some very well could handle it. I would question if Swedish 15yr olds can suddenly handle the circumstances just because the law says that they can. Or 15yr olds from any country. Because of this I have no problem siding with caution and not allowing adults to take advantage of those who haven't lived long enough to properly understand. They are supposively minors still, right? Children? Therefore whether they like it or not they should be protected.

The entire point of the laws is that a majority of youth do not understand the full range of consequences at such an age. It is a generalization yes, some very well could handle it. I would question if Swedish 15yr olds can suddenly handle the circumstances just because the law says that they can. Or 15yr olds from any country. Because of this I have no problem siding with caution and not allowing adults to take advantage of those who haven't lived long enough to properly understand. They are supposively minors still, right? Children? Therefore whether they like it or not they should be protected.

yet american 18 year olds can suddenly hanle it just because the law says they can?

You make these laims but don't back them up. Where's your evidence? How do yu know what the average 15 year old could or could not handle?

yet american 18 year olds can suddenly hanle it just because the law says they can?

You make these laims but don't back them up. Where's your evidence? How do yu know what the average 15 year old could or could not handle?

I never said that. But the law says they can so that is that. Still, people should be careful anyway, there are a lot of assholes out there, have to watch out at any age I'd say.

So what do you want me to do? Survey 15 yr olds on their maturity? How about the fact that I was once 15 and was around other 15 yr olds. The very idea that myself or any of my classmates could make such a decision is ridiculous. Or we could simply use common sense. Simply because their hormones are raging and are capable of sex hardly makes them ready. We can certainly point out that there are those in their 20's or older who aren't ready either but in a legal standpoint that is irrelevant. Minors for the most part aren't, simple as that. Trying to claim otherwise is simply a way to excuse and empower child molesters.

I never said that. But the law says they can so that is that. Still, people should be careful anyway, there are a lot of assholes out there, have to watch out at any age I'd say.

Well the law in sweden says they can at 15. I guess that's that.

So what do you want me to do? Survey 15 yr olds on their maturity?

I would suggest starting with not making claims you are incapable of substantating

How about the fact that I was once 15 and was around other 15 yr olds. The very idea that myself or any of my classmates could make such a decision is ridiculous.

And I've known 15 year olds who have had sex just fine.


Or we could simply use common sense. Simply because their hormones are raging and are capable of sex hardly makes them ready.

it doesn't make them not ready either.

We can certainly point out that there are those in their 20's or older who aren't ready either but in a legal standpoint that is irrelevant. Minors for the most part aren't, simple as that.

You mean...because you said so?

Trying to claim otherwise is simply a way to excuse and empower child molesters.

I have never tried to say otherwise. I have merely stated that the word does not work in some way because you say so.

I never said that. But the law says they can so that is that. Still, people should be careful anyway, there are a lot of assholes out there, have to watch out at any age I'd say.

So what do you want me to do? Survey 15 yr olds on their maturity? How about the fact that I was once 15 and was around other 15 yr olds. The very idea that myself or any of my classmates could make such a decision is ridiculous. Or we could simply use common sense. Simply because their hormones are raging and are capable of sex hardly makes them ready. We can certainly point out that there are those in their 20's or older who aren't ready either but in a legal standpoint that is irrelevant. Minors for the most part aren't, simple as that. Trying to claim otherwise is simply a way to excuse and empower child molesters.

Nevermind the fact that puberty is nature telling the body "You're ready to have sex now", and all through history up until about 60 years ago (In pretty much only the USA, as well), people were married and having sex with older husbands and wives by age 15 - usually, younger.

So both history and nature disagree with you.

Well the law in sweden says they can at 15. I guess that's that.

I would suggest starting with not making claims you are incapable of substantating

Unfortunately. Doesn't make the Swedish law correct though.

You know, as I see it we should be looking at this in the opposite direction. You want me to prove that 15 yr olds are incapable of making a decision toward having sex. It is a major life decision so I ask you to prove to me that they CAN make that decision. You can't do that either as every teen is different in this regard. Some may "seem alright" but that hardly means anything. Children are supposed to be protected by adults and especially their parents and I see no reason to change that just because society suddenly decides different and figures that kids and teens especially are suddenly mini-adults or that the concept of "parenting" is no longer acceptable.

Unfortunately. Doesn't make the Swedish law correct though.

What makes the american lw correct?

You know, as I see it we should be looking at this in the opposite direction. You want me to prove that 15 yr olds are incapable of making a decision toward having sex. It is a major life decision so I ask you to prove to me that they CAN make that decision. You can't do that either as every teen is different in this regard. Some may "seem alright" but that hardly means anything. Children are supposed to be protected by adults and especially their parents and I see no reason to change that just because society suddenly decides different and figures that kids and teens especially are suddenly mini-adults or that the concept of "parenting" is no longer acceptable.

No. Wanna know why? I didn't claim they were.

You claimed they weren't. You don't get to make a claim then challenge someone to disprove it.

You made the claim, you back it up.

Nature saying "you are ready" doesn't mean you are emotionally. Humans aren't animals,


Techincally...yes, yes we are.

A more sophisticated animal yes, but animals all the same. You also assume that all people are a hung up on this antiquated notion that sex has to have some emotional import as you are.

Nevermind the fact that puberty is nature telling the body "You're ready to have sex now", and all through history up until about 60 years ago (In pretty much only the USA, as well), people were married and having sex with older husbands and wives by age 15 - usually, younger.

So both history and nature disagree with you.

Nature saying "you are ready" doesn't mean you are emotionally. Humans aren't animals, there is more to consider then simply being physically ready. Further, just because historically humans married young means nothing. Women were often seen as nothing more then chattel, a bargaining chip to gain the family better social status through marriage. I don't see how this proves that the teens are emotionally ready simply because society forced the union on the youth.

Nature saying "you are ready" doesn't mean you are emotionally. Humans aren't animals, there is more to consider then simply being physically ready. Further, just because historically humans married young means nothing. Women were often seen as nothing more then chattel, a bargaining chip to gain the family better social status through marriage. I don't see how this proves that the teens are emotionally ready simply because society forced the union on the youth.

They're ready, emotionally, I argue, because they do it. There's no seminar they need to go to, there's no class other than sex-ed in school they need to take, there's no manual they need to read, there's no test they have to take (other than sex-ed, which goes without saying) - point being, they're having sex.

OHMYGOD, THEY'RE HAVING SEX. Utracia! They're having sex RIGHT NOW. This very moment, two "children" (as you put it) are having sex. They're fumbling with an assumed position and awkwardly kissing eachother while making small pelvic movements, and IT'S SEX.

Get it?

They're doing it. REGARDLESS of whether or not you think they're "ready". Dear god, why are they doing such a thing? Because their bodies are telling them to, and because they want to experience it.

On TV I see shows and movies with women that say they all regret their first time because it wasn't with someone who was incredibly special - in real life, every girl I've met (the vast majority of which were at the time 14-17) didn't regret it, and were on a quest searching for the next guy they wanted.

They seemed rather "ready" to me. They aren't "children" - they're teenagers. They are, literally, mini-adults. They want the same things as adults do, they just don't know WHY they want them until after they've gotten them.

Really. Stop calling them children. It goes like this: infants, toddlers, children, pre-teens, teenagers. That's the line. The ones we're talking about are full-blown teenagers. Calling them "children" induces visions of those dirty 6-year-olds walking barefoot through a poor African village with a white guy in front of a camera asking for your donation. Of course you want to protect those kids, but shielding them from reality is not protection - they're going to have sex, they're going to kiss, they're going to fondle, they're going to grope, and most of them don't give a shit what age group their partner is with; in fact, many of the "children" you speak of actually prefer an older parter because they know what they're doing.

I remember I had a 13-year-old friend in one of my classes, she was always bragging about her 20-year-old boyfriend. I highly doubt that she's come to a full 180 by now and cries alone in the dark because nobody protected her from having a sexual partner that was older than her. That's just emotionally-driven stupidity to think so.

I'm gonna keep hammering this into your head, because I want to make sure you get the message completely: the kids are alright. They're alright, and they're fucking people. At the same time. No matter what laws are passed, no matter what age limit is set, no matter what anyone anywhere ever does, they'll continue to do what they want to do, and rightfully so.

The entire point of the laws is that a majority of youth do not understand the full range of consequences at such an age.

Prove it.

It is a generalization yes, some very well could handle it. I would question if Swedish 15yr olds can suddenly handle the circumstances just because the law says that they can.

Since we're not a country filled with people mentally scarred by the "abuse" we willingly "suffered", I would say that they've been able to handle it quite well. I've so far seen nothing to indicate otherwise, but again if you're going to claim the opposite - that we're a country of 9 million "victims" - present your proof.

Or 15yr olds from any country. Because of this I have no problem siding with caution and not allowing adults to take advantage of those who haven't lived long enough to properly understand. They are supposively minors still, right? Children? Therefore whether they like it or not they should be protected.

There it is again, that "my morality is right because I say so" non-argument. It's funny how it doesn't magically become a valid argument just because you repeat it a few times, isn't it?

Techincally...yes, yes we are.

A more sophisticated animal yes, but animals all the same. You also assume that all people are a hung up on this antiquated notion that sex has to have some emotional import as you are.

Technically we are sure. But our added dimension of intelligence, that "spark" whatever you want to call it makes us different then the rest of the animals. And sure, some people want to act like they are a simple animal and have casual sex and that is their choice. I don't approve and I really don't care if you think this is an "antiquated notion" of mine.

-snip-

I may not agree with the idea of teens having sex but it is their choice. What I don't care for is when adults choose to take advantage of their inexperience. You may decide that age doesn't matter but it most certainly does. Any adult who chooses to sleep with a teen should be punished severely. I hardly see how this is an unreasonable view.

Since we're not a country filled with people mentally scarred by the "abuse" we willingly "suffered", I would say that they've been able to handle it quite well. I've so far seen nothing to indicate otherwise, but again if you're going to claim the opposite - that we're a country of 9 million "victims" - present your proof.

I don't recall ever advancing a victim argument. I simply do not see how simply becoming physically ready for sex instantly makes you emotionally ready. But who knows, maybe everything I think I know about humanity is incorrect and suddenly sex has no emotional connection for anyone. Anything is possible. I also suppose one day we can climb into the skulls of others and offer proof on something that is impossible to do so.

I don't understand why people believe that thinking a little before jumping into bed is wrong. Making any kind of impulsive decision isn't the wisest thing to do, especially since the results of this particular decision, sex, can have life altering consequences. And I never had as big a problem of teens having sex with each other but with an adult taking advantage of the inexperience of teens. It is a difference that people should be able to recognize.

There it is again, that "my morality is right because I say so" non-argument. It's funny how it doesn't magically become a valid argument just because you repeat it a few times, isn't it?

You seem to be advancing a similar judgmental argument, that Americans are uptight and that we should change our view toward sexuality. This is somehow different then what you are accusing me of?

I may not agree with the idea of teens having sex but it is their choice. What I don't care for is when adults choose to take advantage of their inexperience. You may decide that age doesn't matter but it most certainly does. Any adult who chooses to sleep with a teen should be punished severely. I hardly see how this is an unreasonable view.

"I may not agree with it but it's their choice"
"I don't agree with adults taking advantage of their inexperience"

You're not making the connection. It's their choice, regardless of how old they are. You have absolutely no right to tell them what to do, in any age catagory, and even if you did, they would still do it, because they don't care what you think.

Adults who sleep with teens should be punished severely. Teens who sleep with teens should... what? Be punished severely? It's the same act, with the same group of people. What does it matter if one of them is 20?

It's unreasonable because it has no proof of legitimacy or reason other than your "because I say so and I'm moral" defense.

I don't recall ever advancing a victim argument. I simply do not see how simply becoming physically ready for sex instantly makes you emotionally ready. But who knows, maybe everything I think I know about humanity is incorrect and suddenly sex has no emotional connection for anyone. Anything is possible. I also suppose one day we can climb into the skulls of others and offer proof on something that is impossible to do so.

Sex itself has no emotional connection unless the emotions are already there for the person you're having it with. I'm sorry you had to find out this way.

And you -are- advancing a victim argument - saying we need to "protect" them from themselves, when they're doing just fine, you're suggesting they're victims in need of protection from teh ebil adults. It's a very kneejerk reaction.

I don't understand why people believe that thinking a little before jumping into bed is wrong. Making any kind of impulsive decision isn't the wisest thing to do, especially since the results of this particular decision, sex, can have life altering consequences. And I never had as big a problem of teens having sex with each other but with an adult taking advantage of the inexperience of teens. It is a difference that people should be able to recognize.

There is no difference. I'm sorry, there just isn't. You keep saying they're "taking advantage" of the teens, when the teens are just as much taking advantage of the adults. It goes both ways. It's a mutual connection - they both want it, they both have it, they both enjoy it. End of story.

Sex doesn't have life-altering consequences. It'll change your perception if you were previously a virgin, but no more than suddenly realizing how to use a computer correctly if you were previously an idiot. STD's have life-altering consequences, yes, but I'll wager that they're more likely to use protection if one of them is an adult, because, like you keep saying, the teens are "inexperienced", so if anything it's a good learning experience.

You seem to be advancing a similar judgmental argument, that Americans are uptight and that we should change our view toward sexuality. This is somehow different then what you are accusing me of?

He's doing no such thing. He's simply defending your argument that teenagers all need to be protected or else they'll be victimized by being "taken advantage of" through sexual intercourse with someone older than them.

He's doing no such thing, but I am. I'm saying we're incredibly puritanical in our sexual laws. Over here.

Well look at it this way - when we're growing up, we're attracted to people of all ages. We're not limited to just teenagers. The only sameness being beauty - reason for attraction. Whether she's 14 or 40 - if she's hot, a teenager will want to bang her. Age doesn't matter. Then BAM as soon as you hit 18, you're cut off from the age group you've been around your entire life - such an arbitrary line doesn't make any sense. Suddenly, age is supposed to matter, when your entire life, it hasn't. For what?

Man...there's a big difference in an 18 year old having sex with someone who's 14, and a 40 year old having sex with someone who's 14. Not to mention that most of the time the female body is not ready for everything that can happen. Still too young, too much development going on, high risk of physical/mental problems.

Any adult who chooses to sleep with a teen should be punished severely. I hardly see how this is an unreasonable view.

So a 19 year old who has sex with a 19 year old should be punished severely?

after all, a ninteen year old is both simultaniously an adult, and a teenager. Those terms are not mutually exclusive, unless you want to pretend people go from 17 to 20.

I don't approve and I really don't care if you think this is an "antiquated notion" of mine.

maybe you should start wondering where this rather puritanical "sex is intrinsically linked with emotion, if you have sex with someone you don't have feeligs foryou're just an animal" viewpoin of yours comes from.

Man...there's a big difference in an 18 year old having sex with someone who's 14, and a 40 year old having sex with someone who's 14. Not to mention that most of the time the female body is not ready for everything that can happen. Still too young, too much development going on, high risk of physical/mental problems.

You obviously haven't read the thread.

Prove it.


I haven't looked up the research, I admit. We have had it posted previously - by Dempublicents I believe.

What I did do, however, was quickly find a link to the "John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation" page, which has been at the forefront of advocacy and research in the field of 'juvenile responsibility'. I must point out - I have heard more about this research since the last apparent update of the page (which was in 2005) - but I'm sure you can actively research it yourself, if you have genuine interest.

I'm just pointing out, there is evidence out there that favours Utracia's argument ("The entire point of the laws is that a majority of youth do not understand the full range of consequences at such an age"):

"For example, the findings suggest that adolescents and adults may perceive situations in similar ways (i.e., their assessments of risk may be comparable) but that adolescents may lack the ability to act on these perceptions in ways that align their behavior with their perceptions of risk. If this is the case, asking whether a juvenile recognized if a behavior was dangerous or morally wrong--asking whether he "knew what he was doing"--may not be the correct best way to frame the discussion, since it is possible that an immature person may perceive a behavior as risky or wrong but be influenced to engage in it regardless of that perception for other reasons (e.g., pressure from his friends, immaturity in the ability to regulate his behavior).

The evidence suggests that juvenile brains operate differently from fully 'mature' ones - being less capable of connecting action with reaction, and much less capable of making balanced weighted judgements where social pressures are in play.

In other words: teens cannot fully understand the consequences of their decisions.

http://www.mac-adoldev-juvjustice.org/page26.html

Which one are you? The just-over-14-and-gagging-for-any, or the almost-30-with-a-penchant-for-the-barely-teens?

we have a similar standard here in Canada...anyone over 14 can have consensual sex with any adult...there is movement here to raise that age to 16 but it is controversial...the problems raised with changing it are illustrated by the case mentioned in this thread...difficult issue, protecting young teens from predators vs criminalizing consensual sex...

I haven't looked up the research, I admit. We have had it posted previously - by Dempublicents I believe.

What I did do, however, was quickly find a link to the "John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation" page, which has been at the forefront of advocacy and research in the field of 'juvenile responsibility'. I must point out - I have heard more about this research since the last apparent update of the page (which was in 2005) - but I'm sure you can actively research it yourself, if you have genuine interest.

I'm just pointing out, there is evidence out there that favours Utracia's argument ("The entire point of the laws is that a majority of youth do not understand the full range of consequences at such an age"):

"For example, the findings suggest that adolescents and adults may perceive situations in similar ways (i.e., their assessments of risk may be comparable) but that adolescents may lack the ability to act on these perceptions in ways that align their behavior with their perceptions of risk. If this is the case, asking whether a juvenile recognized if a behavior was dangerous or morally wrong--asking whether he "knew what he was doing"--may not be the correct best way to frame the discussion, since it is possible that an immature person may perceive a behavior as risky or wrong but be influenced to engage in it regardless of that perception for other reasons (e.g., pressure from his friends, immaturity in the ability to regulate his behavior).

The evidence suggests that juvenile brains operate differently from fully 'mature' ones - being less capable of connecting action with reaction, and much less capable of making balanced weighted judgements where social pressures are in play.

In other words: teens cannot fully understand the consequences of their decisions.

http://www.mac-adoldev-juvjustice.org/page26.html

Or, again, they don't care. I really don't see any consequences at all for them to understand. Like Fass said, teens in Sweden don't grow up mentally fucked because they had sex with an older parter, so why is it any different here in the US? The only difference I can see is we're derived from the Pilgrims, the puritans. Christians who had a strict frame of mind - that line of thought seems to have gotten through to modern society in the form of a well-meaning but idiotic kneejerk reaction of "They're just kids, keep them away from the predatorous adults!".

The age of consent is 16 in Canada but I don't think anyone would prosecute a 17 year old for having consensual relations with a 15 year old. That's insane. While I do think there should be Age of Consent laws, it is lunacy to prosecute teenagers for having sex, those laws are there to protect teenage girls from predatory men, not from teens doing it with each other. I think 16 is an appropriate age of consent, you can drive and work. 18 seems too puritan and 14 is definetly too young. There should be a three year age exemption though so if you are within three years of the younger persons age its not illegal and after that the penalties get harsher as the age difference grows. It's the fairest way to do it.

no, age of consent still 14....there are limits however, the adult cannot be an authority figure, Police, Priest, Teachers, Coaches, Councilors, Judges etc will be charged with sexual assault for having consensual sex with a minor...a total stranger can have consensual sex with a minor 14-16...my in-laws have an adopted daughter who met men online and arranged sexual meetings in her home, the police were powerless to stop it...

no, age of consent still 14....there are limits however, the adult cannot be an authority figure, Police, Priest, Teachers, Coaches, Councilors, Judges etc will be charged with sexual assault for having consensual sex with a minor...a total stranger can have consensual sex with a minor 14-16...my in-laws have an adopted daughter who met men online and arranged sexual meetings in her home, the police were powerless to stop it...

But again, her parents could've kept it from happening. She's still their responsibility.

But again, her parents could've kept it from happening. She's still their responsibility.
no her parents couldn't stop it, do you think this happened when her parents were at home?...it doesn't take long for a teenager to realize that their parents have very little or no control over their lives...

Hm, I think there is the basic convention in law, that you can't be judged by a law which was created after your deed. So even if they changed the law - it doesn't change anything for poor fellows who were already punished by this stupid law.

I think, the only possibility for them would to prove, that this law was unconstitutional.

Hm, I think there is the basic convention in law, that you can't be judged by a law which was created after your deed. So even if they changed the law - it doesn't change anything for poor fellows who were already punished by this stupid law.

I think, the only possibility for them would to prove, that this law was unconstitutional.

This has already been discussed at length in the thread. It is a basic convention in law (and a constitutional mandate) that you cannot place further restrictions or increase a sentence after the fact. In other words, you cannot be prosecuted for doing something that was not illegal at the time, and the law cannot go back and increase your sentence if sentencing requiresments are increased.

However, if an action that was illegal is decriminilized, or the sentence for that action is reduced, that can be retroactively applied.

This has already been discussed at length in the thread. It is a basic convention in law (and a constitutional mandate) that you cannot place further restrictions or increase a sentence after the fact. In other words, you cannot be prosecuted for doing something that was not illegal at the time, and the law cannot go back and increase your sentence if sentencing requiresments are increased.

However, if an action that was illegal is decriminilized, or the sentence for that action is reduced, that can be retroactively applied.

But it's a bad idea, and for exactly the same reason.

But it's a bad idea, and for exactly the same reason.

No, it isn't. The travesty would be allowing a harsher sentence than we feel is justified to continue. Hell, it was the fact that people were shocked and horrified by this sentence that led to reducing it in the first place. If we, as a society, are this opposed to something, why should we, as a society, let it continue just because you say so? All we would be doing would be ruining someone's life for something we have decided should not ruin someone's life.

On the other hand, punishing someone from something that was not illegal when they did it infringes upon their rights. So even if we want to, we cannot do it.

And why should the law no longer be what it was? Oh, because we think it was WRONG to inflict such a harsh punishment for a crime that should not have been a felony in the first place.
Our motives for changing the law are completely irrelevant.

What is the law for? How does it achieve those ends?

Without examining those questions, you can't even begin to consider the consequences of changing the penalties retroactively, and you're not willing to consider them. You seem convinced that the point of law is simply to be just, and that's good enough. But in addition to that being an incredibly pointless goal (what does it do?), it's also meaningless unless you're willing to define "justice" as you're using it.

And it's always been the case that punishment is tied to being apprehended. No one is punished for doing something - he's punished for getting caught doing it.

No, it isn't. The travesty would be allowing a harsher sentence than we feel is justified to continue. Hell, it was the fact that people were shocked and horrified by this sentence that led to reducing it in the first place. If we, as a society, are this opposed to something, why should we, as a society, let it continue just because you say so? All we would be doing would be ruining someone's life for something we have decided should not ruin someone's life.
We're not ruining their lives. They ruined their own lives by wilfully breaking the law.

We're not ruining their lives. They ruined their own lives by wilfully breaking the law.

So you think a person's entire life should be ruined based on an offense we consider to be a misdemeanor (not to mention that these kids weren't really aware that they were breaking the law and Wilson, in particular, was not legally an adult)?

Do you think a person's entire life should be ruined if they speed on the highway? If they try a recreational drug?

Your attitude towards this is ridiculous and, quite frankly, disgusting. I pray that you are never, in any capacity, a lawmaker or judge.

Do we have to whip out the list of idiotic laws from times past? They're still on the books, but aren't enforced because they're fucking ridiculous, just like the scenario these kids are in.
Then they shouldn't be on the books, and you should demand that your political representatives remove them.

How dumb the laws are simply doesn't matter.

We're not ruining their lives. They ruined their own lives by wilfully breaking the law.

Do we have to whip out the list of idiotic laws from times past? They're still on the books, but aren't enforced because they're fucking ridiculous, just like the scenario these kids are in.

You obviously haven't read the thread.

Didn't have the time, nor feel the need to do so. I guess I don't have the urge to screw prepubescent girls.

Didn't have the time, nor feel the need to do so. I guess I don't have the urge to screw prepubescent girls.

*shrugs*

If you had read, you'd find your argument has been debunked. Try learning something next time.

That still doesn't change Article 1, Section 9, though.
The article itself is clear - but it still has to be interpreted.
More seriously, in a real sense we are both right. You're arguing interpretation, I'm arguing the straight-up boilerplate of the Constitution. I think I have the edge, because interpretations change somewhat more often than amendments occur.
The constitution says whatever the court and legislature interprets it to say. That's why what you learn at law school is how to interpret the laws and the constitution correctly.

(Plus, I probably wouldn't have gone nutso on the board if someone had set this all out, rather than just saying "No, you're wrong" four times more than was necessary...)
It was explained in previous posts. Maybe you missed it.

Or, again, they don't care. I really don't see any consequences at all for them to understand. Like Fass said, teens in Sweden don't grow up mentally fucked because they had sex with an older parter, so why is it any different here in the US? The only difference I can see is we're derived from the Pilgrims, the puritans. Christians who had a strict frame of mind - that line of thought seems to have gotten through to modern society in the form of a well-meaning but idiotic kneejerk reaction of "They're just kids, keep them away from the predatorous adults!".

I don't think you are arguing against what I said. I didn't say anything about people getting 'mentally fucked' - I said the evidence suggests that teens are not equally capable as adults of weighing up the consequences of their actions.

What does this mean? Does it mean everyone must be basket cases? No - but it means there is a very strong argument that says there can be no 'informed consent'... and without 'informed consent', any sex is rape... no matter how much fun partners might think at the time.

The idea that 'informed consent' is required is not peculiar to American shores, and I'm not a Christian, so I've no interest in peddling Jesus-like morality. I'm just pointing out, Fass rubbishes the idea that there could be a 'responsibility' gap, but the evidence suggests Fass is wrong.

The constitution says whatever the court and legislature interprets it to say. That's why what you learn at law school is how to interpret the laws and the constitution correctly.

Ah, no. The legislature has no power to interpret the constitution. That power is held solely by the Judiciary.

It was explained in previous posts. Maybe you missed it.

Not prior to the point I replied.

cmon you know its right and if its not still everyone makes mistakes

So you think a person's entire life should be ruined based on an offense we consider to be a misdemeanor (not to mention that these kids weren't really aware that they were breaking the law and Wilson, in particular, was not legally an adult)?
It wasn't a misdemeanor when they did it, and that's what should have influenced their behaviour. As I've said, if they're subject to the law they're resonsible to know how it governs them.

And if the law is being applied to Wilson, then the law deemed him capable of making his own decisions on the matter. If you want the law not to apply to children, that's a different discussion.
Do you think a person's entire life should be ruined if they speed on the highway? If they try a recreational drug?
I think they should have no objection to having their lives ruined if the law told them in advance that's what would happen to them. They placed the bet, and they lost.

As it happens, the law doesn't do that with speeding (I'm largely unfamiliar with your drug laws), so speeders should certainly not be subject to this sort of punishment at present, and for the exactly the same reason the kids should. The law can't deter people if the people don't trust it to tell them the truth.
Your attitude towards this is ridiculous and, quite frankly, disgusting. I pray that you are never, in any capacity, a lawmaker or judge.
I've always wanted to be a judge. I actually worked in politics for two years for that very reason (Canadian judges are political appointees).

Ah, no. The legislature has no power to interpret the constitution. That power is held solely by the Judiciary.
Nope, the legislature has to interpret it, though they interpret it on the basis of how the judiciary says they should interpret it.

Not prior to the point I replied.
So you missed it. *Shrugs*