NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm pretty certain that in many countries, sentences for an adult who has had sex with an underaged person are harsh. But after reading the following article, I can't help wondering if maybe sometimes the adults should be given low sentences...

...this girl was underage, and the man seems to have claimed he didn't have sex with her, but let's just suppose he did, knowing her age. So he gets arrested, sent to prison for years. Good for the welfare of society right? After all, we don't want these sickos on our streets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2773073.stm

But the girl is now legal age and still loves him. She's extremely upset, and in her own words, is 'going crazy worrying about him locked up in a prison cell'. Picture it: A 15-year-old girl (15 was age of consent in Turkey when the guy was convicted, though the girl was 14 at the time of the alleged offence) genuinely believes she's in love with a guy. She seriously cares for him, and now he's in a prison cell, for years. She's incredibly upset and extremely worried (you don't need to be a genius to know this), probably crying her eyes out every day. Imagine if the person was YOUR boyfriend or YOUR girlfriend in prison. I can only imagine how devastating it must be for the girl. Yet the guy was putting in prison for her WELFARE and the welfare of society - but by putting him in prison for such a long time (Turkish prisons are not like UK ones. Even a year is a long time), the authorities have seriously messed with her mental health.

Now I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished - after all, he's comitted a crime. But if sending him to prison for so long is seriously bad for her welfare, then shouldn't he have got a lower sentence - and therefore, shouldn't sentences be flexible for just such a circumstance?

For the love of God, let Chris Hansen be summoned.

Consent is consent.

I really wish the legal peoples would, like, you know, let consenting people do what the hell they want.

all i can say is "HELL NO". Giveing a shorter sentense is like saying its ok to do it.

If anything, this story suggests to me that the age of consent ought to be higher. She's in love? I mean, for fuck's sake.

all i can say is "HELL NO". Giveing a shorter sentense is like saying its ok to do it.

Actually I think it would be saying "yes, it's wrong to do it, which is why we are still punishing you, but we understand that by sending you to prison for such a long time, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DISTRESS THAT THIS WOULD CAUSE THE UNDERAGED PERSON WHO HAS FREELY STATED THAT SHE BELIEVES SHE LOVES YOU, would be detrimental to her welfare. Thus, the prison sentence is to give you a short sharp shock and you know what to expect for SEVERAL YEARS if you ever do it again"

Now I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished - after all, he's comitted a crime. But if sending him to prison for so long is seriously bad for her welfare, then shouldn't he have got a lower sentence - and therefore, shouldn't sentences be flexible for just such a circumstance?

I do think that there should be a "grace" area before the age of consent, where people can appeal to be judged at a case by case basis. For those relationships between 18 and 15 year olds where the age of consent is 16 for instance.
However "being in love" should not really be a factor. Six year olds are perfectly capable of "being in puppylove" with adults but I do not think it wise to say "oh, feel free to have sex then" or "get out of jail sooner".

As much as I am for discouraging the kiddy rapers and what not, adolescent girls/boys are a seriously different matter entirely, they at least have a choice (even if it is often a wrong choice) and punishing someone who goes out and rapes a baby the same as someone who feels that the age of consent is just a year or two high is unconscionable.

And don't get me started on 'registered sex offenders' even for the truly terrible it's cruel and unusual punishment, A longer prison sentence is alright, but making them live on their own and legally obligated to tell everyone they meet not to talk to or hire them?

...especially when that registered sex 'offence' is being naked in public...

As much as I am for discouraging the kiddy rapers and what not, adolescent girls/boys are a seriously different matter entirely, they at least have a choice (even if it is often a wrong choice) and punishing someone who goes out and rapes a baby the same as someone who feels that the age of consent is just a year or two high is unconscionable.

And don't get me started on 'registered sex offenders' even for the truly terrible it's cruel and unusual punishment, A longer prison sentence is alright, but making them live on their own and legally obligated to tell everyone they meet not to talk to or hire them?

All I am concerned with is that the legal system does accept the word of a child as sacred, where the child could not lie ( we do have a broad range of ages of course ) but a, let's say, a 13 year old can already be aware of the power involved in these allegations, add a bit of social disorder in their lives like jealousy, then the social investigators should be thorough in their search for truth. In our days of instant access to sexual information we do seem to see a much younger population that is sexually informed but not necessarily mature in the matter, there is no fine line such as age that defines maturity, I know older people that are very immature but yet the law allows them the recognition of being "of age". Culture has a lot to do in the developing of the sexual maturity of th members of a society. Europeans are considered perverts because age of consent with an adult is 2 years lower than in the U.S. or Canada, unless that Canada has adapted their law as it was 18.

The only problem I have with sentences for sex with children, is when their ages are close but one happens to be slightly below the age of consent and the other slightly above. In general I wish sentences were more flexible, although there is the problem of white collar punishments being overly lenient, but that seems to happen anyway..

Consent is consent.

I really wish the legal peoples would, like, you know, let consenting people do what the hell they want.

Not if it involves breaking the law.

all i can say is "HELL NO". Giveing a shorter sentense is like saying its ok to do it.

Actually, I think we should use far shorter sentences when dealing with this sort of thing. In fact, one three word sentence will do... "you shall hang" :p

I think if the girl is educated, to say that she can't give consent at 14 shows absolute contempt for our views of free-will.

I think if the girl is educated, to say that she can't give consent at 14 shows absolute contempt for our views of free-will.

Education does not equal maturity

For the love of God, let Chris Hansen be summoned.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20070829.jpg

When it's obvious that the two parties are close in age when one of such parties is under the age of majority but close to the age of consent (but at least a teen), there should be no damn sentence in the first place or conviction or charge provided that the two parties engage in consensual activity.

Education does not equal maturity

Considering that 14 is in fact the age of consent in many countries, what exactly is the objection?

Education does not equal maturity
I am sorry, but the girl should be able to do what she wants at that age, none of that paternalistic crap please.

Considering that 14 is in fact the age of consent in many countries, what exactly is the objection?

It's a subjective decision on the age when the majority of children are suitable mature. I don't have an objection to the age of consent being lower. I have an objection with education being confused with maturity

This is really about how much discretion judges should have in sentencing.
If you like your laws 'black and white', you set an age limit and a minimum sentence and stick to it no matter what. Sometimes it seems harsh, but at least everyone knows where they stand.
If you go the other way and ask for greater judicial discretion, it starts to become a lottery on what judge you draw for your particular crime and what his/her sense of morality is. One judge might let this guy off with a caution another might lock him up for life.
Everyone is happy with judicial discretion so long as the judge thinks like they do. But when the judge exercising that discretion is at the opposite end of the political spectrum, most of us want him/her disbarred.
On the whole I think it is fairer to more people to have the rules and penalties known in advance and strictly adhered to.

I am sorry, but the girl should be able to do what she wants at that age, none of that paternalistic crap please.

What age limit would you set? What makes your age limit ok but mine paternalisitc?

What age limit would you set? What makes your age limit ok but mine paternalisitc?
Well I would hate to say 14 is good and yours bad, but that is really beyond the point, although I would say that 14 is fine, it really depends more on education which enables people to make the best decisions in those circumstances. But I think in situations like this where consent is clear that the law should recognize it.

Reminds me of this:

"Teenagers are rarely prosecuted for having sex, but a 13-year-old British girl has managed to put a 17-year old-German boy behind bars in Turkey. The case has become a thorn in German-Turkish relations.

Marco claims the two only kissed and engaged in "heavy petting," consensually. No sexual intercourse took place, he has said.
On Aug. 8, a gynecologist who had examined Charlotte said that there was no evidence of assault and the girl was still a virgin. But there was sexual penetration, insisted Charlotte's lawyer Ömer Aycan, who told his client's side of the story in a telephone interview with DW-WORLD.DE from Antalya.
Charlotte has claimed that she was asleep in the double room when Marco and another boy knocked on the door after midnight. She asked Marco to leave, but he refused and proceeded to force himself on her. Charlotte screamed, alerting other teenagers in the room, and Marco fled.
"Charlotte refused to have sex with Marco, so I can use the word rape. He raped a 13-year-old girl," said Aycan, who added that Charlotte's age was known to the German youth.
Sexual contact without the use of force is criminal under Turkish law when one of the individuals involved is under 15. Aycan is seeking the maximum conviction, a sentence of fifteen years, although that penalty would be reduced by a third since Marco is also a minor.

Marco claims Charlotte told him she was fifteen and what has emerged in the German media is a portrait of a manipulative 13-year-old deceiving a youth four years her senior. "

Well I would hate to say 14 is good and yours bad, but that is really beyond the point, although I would say that 14 is fine

I could easily have called that paternalistic and said that 12 was a more fair age. See my point?

it really depends more on education which enables people to make the best decisions in those circumstances.

This is where we disagree. I think it's more to do with maturity to make an appropriate decision rather than simple knowledge

But I think in situations like this where consent is clear that the law should recognize it.

Yet you set a limit (14) on the point at which consent is deemed acceptable by law

I'm pretty certain that in many countries, sentences for an adult who has had sex with an underaged person are harsh. But after reading the following article, I can't help wondering if maybe sometimes the adults should be given low sentences...

...this girl was underage, and the man seems to have claimed he didn't have sex with her, but let's just suppose he did, knowing her age. So he gets arrested, sent to prison for years. Good for the welfare of society right? After all, we don't want these sickos on our streets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2773073.stm

But the girl is now legal age and still loves him. She's extremely upset, and in her own words, is 'going crazy worrying about him locked up in a prison cell'. Picture it: A 15-year-old girl (15 was age of consent in Turkey when the guy was convicted, though the girl was 14 at the time of the alleged offence) genuinely believes she's in love with a guy. She seriously cares for him, and now he's in a prison cell, for years. She's incredibly upset and extremely worried (you don't need to be a genius to know this), probably crying her eyes out every day. Imagine if the person was YOUR boyfriend or YOUR girlfriend in prison. I can only imagine how devastating it must be for the girl. Yet the guy was putting in prison for her WELFARE and the welfare of society - but by putting him in prison for such a long time (Turkish prisons are not like UK ones. Even a year is a long time), the authorities have seriously messed with her mental health.

Now I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished - after all, he's comitted a crime. But if sending him to prison for so long is seriously bad for her welfare, then shouldn't he have got a lower sentence - and therefore, shouldn't sentences be flexible for just such a circumstance?

She's underage. The reason we have consent laws at all, is because underage people cannot make legal consent decisions.

She might 'believe she loves him'? But - she's a child.

And, it's making her cry, is it? And - we're supposed to allow sentencing to be based on that? Can I get a note from my mum for a reduced sentence if I kill someone?

I could easily have called that paternalistic and said that 12 was a more fair age. See my point?
Dude, 12 is a bit wrong.


This is where we disagree. I think it's more to do with maturity to make an appropriate decision rather than simple knowledge

Where do you think maturity comes from?

Yet you set a limit (14) on the point at which consent is deemed acceptable by law

No, I set a limit (14) on the age to have sex.

Dude, 12 is a bit wrong.

Why? I could have said the same for 14

Where do you think maturity comes from?

Experience

No, I set a limit (14) on the age to have sex.

The age to give consent to have sex

She's underage. The reason we have consent laws at all, is because underage people cannot make legal consent decisions.

She might 'believe she loves him'? But - she's a child.

And, it's making her cry, is it? And - we're supposed to allow sentencing to be based on that? Can I get a note from my mum for a reduced sentence if I kill someone?

agreed.

Do you know how many times I have seen abused women in distress and crying because their abuser got locked up?

Consent is consent.


No, consent is not necessarily consent.

There are individuals whose consent is affected by other factors. In the case of children, it is the immense trust that is put into the hands of adults.

Consent is consent.

I really wish the legal peoples would, like, you know, let consenting people do what the hell they want.

The issue is whether or not a child has enough maturity, knowledge, and information to actually be able to consent.

Fourteen year olds are emotional...her crying is no indication of deep, mature, informed feeling. If her puppy ran away, she'd likely be crying her eyes out every day too. I remember wanting to run away and live with my boyfriend when I was 14. Boy, someone should have let me consent to that sort of thing, the fascists, because I was totally able to consider the ramifications of such a drastic decision.:rolleyes:

I think if the girl is educated, to say that she can't give consent at 14 shows absolute contempt for our views of free-will.

No, it gives recognition to the developmental stages children go through.

I am sorry, but the girl should be able to do what she wants at that age, none of that paternalistic crap please.

Oddly enough, that is rarely the case, as children tend to live in their parents' house until they have reached the age of majority. That 'paternalistic crap' includes a wide rage of restrictions on 'free will' that society deems acceptable. If you want to set your daughter free at 14, so be it.

Dude, 12 is a bit wrong. Ah. 12 is 'a bit wrong' but 14 is okay. Cuz you said so.

So you're really not behaving any differently than society, by imposing your beliefs on the actions of others. Good to know.

In some countries/states/jurisdictions, Canada included, the age of consent is 14, but anyone under 18 (so, 14-18) can only give consent to someone that has a two year age difference from them. So you don't get to be a 50 year old perv banging a 14 year old.

No, consent is not necessarily consent.

There are individuals whose consent is affected by other factors. In the case of children, it is the immense trust that is put into the hands of adults.

And finally someone brings in the very real issue of coercision. We believe that children, and adults, are on uneven footing when it comes to power balances. For good reason. There is an inherent (and warranted) mistrust when an adult is in a romantic relationship with a child.

Firstly, to answer your question: no, sex offences with children are serious crimes and this should always be reflected in the punishment.

Secondly, how exactly is an article dated 18 February 2003 'current affairs' to discuss?

In some countries/states/jurisdictions, Canada included, the age of consent is 14, but anyone under 18 (so, 14-18) can only give consent to someone that has a two year age difference from them. So you don't get to be a 50 year old perv banging a 14 year old.

This is a sensible law, large age differences are far more problematic than small ones. Although I don't think this is used officially in Britain, I do remember an interview the police commissioner gave about the issue in which he talked about a 'grey area' of ages in which prosecution isn't really considered; but there have been young people going to prison despite it, I'm still amazed anyone would prosecute a 17-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old if it was clearly consensual.

Europeans are considered perverts because age of consent with an adult is 2 years lower than in the U.S. or Canada, unless that Canada has adapted their law as it was 18.

Canada's is 14 and has been since the country was founded, maybe even before that. And it lacks any sort of 'if you're under 18 you can only consent with someone x years older' guidelines. In the 1840s, 14 was marrying age, and often to one of daddy's rich buddies.

Anyways...

Perhaps the best solution is a sexual consent licence. You can go for the test as soon as your parts are in working order, but odds are no one will pass it that young, some might, and even better some of the painfully fucktarded adults who lack the mental capacities to consent (and handle the emotional and other consequences) and breed will never be legally able to. Two problems fixed in one easy solution.

She was under the legal age for the country she was in. If the AoC is 15 in Turkey, but 14 in Britian, then she should've brought him over to Britian. and not go to Turkey, but by going to Turkey, then as a 14 year old, she was underage. it doesn't matter if she loves him or not, she was underage.

If she truely loved him, why couldn't she wait till she was 15 to have sex with him? Are teens these days so much a slave of their loins that they cannot wait?

It was my idea to run away to Turkey and to have sex with him. I'm just going crazy worrying about him locked up in a prison cell

Well, Ms Lloyd... you should've waited. your inability to wait and plan things out carefully landed him in jail for 5 yrs.

you couldn't wait one year, now you gotta wait 5... or in this case, one more year.

Canada's is 14 and has been since the country was founded, maybe even before that. And it lacks any sort of 'if you're under 18 you can only consent with someone x years older' guidelines. In the 1840s, 14 was marrying age, and often to one of daddy's rich buddies.

Anyways...

Perhaps the best solution is a sexual consent licence. You can go for the test as soon as your parts are in working order, but odds are no one will pass it that young, some might, and even better some of the painfully fucktarded adults who lack the mental capacities to consent (and handle the emotional and other consequences) and breed will never be legally able to. Two problems fixed in one easy solution.

I'm tempted to agree with your licensing idea - except we'd have to decide what 'your parts are in working order' really means. As soon as a girl menstruates, she MIGHT be considered 'good to go'... but it is unlikely that her body is really in any kind of good condition for sex.. and the possible repurcussions. And - of course - if a girl is anorexic, very light, or exercises a lot... she might never menstruate anyway.

So - when are 'your parts in working order'?

the punishment for statutory rape should not vary by how much it was "true love" or not. a man can wait for his 14 year old girlfried to grow up a bit before he has sex with her.

but im thinking it should vary with the age of the minor involved. especially if you have an unrealistically high age of consent. there is a great difference between convincing a 12 year old that its OK to have sex and convincing a 17.5 year old. (supposing a stupid age of consent like 18). the younger the child, the greater the punishment should be.

I'm tempted to agree with your licensing idea - except we'd have to decide what 'your parts are in working order' really means. As soon as a girl menstruates, she MIGHT be considered 'good to go'... but it is unlikely that her body is really in any kind of good condition for sex.. and the possible repurcussions. And - of course - if a girl is anorexic, very light, or exercises a lot... she might never menstruate anyway.

So - when are 'your parts in working order'?

I'm not sure. The easy way to avoid that question is it's up to the person to decide when they want to go for the test.

I'm not sure. The easy way to avoid that question is it's up to the person to decide when they want to go for the test.

So - if a six-year-old wants to take the test?

There has to be some kind of chronological or developmental measure anyway, even with such testing.

Psychologically - the evidence suggests that teenage brains are incapable of fully rationalising their environment, ESPECIALLY in terms of cause-and-effect. Can a person who cannot really understand the results of consent... give consent?

Since we all mature at different rates, I'd say something like 16 MIGHT be an acceptable age to start testing the psychological ability to comprehend the ramifications of consent.

So - if a six-year-old wants to take the test?

There has to be some kind of chronological or developmental measure anyway, even with such testing.

Psychologically - the evidence suggests that teenage brains are incapable of fully rationalising their environment, ESPECIALLY in terms of cause-and-effect. Can a person who cannot really understand the results of consent... give consent?

Since we all mature at different rates, I'd say something like 16 MIGHT be an acceptable age to start testing the psychological ability to comprehend the ramifications of consent.

Three words:

Physical.
Psychological Evaluation.

Three words:

Physical.
Psychological Evaluation.

Agreed.

You realise, of course, that this might well increase the age of consent?

You still haven't explained how we are going to decide who is physically 'ready'. Nor have you addressed how we could decide what would count as psychologically ready.

Like I said - I agree with the idea of testing. I think people should have to get licenses to be allowed to reproduce, too. But - you have to make the idea practical. How do you apply your idea?

Anyone who thinks a pubescent, hormonal girl knows her own mind, raise your hand?

Right now she's high on rebellion. She's been able to stick a thorn in her family's paw, and that can be very satisfying to a teenage girl.

The biggest problem with age of consent laws are the teenagers themselves. Personally, I think they should drop most age of consent laws to somewhere around puberty, but keep the limit on marriageable age laws to somewhere around ... 21. Teenagers are going to have sex whether you tell them not to or not. All those hormones, you see. And sometimes they're going to have sex with older people...it's inevitable.

Sure, the older person should be the responsible one, but that doesn't mean they'll necessarily know the person they're having sex with is underage. Especially in this day and age with photoshop and fake ids.

Anyone who thinks a pubescent, hormonal girl knows her own mind, raise your hand?

Right now she's high on rebellion. She's been able to stick a thorn in her family's paw, and that can be very satisfying to a teenage girl.

The biggest problem with age of consent laws are the teenagers themselves. Personally, I think they should drop most age of consent laws to somewhere around puberty, but keep the limit on marriageable age laws to somewhere around ... 21. Teenagers are going to have sex whether you tell them not to or not. All those hormones, you see. And sometimes they're going to have sex with older people...it's inevitable.

Sure, the older person should be the responsible one, but that doesn't mean they'll necessarily know the person they're having sex with is underage. Especially in this day and age with photoshop and fake ids.


Not buying it. If you can't tell if she's thirteen or twenty-one, don't fuck her. That simple.

She was under the legal age for the country she was in. If the AoC is 15 in Turkey, but 14 in Britian, then she should've brought him over to Britian. and not go to Turkey, but by going to Turkey, then as a 14 year old, she was underage. it doesn't matter if she loves him or not, she was underage.

If she truely loved him, why couldn't she wait till she was 15 to have sex with him? Are teens these days so much a slave of their loins that they cannot wait?



Well, Ms Lloyd... you should've waited. your inability to wait and plan things out carefully landed him in jail for 5 yrs.

you couldn't wait one year, now you gotta wait 5... or in this case, one more year.

COMPLETELY agreed. Well posted.

all i can say is "HELL NO". Giveing a shorter sentense is like saying its ok to do it.
That's equally true for all infractions.

Sentences should NEVER be flexible. To do so harms the whole point of having law in the first place.

Not buying it. If you can't tell if she's thirteen or twenty-one, don't fuck her. That simple.

"before we go on, I'll need a DNA sample to test to see if you are truely 19... here's my hair so you can get it tested to prove that I am 21... what? you don't want to give me a DNA sample? that's fine. I had a lovely evening, let me drop you off at your place..."


yeah... I can totally see that conversation... :p

I'm 16 and in a serious relationship with someone who is 20. Which is against the law technically, but we both care a lot for each other and i think since i consent, nothing should be done to penalize him. Its silly to put someone away for so long when consent was given. Its our lives, let us live it =]

I'm 16 and in a serious relationship with someone who is 20. Which is against the law technically, but we both care a lot for each other and i think since i consent, nothing should be done to penalize him. Its silly to put someone away for so long when consent was given. Its our lives, let us live it =]

to be honest, I suggest consulting a lawyer just to be safe.

...especially when that registered sex 'offence' is being naked in public...

Or selling a comic book that isn't lewd to a teenager. *nodnod*

There is no effective way to judge Maturity. Unless a nation were to spend billions in hiring investigators to judge every case in a "case by case" system where the penalties are always unique, we shall never have a way to properly understand every situation.

This one, where the consenting age is 15 and she was 14? I'd say there isn't much of a damned difference. Speaking from personal experience however, I'd say I knew exactly who I wanted to bang at age 14.

~Jet

[QUOTE=Soviet Haaregrad;]Canada's is 14 and has been since the country was founded, maybe even before that. And it lacks any sort of 'if you're under 18 you can only consent with someone x years older' guidelines. In the 1840s, 14 was marrying age, and often to one of daddy's rich buddies.

I stand corrected, although when I lived in Canada I have seen cases using 18 as the age of consent, maybe it was for same sex situations, I rightly don't recall. but thanks for setting me straight.

I stand corrected, although when I lived in Canada I have seen cases using 18 as the age of consent, maybe it was for same sex situations, I rightly don't recall. but thanks for setting me straight.
If I recall, you technically have to be 18 to consent to anal sex here (or if you don't anymore, that's how it was like 5-6 years ago).

"before we go on, I'll need a DNA sample to test to see if you are truely 19... here's my hair so you can get it tested to prove that I am 21... what? you don't want to give me a DNA sample? that's fine. I had a lovely evening, let me drop you off at your place..."


yeah... I can totally see that conversation... :p

DNA samples....?

I was never really attracted to teens even when I was one. I've always found people that were attracted to (especially, early) teens a little creepy. I've seen older guys dating girls that were in their early-to-mid-teens, and they usually feed you that line about 'she looked 21 when we met' or something like that.

My answer would be - if you can't tell if someone is really 21, assume they aren't.

Canada's is 14 and has been since the country was founded, maybe even before that. And it lacks any sort of 'if you're under 18 you can only consent with someone x years older' guidelines. In the 1840s, 14 was marrying age, and often to one of daddy's rich buddies.

I stand corrected, although when I lived in Canada I have seen cases using 18 as the age of consent, maybe it was for same sex situations, I rightly don't recall. but thanks for setting me straight.
I think Soviet Haaregrad is incorrect. I recall the age of consent being lowered to 14 during the 1980s.

DNA samples....?

I was never really attracted to teens even when I was one. I've always found people that were attracted to (especially, early) teens a little creepy. I've seen older guys dating girls that were in their early-to-mid-teens, and they usually feed you that line about 'she looked 21 when we met' or something like that.

My answer would be - if you can't tell if someone is really 21, assume they aren't.

I for one can't tell women's ages. :(

so I took it to the extreme... you know... kinda like Gattica. :D

I'm pretty certain that in many countries, sentences for an adult who has had sex with an underaged person are harsh. But after reading the following article, I can't help wondering if maybe sometimes the adults should be given low sentences...

...this girl was underage, and the man seems to have claimed he didn't have sex with her, but let's just suppose he did, knowing her age. So he gets arrested, sent to prison for years. Good for the welfare of society right? After all, we don't want these sickos on our streets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2773073.stm

But the girl is now legal age and still loves him. She's extremely upset, and in her own words, is 'going crazy worrying about him locked up in a prison cell'. Picture it: A 15-year-old girl (15 was age of consent in Turkey when the guy was convicted, though the girl was 14 at the time of the alleged offence) genuinely believes she's in love with a guy. She seriously cares for him, and now he's in a prison cell, for years. She's incredibly upset and extremely worried (you don't need to be a genius to know this), probably crying her eyes out every day. Imagine if the person was YOUR boyfriend or YOUR girlfriend in prison. I can only imagine how devastating it must be for the girl. Yet the guy was putting in prison for her WELFARE and the welfare of society - but by putting him in prison for such a long time (Turkish prisons are not like UK ones. Even a year is a long time), the authorities have seriously messed with her mental health.

Now I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished - after all, he's comitted a crime. But if sending him to prison for so long is seriously bad for her welfare, then shouldn't he have got a lower sentence - and therefore, shouldn't sentences be flexible for just such a circumstance?

Only if there was no significant disparity in age, and they had feelings for one another.

All sentencing should be flexible.

Oddly enough, that is rarely the case, as children tend to live in their parents' house until they have reached the age of majority. That 'paternalistic crap' includes a wide rage of restrictions on 'free will' that society deems acceptable. If you want to set your daughter free at 14, so be it.
Your generalizing quite a bit, I have seen 14 year olds who shouldn't have any responsibility, but others quite the opposite.

Your generalizing quite a bit, I have seen 14 year olds who shouldn't have any responsibility, but others quite the opposite.

I'm generalising a lot by pointing out that most 14 year olds live with their parents (or guardians) and not out on their own?

Yeah. Bad me. Total crazy generalisation that also happens to be absolutely true.

Perhaps he should have waited one more year before getting involved with her.

Canada's is 14 and has been since the country was founded, maybe even before that. And it lacks any sort of 'if you're under 18 you can only consent with someone x years older' guidelines. In the 1840s, 14 was marrying age, and often to one of daddy's rich buddies.

I stand corrected, although when I lived in Canada I have seen cases using 18 as the age of consent, maybe it was for same sex situations, I rightly don't recall. but thanks for setting me straight.

In point of fact, Canada has two ages of consent:
18 for exploitative situations (prostitution, pornography, sex with a person in a position of authority, etc)

14 for all other suxual activity.

And we do have a "close in age" clause which exempts charges for those within a two-year gap. So a 15 year old can date a 13 year old and have consent deemed to be given.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/clp/faq.html

However, the justice minister under the Conservative government has been pushing to get the age of consent raised from 14 to 16, although also increasing the allowed gap from weo years to five.

What this would mean is that a 17 year old could then have sex with a 12 year old and have it legal, which right now would be deemed a crime - which seems totally counter to the supposed rationale for this new legislation.


'Adults who sexually prey upon young people are the targets of these reforms, not consenting teenagers,' said Justice Minister Vic Toews.
(CBC)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/06/22/age-consent.html

How raising the age and increasing the allowed gap serves that purpose is beyond me.

This is really about how much discretion judges should have in sentencing.
If you like your laws 'black and white', you set an age limit and a minimum sentence and stick to it no matter what. Sometimes it seems harsh, but at least everyone knows where they stand.
If you go the other way and ask for greater judicial discretion, it starts to become a lottery on what judge you draw for your particular crime and what his/her sense of morality is. One judge might let this guy off with a caution another might lock him up for life.
Everyone is happy with judicial discretion so long as the judge thinks like they do. But when the judge exercising that discretion is at the opposite end of the political spectrum, most of us want him/her disbarred.
On the whole I think it is fairer to more people to have the rules and penalties known in advance and strictly adhered to.

The lottery worry is trashed if either one or both of these apply:
1. There is only leniency in certain circumstances
2. Those circumstances are specified by law

After all, is it really right to cause a girl mental stress with a law that's supposed to protect her? I for one think not

Reminds me of this:

"Teenagers are rarely prosecuted for having sex, but a 13-year-old British girl has managed to put a 17-year old-German boy behind bars in Turkey. The case has become a thorn in German-Turkish relations.

Marco claims the two only kissed and engaged in "heavy petting," consensually. No sexual intercourse took place, he has said.
On Aug. 8, a gynecologist who had examined Charlotte said that there was no evidence of assault and the girl was still a virgin. But there was sexual penetration, insisted Charlotte's lawyer Ömer Aycan, who told his client's side of the story in a telephone interview with DW-WORLD.DE from Antalya.
Charlotte has claimed that she was asleep in the double room when Marco and another boy knocked on the door after midnight. She asked Marco to leave, but he refused and proceeded to force himself on her. Charlotte screamed, alerting other teenagers in the room, and Marco fled.
"Charlotte refused to have sex with Marco, so I can use the word rape. He raped a 13-year-old girl," said Aycan, who added that Charlotte's age was known to the German youth.
Sexual contact without the use of force is criminal under Turkish law when one of the individuals involved is under 15. Aycan is seeking the maximum conviction, a sentence of fifteen years, although that penalty would be reduced by a third since Marco is also a minor.

Marco claims Charlotte told him she was fifteen and what has emerged in the German media is a portrait of a manipulative 13-year-old deceiving a youth four years her senior. "

Considering the fact that the hymens of girls can be broken LONG BEFORE sexual intercourse (even from horse riding, as funny as that may sound), I think the doctor should be the on in prison

But after reading properly, looks like the original “sex” was actually rape. Marco and the doctor should both be locked up. P.S. Hymens can sometimes remain in tact after the first penetration, just stretching enough to allow the penis to go through.

She's underage. The reason we have consent laws at all, is because underage people cannot make legal consent decisions.

She might 'believe she loves him'? But - she's a child.

And, it's making her cry, is it? And - we're supposed to allow sentencing to be based on that? Can I get a note from my mum for a reduced sentence if I kill someone?

I doubt the dead person would say they didn’t want you in prison. The victim of said case has made it clear she doesn’t want her alleged attacker in prison and is devastated – it’s not just a case of crying. The law which is supposed to protect the girl is the very law which is harming her mental welfare.

agreed.

Do you know how many times I have seen abused women in distress and crying because their abuser got locked up?

What are you using for your definition of 'abused'?

The issue is whether or not a child has enough maturity, knowledge, and information to actually be able to consent.

Fourteen year olds are emotional...her crying is no indication of deep, mature, informed feeling. If her puppy ran away, she'd likely be crying her eyes out every day too.

That would be because she loved the puppy like family. I really wish people would stop seeing animals are mere playthings – unless you actually have and lose a pet who has been with you for some time, please don’t comment on how a person *really* feels when they lose such a loved one. It’s like losing a brother or sister.

And finally someone brings in the very real issue of coercision. We believe that children, and adults, are on uneven footing when it comes to power balances. For good reason. There is an inherent (and warranted) mistrust when an adult is in a romantic relationship with a child.

I spose you make a good point. But she’s so upset :(

She was under the legal age for the country she was in. If the AoC is 15 in Turkey, but 14 in Britian, then she should've brought him over to Britian. and not go to Turkey, but by going to Turkey, then as a 14 year old, she was underage. it doesn't matter if she loves him or not, she was underage.

If she truely loved him, why couldn't she wait till she was 15 to have sex with him? Are teens these days so much a slave of their loins that they cannot wait?



Well, Ms Lloyd... you should've waited. your inability to wait and plan things out carefully landed him in jail for 5 yrs.

you couldn't wait one year, now you gotta wait 5... or in this case, one more year.

On the one hand you’re suggesting she’s immature, yet on the other hand you seem to be chastising her for not waiting – as though she should have know better because she is mature?

Not buying it. If you can't tell if she's thirteen or twenty-one, don't fuck her. That simple.

BIG PROBLEM: Many adult women of around 17/18 (such as those at my uni) LOOK under 16 (age of consent in UK). Thus if someone looks OVER 16, then it’s pretty much guaranteed she is over 16, right? Nope – many underage girls manage to make themselves look at least 16. So unless you ask to check the driving licence or passport of every girl you meet (assuming they have one), it’s not easy to tell if someone’s underage.

DNA samples....?

I was never really attracted to teens even when I was one. I've always found people that were attracted to (especially, early) teens a little creepy. I've seen older guys dating girls that were in their early-to-mid-teens, and they usually feed you that line about 'she looked 21 when we met' or something like that.

My answer would be - if you can't tell if someone is really 21, assume they aren't.

Riiiight... so you have to wait years before you can actually date someone, or ignore someone who might be perfect for you, because you have to assume she's less than your country's legal age (despite many adult females looking younger than legal age)

In point of fact, Canada has two ages of consent:
18 for exploitative situations (prostitution, pornography, sex with a person in a position of authority, etc)

14 for all other suxual activity.

And we do have a "close in age" clause which exempts charges for those within a two-year gap. So a 15 year old can date a 13 year old and have consent deemed to be given.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/clp/faq.html

However, the justice minister under the Conservative government has been pushing to get the age of consent raised from 14 to 16, although also increasing the allowed gap from weo years to five.

What this would mean is that a 17 year old could then have sex with a 12 year old and have it legal, which right now would be deemed a crime - which seems totally counter to the supposed rationale for this new legislation.


'Adults who sexually prey upon young people are the targets of these reforms, not consenting teenagers,' said Justice Minister Vic Toews.
(CBC)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/06/22/age-consent.html

How raising the age and increasing the allowed gap serves that purpose is beyond me.

"The proposed legislation includes a close-in-age exception, which means that teens who are 14 or 15 can have a sexual partner who is "less than five years older."

Doesn't say anything about 12-year-olds

After all, is it really right to cause a girl mental stress with a law that's supposed to protect her? I for one think not

I don't think this law is designed to protect her. Laws in general are not about protecting the individual, but rather about protecting the society (or dictatorship) that formed them. Laws by their nature are designed to deal with the 'general' rather than the 'specific' case.
In this case, this particular society thinks it is best served if under 15's do not have sex, period. There may be many reasons for them enacting this law, from trying to prevent teen pregnancy, to a desire to enforce a certain brand of religious or moral code.
It is highly unlikely that any of those reasons are even remotely connected to alleviating mental stress in lovesick teens. In point of fact, we have no idea whether releasing this young man would actually alleviate her stress, or simply create a new set of different and equally destructive psychological problems. A court of Law certainly doesn't have the expertise or mechanism to make that fine judgement.

The lottery worry is trashed if either one or both of these apply:
1. There is only leniency in certain circumstances
2. Those circumstances are specified by law

Now, I'm really intrigued, because I'm obviously not clever enough to recognize a trashing when I see one. Could you please expand on this by writing out the guidelines or legal specifications that you would give to law courts to prevent this becoming a lottery?
My experience is that the more guidelines you give, the more wriggle room it allows both judges and lawyers to indulge their own opinions over the intent of the law. I know my cynicism is showing, but leniency loopholes seem to be best exploited by rich white kids with expensive lawyers, whatever the merits of their case. Poor black kids with public defenders, just never seem to qualify for that leniency in quite the same way.

I doubt the dead person would say they didn’t want you in prison. The victim of said case has made it clear she doesn’t want her alleged attacker in prison and is devastated – it’s not just a case of crying. The law which is supposed to protect the girl is the very law which is harming her mental welfare.


She cried. Is it safe to accept this as concrete evidence that it 'is harming her mental welfare'?

The point is - you can't change sentencing because of displays of emotion.


BIG PROBLEM: Many adult women of around 17/18 (such as those at my uni) LOOK under 16 (age of consent in UK).


Fine. If you think they look like they might be under 16, don't go there. How difficult was that?


Thus if someone looks OVER 16, then it’s pretty much guaranteed she is over 16, right?


What do you think you're talking about? You're actually making my point for me, albeit in an arse-about-face reversal fashion... you are saying appearance isn't enough to determine age. So - don't fuck anyone you can't be sure of. No one NEEDS to get laid so bad that he has to fuck a child.


Nope – many underage girls manage to make themselves look at least 16. So unless you ask to check the driving licence or passport of every girl you meet (assuming they have one), it’s not easy to tell if someone’s underage.


My point exactly. If you don't know how old they are, don't screw them.

I'm really not seeing why this is so hard to grasp.


Riiiight... so you have to wait years before you can actually date someone, or ignore someone who might be perfect for you, because you have to assume she's less than your country's legal age (despite many adult females looking younger than legal age)


You don't have to have sex with people you date. If you think your relationship has a future, is it REALLY too much to ask to find out how old your partner is?

When I was 15 I got together with a man who was 24. I can still say that it was real love, not puppylove... In norway you have to be 16 to have sex, so that was illegall to. But no way, it didn't harm me. Those laws are to strict!

3 years ago two of my friends went out into the woods together in a truck and had sex. Except she was 15 (the legal age in Georgia is 16) and he was 17. Well he got thrown in jail for rape. Another one of my buddies was waiting in a near by car for them to finish so he could hang out with them. He got put in jail for being an accessory to rape. Now I know different people become mature at different ages, and I'm not saying every 15-year old is ready to have sex, but the sex was consensual those two guys should not have been thrown in jail for rape.

I think all sentences should be flexible because not every crime is the same. Different circumstances merit different punishments and I don't really believe that justice is blind.

3 years ago two of my friends went out into the woods together in a truck and had sex. Except she was 15 (the legal age in Georgia is 16) and he was 17. Well he got thrown in jail for rape. Another one of my buddies was waiting in a near by car for them to finish so he could hang out with them. He got put in jail for being an accessory to rape. Now I know different people become mature at different ages, and I'm not saying every 15-year old is ready to have sex, but the sex was consensual those two guys should not have been thrown in jail for rape.

I think all sentences should be flexible because not every crime is the same. Different circumstances merit different punishments and I don't really believe that justice is blind.

The sex wasn't consensual.

If you can't give reasoned consent, you can never have consenting sex. It really isn't that tricky a concept.

In my opinion it should have been illegal at the time but sentencing should have been postponed until the girl was 15 ( after all she was only a year off ). When she reached the legal age of consent she should then have made the choice about whether or not he was punished. If it was a younger child than say 13 instant punishment but there should be a several year bracket of semi contentiousness for the child.

If you are old enough to want it you are old enough to have it.
Love and sex. Sex and love. Both are necessities for a happy life.
Both should be as free and easy as possible. Only forced sex is taboo.
Forced sex falls in the category of physical assault and is not really sex at all.

The sex wasn't consensual.

If you can't give reasoned consent, you can never have consenting sex. It really isn't that tricky a concept.

I think the point here is that they were of the same age group. It's pretty ridiculous to assume that a 17-year old is so much more mature than a 15-year old that one can automatically give consent while the other cannot. It is actually quite likely that they are at the same level of maturity, being in the same age group and likely sharing many of the same peers. It is much more reasonable to think that exploitation or lack of consent is an issue if one is 30 and the other is 15. Hence the reason that such activity between two people that close in age is now a misdemeanor, rather than a felony.

Perhaps he should have waited one more year before getting involved with her. not just he, but she also, after all, she traveled to Turkey to see him... without her parents knowledge.

On the one hand you’re suggesting she’s immature, yet on the other hand you seem to be chastising her for not waiting – as though she should have know better because she is mature?


nope. read my post again. I said that she should've invited HIM over since the AoC in Britian was 14, and thus both would be legal. but because she went to Turkey, where the AoC is 15, both of em are still subject to the law (being that she is still considered underage because she is in Turkey.) no comment on her maturity there.

and the other comment is because of her whining. because she couldn't wait one year (actually less since she turned 15 that year) he got sentenced to 5years and so many months in prision, much to her nightmare.

so, yes, that second part is a jab at her Immaturaty.

When I was fourteen I was an immature idiot. 16 (for both sexes) is in my opinion a good age of consent, at least where I live. Maybe not in Canada or somewhere else, but where I live you aren't going to get a girl to have sex with you remotely until you are at least 16-17. (call me conservative, but I think that if you are having sex at 14 you have a problem of some sort.)

When I was fourteen I was an immature idiot. 16 (for both sexes) is in my opinion a good age of consent, at least where I live. Maybe not in Canada or somewhere else, but where I live you aren't going to get a girl to have sex with you remotely until you are at least 16-17. (call me conservative, but I think that if you are having sex at 14 you have a problem of some sort.)

yes but

16 is a very reasonable age to consider having sex with a boyfriend/girlfriend

but

should the 16 year old boyfriend of a 15 year old girl GO TO JAIL if they have sex?

thats what the age of consent is about. not when is a reasonable age for you to start having sex but at what age should it be illegal for someone else to have sex with you even if you are completely willing.

All sentencing should be flexible.
That defeats the entire point of sentencing.

That defeats the entire point of sentencing.

:confused:

How so?

Now I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished - after all, he's comitted a crime. But if sending him to prison for so long is seriously bad for her welfare, then shouldn't he have got a lower sentence - and therefore, shouldn't sentences be flexible for just such a circumstance?
You make the mistake of assuming that it's good for her welfare to allow this creep-o to continue to be in her life. Just because a 15 year old girl insists she's in love doesn't make it a good idea. I've known girls who were passionately in love with fuckers who beat the crap out of them and cheated on them.

3 years ago two of my friends went out into the woods together in a truck and had sex. Except she was 15 (the legal age in Georgia is 16) and he was 17. Well he got thrown in jail for rape. Another one of my buddies was waiting in a near by car for them to finish so he could hang out with them. He got put in jail for being an accessory to rape. Now I know different people become mature at different ages, and I'm not saying every 15-year old is ready to have sex, but the sex was consensual those two guys should not have been thrown in jail for rape.

I think all sentences should be flexible because not every crime is the same. Different circumstances merit different punishments and I don't really believe that justice is blind.

:headbang: x 1 million

That's fucking retarded. Althoug 16 yo AoC makes sense, you need a close in age clause.

I dont understand how Americans still keep having these Iranian style laws.

As for Canada, I support AoC being raised to 16.

:confused:

How so?
The threat of punishment is there to deter criminal behaviour. Without the deterrent force, punishmenht becomes pointless.

But if the punishment is flexible or mutable, it will be less of a deterrent. Potential criminals will see the least penalty ever applied as a possible (or even likely) outcome, and thus fear punishment less. if they don't fear punishment, they will not be deterred, and criminal activity will rise.

What are you using for your definition of 'abused'?
women who were abused, beaten. I know a woman who was beaten severely by her boyfriend, the neighbors called the cops, he got locked up and she attempted suicide, because "he loves me and they took him away".

The threat of punishment is there to deter criminal behaviour. Without the deterrent force, punishment becomes pointless.The goal of criminal justice is not solely punishment, nor has the system been shown to be especially successful at mere deterrence for crimes committed by individuals--mandatory minimum sentences and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been in effect for over fifteen years, yet crime levels are holding their own.

If rehabilitation of the individual is to occur, the sentencing process must be flexible enough to take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the crime. Oddly enough, the area where the threat of consistent punishment has had a positive effect is corporate crime. Go figure.

And we do have a "close in age" clause which exempts charges for those within a two-year gap. So a 15 year old can date a 13 year old and have consent deemed to be given.

This bears repeating. I believe such clauses are a necessary part of any sensible age-of-consent law.

The goal of criminal justice is not solely punishment, nor has the system been shown to be especially successful at mere deterrence for crimes committed by individuals--mandatory minimum sentences and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been in effect for over fifteen years, yet crime levels are holding their own.
But some people don't commit crimes. Those people are being deterred.

The optimal level of crime isn't zero.
If rehabilitation of the individual is to occur, the sentencing process must be flexible enough to take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the crime.
But that completely short-circuits deterrence. Plus, if the criminal is rational then there's nothing to rehabilitate. He wanted to acheive some goal and he saw the crime as the best way to do that. The only way to change that is to change the facts of his cost/benefit analysis. Making punishment a more real threat would do that.
Oddly enough, the area where the threat of consistent punishment has had a positive effect is corporate crime. Go figure.
And that makes sense. I would expect white-collar criminals to be the sort to give their criminal actions more thought.

The goal should be to get everyone to behave like that.

The threat of punishment is there to deter criminal behaviour. Without the deterrent force, punishmenht becomes pointless.

But if the punishment is flexible or mutable, it will be less of a deterrent. Potential criminals will see the least penalty ever applied as a possible (or even likely) outcome, and thus fear punishment less. if they don't fear punishment, they will not be deterred, and criminal activity will rise.
Ah I see. In that case, you've got something to prove here.

You're right about the fact that if people don't fear punishment, they will not be deterred. But prove that they'll see the least penalty possible - because the standard in the (western) criminal justice systems seems to be no mandatory minimums, and flexible sentencing.

And while you're at it, you may prove that draconic punishments will be absolute deterrents. Because that's the implications of your statements. Would capital punishment for every type of crime - no flexibility - create a perfect, law-abiding society?
But some people don't commit crimes. Those people are being deterred.
That's odd... Seeing as most people don't commit crimes, and most criminal justice systems practice flexible sentencing... Something seems wrong with your statement.


But that completely short-circuits deterrence. Plus, if the criminal is rational then there's nothing to rehabilitate. He wanted to acheive some goal and he saw the crime as the best way to do that. The only way to change that is to change the facts of his cost/benefit analysis. Making punishment a more real threat would do that.
But that only goes so far. It's been proven that the risk of getting caught is a far more important factor than the threat of punishment - given that there is a real punishment to be afraid of in the first place, of course, but only the possibility is needed. I.e. flexibility in sentencing only weakens the deterent to a small degree.

And if you want to fight crime and deter people, put more resources into police and the courts.

And by the way, if the criminal is rational, there is something to rehabilitate. How would you rehabilitate an irrational criminal?

women who were abused, beaten. I know a woman who was beaten severely by her boyfriend, the neighbors called the cops, he got locked up and she attempted suicide, because "he loves me and they took him away".Know the type. I've had a couple of friends who I tried desperately to leave abusive BFs. Doesn't work. You just have to be supportive and hope they come to their senses.

Ah I see. In that case, you've got something to prove here.

You're right about the fact that if people don't fear punishment, they will not be deterred. But prove that they'll see the least penalty possible - because the standard in the (western) criminal justice systems seems to be no mandatory minimums, and flexible sentencing.
These are people who are trying not to get caught; they already wishful thinkers.
And while you're at it, you may prove that draconic punishments will be absolute deterrents. Because that's the implications of your statements. Would capital punishment for every type of crime - no flexibility - create a perfect, law-abiding society?
There's no reason to believe it would. Modern capital punishment appears to have a very small deterrent effect. Perhaps because it's too sterile.

I suspect longer-lasting, less pleasant punishments would be more effective.
That's odd... Seeing as most people don't commit crimes, and most criminal justice systems practice flexible sentencing... Something seems wrong with your statement.
Why? These flexible sentences clearly are sufficient to deter most people, but a less flexible system will deter more people.
But that only goes so far. It's been proven that the risk of getting caught is a far more important factor than the threat of punishment - given that there is a real punishment to be afraid of in the first place, of course, but only the possibility is needed. I.e. flexibility in sentencing only weakens the deterent to a small degree.
But it still weakens it. There's no reason to want that.
And if you want to fight crime and deter people, put more resources into police and the courts.
Sure. And make sentences less flexible. Changing the way the rules work doesn't cost anything.
And by the way, if the criminal is rational, there is something to rehabilitate. How would you rehabilitate an irrational criminal?
How do you rehabilitate a rational criminal? An irrational criminal could be convinced that he was incorrect in his assessment of his own preferences.

I have no idea what rehabilitation would entail for a rational subject.

:headbang: x 1 million

That's fucking retarded. Althoug 16 yo AoC makes sense, you need a close in age clause.

I dont understand how Americans still keep having these Iranian style laws.

As for Canada, I support AoC being raised to 16.

Well said.

It beggars belief that the very same country that complains loudest about Iran acts like the country.

*channels <poster name deleted>*

As flexible as their little legs.

*dechannels*

I'm pretty certain that in many countries, sentences for an adult who has had sex with an underaged person are harsh. But after reading the following article, I can't help wondering if maybe sometimes the adults should be given low sentences...

...this girl was underage, and the man seems to have claimed he didn't have sex with her, but let's just suppose he did, knowing her age. So he gets arrested, sent to prison for years. Good for the welfare of society right? After all, we don't want these sickos on our streets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2773073.stm

But the girl is now legal age and still loves him. She's extremely upset, and in her own words, is 'going crazy worrying about him locked up in a prison cell'. Picture it: A 15-year-old girl (15 was age of consent in Turkey when the guy was convicted, though the girl was 14 at the time of the alleged offence) genuinely believes she's in love with a guy. She seriously cares for him, and now he's in a prison cell, for years. She's incredibly upset and extremely worried (you don't need to be a genius to know this), probably crying her eyes out every day. Imagine if the person was YOUR boyfriend or YOUR girlfriend in prison. I can only imagine how devastating it must be for the girl. Yet the guy was putting in prison for her WELFARE and the welfare of society - but by putting him in prison for such a long time (Turkish prisons are not like UK ones. Even a year is a long time), the authorities have seriously messed with her mental health.

Now I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished - after all, he's comitted a crime. But if sending him to prison for so long is seriously bad for her welfare, then shouldn't he have got a lower sentence - and therefore, shouldn't sentences be flexible for just such a circumstance?

I wish they had expanded our death penality to child molesters.:sniper:

I remember this thread.

What's with all the grave digging these days?

The age of sexual development is where it is at for a reason. That's when nature dictates we can start having sex. That's when we can consent. Obviously it isn't right to have sex with a very young child, because they have not developed and therefore can't make informed consent. So I say we should follow the laws of nature like was intended.

If the younger partner is sexually developed, they have the right to say whether or not they consented.