NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think about the idea that it should be legal for a person to give their past selves (as minors) their current rights as adults?
For instance, if a 16yr-old has intercourse with a 25yr-old, and the 25yr-old is caught and prosecuted by the parents, should the 16yr old be able to nullify the prosecution (meaning, have the 25yr-old released from prison and have their record removed) when they become a legal adult?
Another hypothetical, should a person be able to release "naughty" pictures of themselves taken while they were minors, upon reaching adult age?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, where's the age line? Only going back to age 16? 12? 8? 4?
Should it require consent of those who were guardians at the time?

I was thinking that it'd kind of odd that I can be prosecuted under current law for having sexual pictures of myself!

no i dont think its a good idea.

but i DO think that it is crazy to prosecute teens for sending out naughty pictures of themselves.

Do you think it's crazy to prosecute the teen's significant other for receiving the naughty pictures? What if the SO is an adult? What if the teen has multiple 'significant' others? What if the people receiving them are just friends, and not lovers? Or just classmates, but not friends?

I think there's a large gray area here.

no because that system is far too open to abuse and...well I hate those nobodies that screw girls in school

nevermind how stupid adults can be

Do you think it's crazy to prosecute the teen's significant other for receiving the naughty pictures? What if the SO is an adult? What if the teen has multiple 'significant' others? What if the people receiving them are just friends, and not lovers? Or just classmates, but not friends?

not really

adults + children + sexy things = no no

well what about
children + children + sexy things = ??

should underage sex be illegal across the board?

should underage sex be illegal across the board?

yes :confused:

admittedly its more taken on a case by case basis

Do you think it's crazy to prosecute the teen's significant other for receiving the naughty pictures? What if the SO is an adult? What if the teen has multiple 'significant' others? What if the people receiving them are just friends, and not lovers? Or just classmates, but not friends?

I think there's a large gray area here.
i think it MIGHT be a good thing to prosecute an adult recipient of a naughty underage pic.

if he solicited it. if he has several. if he is distributing it.

if an 18 year old is getting camera phone pics of her 17 year old boyfriend's penis, no need to prosecute.

well what about
children + children + sexy things = ??

should underage sex be illegal across the board?
no

underage sweethearts should not be prosecuted for having sex with each other.

if an 18 year old is getting camera phone pics of her 17 year old boyfriend's penis, no need to prosecute.

on the contrary the 17 year old should never be allowed near a camera phone again for crimes against civilization

My personal view is that there should be leeway for age difference that increases as you age. Like age 12 2-year difference maximum, 14 3-year, 16 4-year, 17 5-year. I would apply it to both images and intercourse.
The problem here is still, for images should my age difference leeway apply to the age of the photo, or the age of the person who took the photo? Should that 18 year old have to delete the naked pictures of her boyfriend's penis as soon as she turns 24? (assuming her boyfriend didn't revoke her permission to have them)

16

O_o where are you from?

Should that 18 year old have to delete the naked pictures of her boyfriend's penis as soon as she turns 24? (assuming her boyfriend didn't revoke her permission to have them)

no but questions will be raised and thanks to the magic of leeway I don't think anyone will care

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. The "leeway" idea isn't magic; it's law in some U.S states. Maybe not my exact idea of what it should be, but laws allowing minors to have intercourse with an adult if the adult is within a certain age range.

What do you think about the idea that it should be legal for a person to give their past selves (as minors) their current rights as adults?
For instance, if a 16yr-old has intercourse with a 25yr-old, and the 25yr-old is caught and prosecuted by the parents, should the 16yr old be able to nullify the prosecution (meaning, have the 25yr-old released from prison and have their record removed) when they become a legal adult?
Another hypothetical, should a person be able to release "naughty" pictures of themselves taken while they were minors, upon reaching adult age?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, where's the age line? Only going back to age 16? 12? 8? 4?
Should it require consent of those who were guardians at the time?

No. It should not generally be done. Every heard of Stockholm Syndrome? Where people come to sympathize with their captors? If you had a similar situation with the victim of underage sex, then you would have statutory rapists and pedophiles potentially getting out, despite still posing a threat to the safety of others. Nevermind that such crimes are notorious for their repeat offenders.

Not to be overly rude, but this is one of the most staggeringly stupid and offensive ideas I've heard in a while.

Regardless of whether it could, would, or should... it won't be.

So there is no point in this...

Nah, the potential for abuse is too great.

And if you're making nude pics or sex videos, don't be a dumbass and you'll end up all right. It's not that hard to hide those kinds of things if you're marginally competent...any kid today should be able to pull it off with minimal effort.

I think it is silly to prosecute for sex/pics of a 16/17 yr old.
now they shouldn't be allowed for commercial distribution.

I was thinking that it'd kind of odd that I can be prosecuted under current law for having sexual pictures of myself!

You can't. You also aren't going to get prosecuted for having the ubiquitous "bathtub picture" of your kid in the family photo album.

My personal view is that there should be leeway for age difference that increases as you age. Like age 12 2-year difference maximum, 14 3-year, 16 4-year, 17 5-year. I would apply it to both images and intercourse.

In California we do have a system quite similar to that. Kids 14 years and under can only be sexually active with each other; teens 15-16 can only be sexually active with other teens between 15 and 17, I believe; and 17 year-olds can be sexually active with people up to 21 years old. It's not perfect, but it's something.

I think it is silly to prosecute for sex/pics of a 16/17 yr old.

If they pictures are taken by a like-aged peer/bf/gf, or if they're taken by an adult?

If they pictures are taken by a like-aged peer/bf/gf, or if they're taken by an adult?

I was thinking self shots. but if they are not used for profit id like say it is all okay. now much younger then 16 and Id have issues.

What do you think about the idea that it should be legal for a person to give their past selves (as minors) their current rights as adults?
For instance, if a 16yr-old has intercourse with a 25yr-old, and the 25yr-old is caught and prosecuted by the parents, should the 16yr old be able to nullify the prosecution (meaning, have the 25yr-old released from prison and have their record removed) when they become a legal adult?
Another hypothetical, should a person be able to release "naughty" pictures of themselves taken while they were minors, upon reaching adult age?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, where's the age line? Only going back to age 16? 12? 8? 4?
Should it require consent of those who were guardians at the time?

I was thinking that it'd kind of odd that I can be prosecuted under current law for having sexual pictures of myself!

hell yes to both. the basis for existing opposition to this is based upon and irrational and irrisponsible fanatacism. as far as i'm concerned, statutory is itself an immoral law.

as for age, puberty itself is logical. somewhere arround 10.5. in many beliefs 15 was the age set to begin testing for adult responsibility.

i do think there's a major paradox as things stand with baby pictures, and there are some fanatics who have taken this up and complained about cherubs as decorations on old buildings.

i just think, unless some sort of psychological damage can actually be showen to be actually being done, objectively and scientifically, in every other aspect, this one of those places where its the private life of the individual that needs to be deregulated and government by any name in any form needs to butt out.

For instance, if a 16yr-old has intercourse with a 25yr-old, and the 25yr-old is caught and prosecuted by the parents, should the 16yr old be able to nullify the prosecution (meaning, have the 25yr-old released from prison and have their record removed) when they become a legal adult?

In Italy it would be impossible, because criminal prosecution (as for statutory rape) isn't filed at the request of a plaintiff; it is initiated (mandatorily!) by a state prosecutor ("pubblico ministero"), and the victim has no part in it - except for requesting a compensation of the damage.

I think that this is the best approach: mandatory criminal prosecution, no extra-judiciary agreements for criminal charges.

As for your example: let's say the 16yrs old is very poor and the 25yrs old is rich. Two years after, the now-27yrs old offers a lot of money to the now-18yrs old to nullify the prosecution. Of course, the 18yrs old accepts because s/he (and his/er familiy) is in dire need of money. Good-bye justice for all, hello census-biased rights!

Did they have intercourse with a kid?
Then let them do the time.

If they did something that was illegal at the time, and have consequences to face for it, I don't see why, "Well, five years ago they were a kid but now they aren't!" should make a difference. The child was unable to give legal consent at the time of the act. If you speed and get a ticket, complaints two years later that the limit was raised and you want your money back will not hack it.

And what the hell is it with people wanting to justify sex with kids? Jesus, just wait until they can legally give consent... in the OP's case, it would have been a year or two at most.

For instance, if a 16yr-old has intercourse with a 25yr-old, and the 25yr-old is caught and prosecuted by the parents, should the 16yr old be able to nullify the prosecution (meaning, have the 25yr-old released from prison and have their record removed) when they become a legal adult?
Not really.

Rather, they should be required to explicitly press the charges themselves if they want the offender prosecuted. Their legal guardian no longer has the power to do that.

The idea that a 15 year old can't give consent involves a presumption of objection by default, but it's a presumption and nothing more.

However, I don't get why you use "16 year old", it's well within the legal age of consent in most places. Whether you agree with it or not.

Did they have intercourse with a kid?
Then let them do the time.

If they did something that was illegal at the time, and have consequences to face for it, I don't see why, "Well, five years ago they were a kid but now they aren't!" should make a difference. The child was unable to give legal consent at the time of the act. If you speed and get a ticket, complaints two years later that the limit was raised and you want your money back will not hack it.

And what the hell is it with people wanting to justify sex with kids? Jesus, just wait until they can legally give consent... in the OP's case, it would have been a year or two at most.

Haha I was going to reply earlier, but couldn't get my words right. Anyway, yeah, this ^.

Nevermind that such crimes are notorious for their repeat offenders.


Nevermind is right. According to a 2004 DOJ report, that category of crime now has the lowest recidivism rate next to murder. The drop coincided with mandatory therapy for those convicted.

Anyways...

When my first wife and I married she was 16 and I was 18. One day she took a picture of herself for me wearing lingerie. If I had kept that picture, I'd be in possession of illegal material, even though it was perfectly legal for me to have sex with her.

Nevermind is right. According to a 2004 DOJ report, that category of crime now has the lowest recidivism rate next to murder. The drop coincided with mandatory therapy for those convicted.

Anyways...

When my first wife and I married she was 16 and I was 18. One day she took a picture of herself for me wearing lingerie. If I had kept that picture, I'd be in possession of illegal material, even though it was perfectly legal for me to have sex with her.
its weird that its OK to have sex with a teen but take a naughty pic and youll go to jail.

our laws are out of wack.

its weird that its OK to have sex with a teen but take a naughty pic and youll go to jail.

our laws are out of wack.

I think it has a lot to do with Politics, to be honest. A lot of people get elected on the "Think of the children" bandwagon. They pass laws to make themselves look good, not to really fix anything.

its weird that its OK to have sex with a teen but take a naughty pic and youll go to jail.

our laws are out of wack.

Aren't they always out of wack? And that's freaking worldwide, mate.

However, I don't get why you use "16 year old", it's well within the legal age of consent in most places. Whether you agree with it or not.

Mostly ignorance/apathy in regard to other countries' laws. I just picked a number that was somewhat close to the age of consent that I'm familiar with, but still under.

And what the hell is it with people wanting to justify sex with kids? Jesus, just wait until they can legally give consent...

I don't want to justify it. I want the kids themselves to be able to justify it for themselves, when they come of age. Personal responsibility and all that.

I think this is an absolutely absurd idea. Besides the fact that crimes are prosecuted by the state, not the victim, and therefore a victim claiming not to want the culprit punished generally only affects sentencing, not conviction, the potential for abuse if victims can get criminals out of jail at will is staggering. Do you really believe for a second that the friends and family of the convicted rapist wouldn't be hounding the victim nonstop from the moment he/she turns 18? Having been taken advantage of is nasty enough without offering a legal incentive for people to make victims' lives even worse.

Did they have intercourse with a kid?
Then let them do the time.

If they did something that was illegal at the time, and have consequences to face for it, I don't see why, "Well, five years ago they were a kid but now they aren't!" should make a difference. The child was unable to give legal consent at the time of the act. If you speed and get a ticket, complaints two years later that the limit was raised and you want your money back will not hack it.

And what the hell is it with people wanting to justify sex with kids? Jesus, just wait until they can legally give consent... in the OP's case, it would have been a year or two at most.


Statutory laws are absurd, because they opperate on the premise that a 16 year old is unable to make decisions about sex on their own.

I have serious issues with prosecuting someone for having consentual sex with someone.

I quite like Vault 10's idea that said 16 year old should have to press the charges themselves. More often than it its most likely the guardians being pissy that someone was having sex with their "little girl".

Tell me, does a year make that much of a difference in term of judgement? Is a 16 year old mentally incapable of making the same judgements that a 17 year old is?

Statutory laws are absurd, because they opperate on the premise that a 16 year old is unable to make decisions about sex on their own.

In cases involving two minors, sure; that being said, if they want to take on that adult responsibility, they'd better be ready to deal with the consequences of their decision as adults. Sex is a big deal and it could lead to a lot of problems if you're not careful. That being said, the brain is still developing at that age and they simply don't have the same capacity for good decisionmaking that adults have. There's more impulsive behavior that could lead to very bad outcomes.

By the time you hit 18 or a little later, most of that development has finished and your decisionmaking ability continues to improve towards an adult level. That's why I definitely feel it is important statutory laws remain for sex between people under the age of consent and adults; I'd say a 25 year old looking for a 16 year old sex partner is much more likely to be looking for someone they could more easily coerce in to having sex than any kind of real relationship.

I think the choice of age 18 is far from arbitrary when it comes to adult responsibilities, although definitely it's not something that should be always taken as a strict limit. Some flexibility is needed to prevent injustice.

no because that system is far too open to abuse and...well I hate those nobodies that screw girls in school

nevermind how stupid adults can be



not really

adults + children + sexy things = no no


Hypothetically speaking, what if the recipient didn't KNOW they were getting naughty pictures until they opened the E-mail and the picture loaded?

Mostly ignorance/apathy in regard to other countries' laws. I just picked a number that was somewhat close to the age of consent that I'm familiar with, but still under.



I don't want to justify it. I want the kids themselves to be able to justify it for themselves, when they come of age. Personal responsibility and all that.
You're not getting it, or playing.

If they are legally underage, and their partner is outside of the legally allowed age range, they cannot consent and their partner can face consequences.

The underaged cannot retroactively consent to the sex once they become an adult. Why? Because it was illegal at the time it happened. By the same token, if you do something that is legal at the time you do it, and laws subsequently change, they can't go back and try you for something you were legally permitted to do.

Statutory laws are absurd, because they opperate on the premise that a 16 year old is unable to make decisions about sex on their own.

I have serious issues with prosecuting someone for having consentual sex with someone.

I quite like Vault 10's idea that said 16 year old should have to press the charges themselves. More often than it its most likely the guardians being pissy that someone was having sex with their "little girl".

Tell me, does a year make that much of a difference in term of judgement? Is a 16 year old mentally incapable of making the same judgements that a 17 year old is?
Yes, that's exactly what it says. They are not legally capable of making that decision. They are not legally capable of signing a contract either, for the same reason.

What difference is there between going 20 miles per hour or 30 miles per hour in a 20 mph speed zone?

Tell me, does a year make that much of a difference in term of judgement? Is a 16 year old mentally incapable of making the same judgements that a 17 year old is?

Yes.

Actually, it is a grey area.

The areas of the brain that deal with ability to process 'consequences' are not fully developed in teen brains. The maturation occurs fully sometime between age 16 and 21. We're actually (legally speaking) cutting it as close to the line as we can, really - too early in some cases.

Personally, even when I was 16, I didn't want to screw 16 year olds, and have never really understood the temptation to fuck someone who is basically still a child. And, to be honest, I see no reason why the age of consent should be any lower than 21 (since we're pretty sure that full maturation of of the responsible brain areas has completed by that point).