16/12: Pro-Reform's position on AMSC

[Lennon72]

A ban on parent-child incest is about respecting the difficulty a minor in that situation would face and making it easier for them to seek accountability from their parent if they want to.

@Fragment So, all right then. The child can press charges "if they want to". This seems to imply that if the experience was positive for them, that they can simply refuse to press charges or even refuse to report it. Is that what you are saying?

[Fragment]

So, all right then. The child can press charges "if they want to". This seems to imply that if the experience was positive for them, that they can simply refuse to press charges or even refuse to report it. Is that what you are saying?

Under this plan, yes. If the 12-15 year old doesn't press charges then police, parents, teachers, etc cannot report the crime and have it prosecuted. The minor themselves has the power. Once in court the prosecution only needs to prove that the minor was "taken advantage of", which is a lower level of proof than "rape".

Because it's a moderate plan, we think that <12 year old kids might have a hard time to press charges by themselves, so the current system would remain to protect them. We also think that pressing charges against a parent would be hard, hence the decision on incest.

The plan is about trying to respect the voice of adolescents so they can make more of their own decisions around sex, including with adult partners, while still protecting them from egregious power disparities.

[FairBlueLove]

The minor themselves has the power.

How are cases treated where the minor is a scoundrel which wants to take advantage of or frame an adult?

[Fragment]

How are cases treated where the minor is a scoundrel which wants to take advantage of or frame an adult?

The prosecution still needs to prove that the minor was "taken advantage of". But if they can do that, then it would indeed result in conviction.

A bad result. But a result that is guaranteed now. 16/12 gives the adult a chance for a defence.

[Lennon72]

Under this plan, yes. If the 12-15 year old doesn't press charges then police, parents, teachers, etc cannot report the crime and have it prosecuted. The minor themselves has the power. Once in court the prosecution only needs to prove that the minor was "taken advantage of", which is a lower level of proof than "rape".

Because it's a moderate plan, we think that <12 year old kids might have a hard time to press charges by themselves, so the current system would remain to protect them. We also think that pressing charges against a parent would be hard, hence the decision on incest.

The plan is about trying to respect the voice of adolescents so they can make more of their own decisions around sex, including with adult partners, while still protecting them from egregious power disparities.

Okay, I get what you are saying here. But from what I understand, the police can press charges even if the child says No. How can you be sure that would change if what you are proposing where to get enacted?

[BLueRibbon]

Under this plan, yes. If the 12-15 year old doesn't press charges then police, parents, teachers, etc cannot report the crime and have it prosecuted. The minor themselves has the power. Once in court the prosecution only needs to prove that the minor was "taken advantage of", which is a lower level of proof than "rape".

Because it's a moderate plan, we think that <12 year old kids might have a hard time to press charges by themselves, so the current system would remain to protect them. We also think that pressing charges against a parent would be hard, hence the decision on incest.

The plan is about trying to respect the voice of adolescents so they can make more of their own decisions around sex, including with adult partners, while still protecting them from egregious power disparities.

Okay, I get what you are saying here. But from what I understand, the police can press charges even if the child says No. How can you be sure that would change if what you are proposing where to get enacted?

If the adolescent says no, it's sexual assault or rape (depending on the act) under the same laws that protect adults.

[Lennon72]

Under this plan, yes. If the 12-15 year old doesn't press charges then police, parents, teachers, etc cannot report the crime and have it prosecuted. The minor themselves has the power. Once in court the prosecution only needs to prove that the minor was "taken advantage of", which is a lower level of proof than "rape".

Because it's a moderate plan, we think that <12 year old kids might have a hard time to press charges by themselves, so the current system would remain to protect them. We also think that pressing charges against a parent would be hard, hence the decision on incest.

The plan is about trying to respect the voice of adolescents so they can make more of their own decisions around sex, including with adult partners, while still protecting them from egregious power disparities.

Okay, I get what you are saying here. But from what I understand, the police can press charges even if the child says No. How can you be sure that would change if what you are proposing where to get enacted?

If the adolescent says no, it's sexual assault or rape (depending on the act) under the same laws that protect adults.

But what I am asking is this. If the child doesn't want to press charges, how can know that the police will not press charges instead. I would like to think that if the child says that he/she does not want to press charges that the police can't do anything about it. How does this pro-reform position ( if enacted into law ) assure us that the child's say is final?

[Fragment]

But what I am asking is this. If the child doesn't want to press charges, how can know that the police will not press charges instead. I would like to think that if the child says that he/she does not want to press charges that the police can't do anything about it. How does this pro-reform position ( if enacted into law ) assure us that the child's say is final?

In the law it will say "this crime is only prosecutable upon complaint by the victim". If the DA tries to take a case to court without a written statement from the victim, then the perpetrator will be automatically found innocent. A complaint from parents is not sufficient, either.

Of course, if parents and police can convince the minor to testify then charges can be pressed and if you took advantage of them, you could be convicted. Even under 16/12 it'll be "safer" to avoid sexual contact with minors.

But it just means that the law will provide an exception for cases where both the adult and minor both felt it was consensual- without third parties being able to meddle. It stops AMSC from being a strict liability* offence. It's kind of like a Romeo and Juliet law, except that it applies at all ages.

*In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.

[Lennon72]

But what I am asking is this. If the child doesn't want to press charges, how can know that the police will not press charges instead. I would like to think that if the child says that he/she does not want to press charges that the police can't do anything about it. How does this pro-reform position ( if enacted into law ) assure us that the child's say is final?

In the law it will say "this crime is only prosecutable upon complaint by the victim". If the DA tries to take a case to court without a written statement from the victim, then the perpetrator will be automatically found innocent. A complaint from parents is not sufficient, either.

Of course, if parents and police can convince the minor to testify then charges can be pressed and if you took advantage of them, you could be convicted. Even under 16/12 it'll be "safer" to avoid sexual contact with minors.

But it just means that the law will provide an exception for cases where both the adult and minor both felt it was consensual- without third parties being able to meddle. It stops AMSC from being a strict liability* offence. It's kind of like a Romeo and Juliet law, except that it applies at all ages.

*In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.

Okay, this sounds pretty good. Yet, I still have some concerns about this that I would like to address. Both cops and parents have been known to bully the children into pressing charges or saying things that are not true. How should that problem be tackled?

[Fragment]

Okay, this sounds pretty good. Yet, I still have some concerns about this that I would like to address. Both cops and parents have been known to bully the children into pressing charges or saying things that are not true. How should that problem be tackled?

If there is evidence of a child's statement being coerced then that statement should not be accepted.

But it can't be entirely avoided.

Part of 16/12 is about saying "adolescents who are ready to make their own decisions should be able to" but if they are easily influenced by their parents then they probably aren't ready for making their own decisions. Maybe they were easily influenced to be sexually intimate, too.