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

[Lennon72]

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.

Okay then. How does how does evidence of coercion form parents or cops get detected? Cross examination?

[Fragment]

Okay then. How does how does evidence of coercion form parents or cops get detected? Cross examination?

I guess so. That'd be up to the defence lawyer. But at the end of the day if the minor sticks to their story that they want to press charges, then how they got there probably won't matter.

It'll still be safer to avoid doing stuff with 12-15 year olds. And if you do, you'd better be sure that they really want to do it and won't have regrets.

[Lennon72]

So basically that leaves us in no different a situation then we are in now. And I was beginning to think that this was sounding pretty good.

[Fragment]

So basically that leaves us in no different a situation then we are in now. And I was beginning to think that this was sounding pretty good.

If you prove consent now can you be found innocent? If the prosecutor can't prove that you "took advantage" can you be found innocent? If the boy/ girl refuses to lodge a complaint is it impossible for charges to be pressed?

It's a huge change from now. Right now there is NO defence. And even if the minor wants to keep it a secret, if the parents or a teacher find out, you're getting charged. Focusing too much on the rights of MAPs while ignoring the protection of minors would be a mistake- that's something even many MAPs don't want (especially if they are anti-c).

It is a balanced, moderate position. It doesn't change the world into a paradise for BLs or GLs. It's intended to give more freedom to minors and MAPs, while still taking into account the concerns of the community and keeping important safeguards in place.

[Lennon72]

Yeah, okay. But then, perhaps there should also be a way for kids to be free from any parent or cop who tries to force them into saying things that are not true. Could there be a way to empower kids to be free form that kind of abuse as well?

[Fragment]

Yeah, okay. But then, perhaps there should also be a way for kids to be free from any parent or cop who tries to force them into saying things that are not true. Could there be a way to empower kids to be free form that kind of abuse as well?

How? In terms of the police obviously interviews should be recorded and accessible to the defence lawyer.

But I don't see how to free minors from parental coercion. If a parent tells a minor to go to church with them, even if they don't believe in that religion they go. Until a certain age (which depends on the individual) where they decide to assert their autonomy and refuse, anyway.

An ideal youth liberation situation would allow minors to declare independence from their parents. But we're very far away from that kind of society. Mu supports youth rights, but we're not an explicit youth lib organization. We don't think MAPs are in a strong position to fight for youth liberation and revolution. The kids need to do that themselves.