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

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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?

[WavesInEternity]

I've never been fond of strict age-based thresholds. I mean, back when I was 13 to 15 years old, I advocated for an "adulthood test" broadly modeled after citizenship tests with sections assessing the applicant's understanding of personal responsibility, civic duty, and basic practical skills in everyday life. (I felt like "an adult trapped in a child's body"—high-functioning autism in childhood is like that for many). I've moved away from that utopian position due to pragmatic considerations.

That said, I do believe that what you suggest would be better than the current catastrophic legal framework. A small step in the right direction, so to speak. One key change I'd suggest would be to include the possibility for younger children to individually request judicial permission to engage in sexual acts, similar to how some countries allow marriage at a younger age with such permission.

Another potential change I'd envision, following Tom O'Carroll's arguments, would be to distinguish between penetrative and non-penetrative sexual activity. The former carries its own set of risks, and therefore an age of consent of 12 could be acceptable for it due to strictly medical reasons. However, I see no good reason to apply the very same restrictions to less risky forms of sexual intimacy, to which AMSC is nearly always restricted in non-coercive cases involving a child under 12.

I feel the need to point out that, in my view, your willingness to accept a strict age of consent of 12 might be linked to your being a lover of boys rather than girls: the average AoA range for GLs is 8-11 while it's 12-15 for BLs. As a heterosexual male hebephile, I wouldn't find it too troublesome, but I think most paedophilic GLs wouldn't quite be happy with it.

For the record, I started masturbating at 8, experienced clear sexual desire for the first time at 8-9, and was already watching online pornography (which I had searched for of my own free will) at 10. I loathed the way society seemed intent on denying and suppressing my sexuality. I was a precocious child for sure, but I know I'm far from the only one.

[BLueRibbon]

I've never been fond of strict age-based thresholds. I mean, back when I was 13 to 15 years old, I advocated for an "adulthood test" broadly modeled after citizenship tests with sections assessing the applicant's understanding of personal responsibility, civic duty, and basic practical skills in everyday life. (I felt like "an adult trapped in a child's body"—high-functioning autism in childhood is like that for many). I've moved away from that utopian position due to pragmatic considerations.

That said, I do believe that what you suggest would be better than the current catastrophic legal framework. A small step in the right direction, so to speak. One key change I'd suggest would be to include the possibility for younger children to individually request judicial permission to engage in sexual acts, similar to how some countries allow marriage at a younger age with such permission.

Theoretically, sure. However, young people are not granted that level of respect, and overburdened courts would not have the resources to manage that kind of system. Frameworks similar to 16/12 have existed in recent history, and something resembling 16/14 exists in Germany at present. On the other hand, I fear that your proposal, while logical to an extent, would simply be too radical for the public and unrealistic to implement.

Another potential change I'd envision, following Tom O'Carroll's arguments, would be to distinguish between penetrative and non-penetrative sexual activity. The former carries its own set of risks, and therefore an age of consent of 12 could be acceptable for it due to strictly medical reasons. However, I see no good reason to apply the very same restrictions to less risky forms of sexual intimacy, to which AMSC is nearly always restricted in non-coercive cases involving a child under 12.

Again, I agree with you on merit, but we know how this would be twisted into 'pedos' demanding sex with toddlers, or some other such nonsense.

I feel the need to point out that, in my view, your willingness to accept a strict age of consent of 12 might be linked to your being a lover of boys rather than girls: the average AoA range for GLs is 8-11 while it's 12-15 for BLs. As a heterosexual male hebephile, I wouldn't find it too troublesome, but I think most paedophilic GLs wouldn't quite be happy with it.

My AoA is 8-14, so the proposal would be far from perfect from a purely selfish position, if implemented.

For the record, I started masturbating at 8, experienced clear sexual desire for the first time at 8-9, and was already watching online pornography (which I had searched for of my own free will) at 10. I loathed the way society seemed intent on denying and suppressing my sexuality. I was a precocious child for sure, but I know I'm far from the only one.

I've worked with kids of pretty much all ages. I am aware of the reality, but we can't change the world overnight.