Most excellent Madame! It is what our readers have been waiting
for—disputation! We have been seeing eye
to eye quite a lot as of late (as you put it, I have been showing my brilliance
by agreeing with you, lol), and now we diverge, and in so doing demonstrate the
effect of one of the quotes on our page about “argument among friends.”
I’m not sure how I intimated
that the described situation was “harmless,” but I do feel strongly that the
circumstances, and others like it, are not criminal. Your statements about the older person having
more knowledge and experience are true, but should be irrelevant as to criminality
determinations. Further, giving emphasis
to things like that, in my view, only reinforces the subtly misogynistic and debilitating “weaker gender” presumption
that undermines the independence, strength, confidence, dignity, and treatment
of young women in a way not all that dissimilar to prejudicial presumptions
about math ability, engineering aptitude, etc.
And I did address the
psychological, social, and emotional component—and the greater knowledge and
experience of older “suitors”—when I said that male-female interaction
information should be taught to both young ladies and young gentlemen just as
they get to the immediate pre-pubescent stage. They also need to know that the successful
track records of “relationships,” where the age difference is stark, drop
considerably when the younger person is below the age of 25, and further, that
many of the relationships end poorly or leave negative emotional effects. Maturation in many respects can be a slow and
gradual thing.
But all that is a far cry
from criminality. I fail to see that
whether one makes good relationship or sexual decisions (on the part of the
male or the female in this case) has relevance to whether there is criminality.
Presumptions against
consent, as you seem to imply when you said that between a 22 year old and 14
year old there would be a “fine line between consent and coercion,” do harm in
my opinion, because they serve to reinforce the patronizing idea that girls are
silly, what they say can’t be taken seriously, they can’t be trusted to make
decisions, etc.
Your point about the lack
of nuance in the law or allowance for the exceptional is well taken. And I agree that magical points being reached
on a birthday are quite artificial. See! You thought I was going to just be on a
disagreeing roll! :)
Consciousness,
internalizing, or accepting of the ramifications of his actions before he took
them are anything but assured, given that he reached age 22 in a society that, during
his “formative” years, likely coddled
him, shielded him, and threatened him with consequences that never actually materialized.
Whether it was a pattern or
a moment of weakness can be relevant—but should not be a criminal
consideration, only an administrative one.
I am puzzled by your last
two paragraphs, and there is perhaps conflation. Consensual biological coupling should not be
a criminal matter in my view, but at most a societal or administrative
one. You seem to imply that we should presume
coercion. Far too many lives have been
ruined by presuming that. We should
instead accept stated consent (with some systemic safeguards; see below). By the way, it was the 14 year old in the
case, in private questioning, perhaps even volunteering the information, who
readily said it was mutual, non-coerced, even a “relationship.”
Of course his judgment was
poor! His own maturity is probably deficient.
But if poor judgment was a crime, there would be hardly any
non-criminals left. I think it is a sign
of a poorly connected, reactive, infantile society when it wants to criminalize
so many things that are merely poor judgment.
We as a society contribute
to these things by effectively narrowing social circles, forcing teachers into
expending large amounts of time just to make it financially (while also meeting the expectations of
serving, grading, coaching, etc.), and then we wonder why “inappropriate”
relationships occur inside those circles.
We have a ridiculous hodge
podge of age of consent/age of majority statutes in the various states, which
apparently range (I have not looked at all 50) from 14-18, with 16-18 apparently
predominating. We need standardization,
even if it has to retain elements of artificiality.
Historically, the age of
presumed puberty has been 14. That’s
probably the standard with the most prevalent track record. Of course, the stuff in our hormone injected
Frankenfood system has complicated things by frequently throwing that all out
of whack, with 11 not being uncommon and even lower ages occasionally showing
puberty. Your rail against Monsanto and
other agri/”food” businesses seems well pointed. Another discussion!
Stated consent should, in
this revised system I propose, normally be accepted. However, the prosecutor or the court can
dispute the consent, and should especially do so in cases where puberty does
not appear to have been reached. If the
consent is disputed, the defense then is allowed to pick a psychologist, from a
list provided by the local sufficiently large psychological professionals
organization, and that psychologist will interview, at government expense, the
stated consenter. That psychologist will
make a professional determination whether the stated consent is not true,
whether it is only stated because of fear, trauma, or excessive concern to not
get the older person in trouble. If the
psychologist determines that the consent is invalid because one of those things
exists, and therefore is in reality coercion (rape), then the court will be
informed and criminal proceedings can begin.
The prosecutor can also attempt
to show that presumed puberty is not actual.
The defense would select an MD, from a list of MDs (don’t even have to
be pediatricians) that the local sufficiently large Medical Society has
submitted as qualified, to make such a determination at government expense. If no puberty exists, or, in the MD’s
assessment, no puberty had begun by the time of the first “incident,” then the
judge can examine preliminary investigation evidence and make a determination
that there is reason to believe that biology could not have been a factor, and
therefore charges of child criminal molestation (a serious crime) can be
pursued.
The rule of law is supposed
to presume for the defendant, against whom, relatively alone and isolated, the
power of government is arrayed in prosecution and judgment and imprisonment. Consent should be the first hurdle, and
puberty the second, to restore fair treatment
before the law in these matters. America
already has a disgraceful and appalling incarceration rate, far higher than most
countries, probably the highest in the world.
Let’s quit adding to it and cease to criminalize biology.