Poor kid

[peter richards]

it all happens at once jake , youll wake up one morning bald as a coot

[Jake]

God, I hope not. I'd probably drop dead from shock.

[terawua]

I just spent about 15 minutes reading this thread it was a jolly good read anyway! I dont have anything to add though - just wanted to give credit where credit is due for those people who encouraged and stimluated lively debate - maybe we should have a debating section on the BBS with a list of topics!

[Green Peace]

it all happens at once jake , youll wake up one morning bald as a coot

 

Yoiks....(pmsl I can just see Jake rushing to the mirror in a fit of vanity as we speak no doubt)

 

I havent got any grey hairs yet (could happen any day though)...what i wanna know is if your hair goes grey does it affect ya pubes too?

 

(this threads gone well off topic now)

[CJ]

it all happens at once jake , youll wake up one morning bald as a coot

Happened to me last week

[SupraStar 3000]

your lucky!

 

I have a nasty scar and chunk of head of missing from an accident.

If I lose my hair I'll look like Sloth from the Gonnies

 

HEY YOU GUUUUYS!!!!

[Snooze]

Personally I think the problem here is that in the "real world", these things clearly differ radically from case to case. The real implications of the event depend hugely on the comparative maturity of the people in question.

 

For example, I bet there's as many 20 year-olds out there with the emotional and sexual maturity of a 14 year-old as there are 14 year-olds with the maturity of a 20 year-old.

 

As for "being in authoritative position" to them, that is also clearly a huge grey area, as the level of authority that actually exists can't be accurately determined.

 

Unfortunately, the legal system can't afford to allow rulings to differ too much from case to case, or the judicial system becomes an absolute nightmare - especially with legal precedent still forming a large portion of law in many places.

 

The ONLY way that a enforcible legal system can work in this instance is by placing precise, and most importantly, MEASURABLE boundaries (ie. "underage" being defined as a strict, physical age rather than the undefined "level of maturity", which is actually the real thing in question). As a result of this, it means that some cases "slip through the net", and innocent people DO get prosecuted where they shouldn't, and some guilty people DON'T get prosecuted when they should (eg. the mature 14 yr old vs the immature 20 yr old).

 

And that is why there is such confusion: society and law NEEDS to define strict boundaries in order to work effectively, but real people and human rights understand that every case is different.

 

[tbourner]

Good post Snooze.

 

Similarly - and I'm sure I've mentioned this before - I don't think things like manslaughter should carry a sentence when it is essentially an accident! But it's the problems with the judicial system being so inaccurate that dictates we need these kind of punishments.

PITA though TBH.

[JohnA]

In real life things usually present themselves in shades of grey --- the closer you look into a 'clearcut' situation the more you discover arguments going both sides.

 

But the Law needs to have boundaries, cut-off points, or else nobody would ever be successfully prosecuted. Age of consent is such an arbitrary legal boundary. That's why we have a judge and a jury (sometimes) so that the spirit of the law can be applied more accurately.

If everything was one-size-fits-all then we'd only have computers handing down sentences and we'd all be happy. ;-)

[Green Peace]

Personally I think the problem here is that in the "real world", these things clearly differ radically from case to case. The real implications of the event depend hugely on the comparative maturity of the people in question.

 

For example, I bet there's as many 20 year-olds out there with the emotional and sexual maturity of a 14 year-old as there are 14 year-olds with the maturity of a 20 year-old.

 

As for "being in authoritative position" to them, that is also clearly a huge grey area, as the level of authority that actually exists can't be accurately determined.

 

Unfortunately, the legal system can't afford to allow rulings to differ too much from case to case, or the judicial system becomes an absolute nightmare - especially with legal precedent still forming a large portion of law in many places.

 

The ONLY way that a enforcible legal system can work in this instance is by placing precise, and most importantly, MEASURABLE boundaries (ie. "underage" being defined as a strict, physical age rather than the undefined "level of maturity", which is actually the real thing in question). As a result of this, it means that some cases "slip through the net", and innocent people DO get prosecuted where they shouldn't, and some guilty people DON'T get prosecuted when they should (eg. the mature 14 yr old vs the immature 20 yr old).

 

And that is why there is such confusion: society and law NEEDS to define strict boundaries in order to work effectively, but real people and human rights understand that every case is different.

 

 

Excellent post!

 

(Oh have we gone back on topic now...)

[Class One]

Perhaps I should have put '15y/o girlfriend' not 16. Would our hypothetical 18y/o be a paedophile then, in your book?

 

I read your "I'm also amazed..." paragraph to mean that it was seperate from the postition of authority point.

 

If you are 'amazed that some think that there are degrees of paedophilia' that implies that it's a black or white thing to you, correct? I don't believe most folks see it like that.

 

 

ps

(this is a discussion not an arguement, OK? I'm not looking for a fight)

 

LOL I'm not after a fight either!

 

Its not what I think, it what the law states. If you're 18 and having sex with an underage girl then your committing a crime. You know and I know that there are some very sophisticated and mature 14yr old girls out there, but also vulnerable ones so the law has been created to protect all of them.

 

Some persons may perceive a paedophile as someone who get their kicks out of or preys on or who finds pre pubescent children as sexually attractive.

 

But the law doesn't see it that way. The law defines a child who is someone under 18 years of age as per the Children Act of 1989.

But under the Sexual Offences Act it goes on further to make seperate catagories of offences ie with a female over 14 and under 16 and a female 13 and under. The law was massively overhauled in 2003 to cope with internet crime (grooming) and such like.

 

I can't concede though on your point about "degrees of paedophilia", because there is one definition.

 

A paedophile is a person who is sexually aroused by children. Thats the dictionary definition, not mine btw.

 

Its a like a thief is a thief or a murderer is a murderer. There are different degrees of the offence committed and its impact on the victim or society. So for example a shoplifter stealing food because they're skint is not the same as an accountant who plunders a company pensions fund to the tune of millions. But they are both thieves. Or the jealous husband who murders his wife because he catches her on the job with the neighbour is not the same as a reclusive loner who lures young rent boys back to his flat and dismembers them. They're both murderers.

 

I think we've done this one to death now. (and I've had a really shite day and i'm tired lol)

[JohnA]

...Its a like a thief is a thief or a murderer is a murderer. .

if only things were always so clear cut

if mugger "A" jumps on innocent, lost tourist "B" splits his head in half and runs away with his wallet, then it's murder, right?

what if "B" is a sex-tourist in a 'child' area of Bangkok(say) and "A" only smacks him and cracks his scull arguing about the price of abuse? B dies a bit later. Is that murder?

what if B dies of a heart attack from the shock of surprise? is it murder?

what if B dies a bit later of an "unrelated" cause that originated from the attack?

 

Not black and white, is it?

 

Where EXACTLY do we draw the line between murder, manslaughter, GBH etc?

 

As an experienced police officer ClassOne obviously knows this (and more!) but other, younger, members may be led to believe that either you are something or you're not.

 

Same with theft. Anyone who knows how the financial system works, understands why the SFO struggles to get convictions, even though people are stealing right, centre and left.

Defining theft precisely enough is a herculian task on it's own, let alone proving it beyond reasonable doubt.

 

 

 

 

As police officers might know, if you get 20 eye-witness accounts of the same incident, you'll also get 20 versions of the 'facts' some totally contradicting each other.

If THAT is so hard to pin down, what chances have we got for 'softer' versions of the truth?

 

PS

you want the truth? you can't handle the truth (requires sound)