Age of consent to be reduced

[popper]

What is the rationale behind lowering the age of consent?

What is hoped this will achieve?

Haven't really heard one. For some liberals it amounts to nothing more than ticking another box in their quest to prove to other enlightened socieities such as the UK the extent to which the backward Irish are catching up with them. It will have fk all impact on the real problems of under age pregnancies, abuse and so on but will lower the barrier for those commercial and criminal enterprises for whom sex is something to make money out of.

Of course if we are truly enlightened we will follow the example of such progressive states as Bosnia, Croatia and the Baltic states where the age of consent is 14. Indeed the EU will probably beat us to it by enforcing that as part of their overall setting of the lowest common demoninator as the standard for social legislation.

[WestOfCentre]

What is the rationale behind lowering the age of consent?

What is hoped this will achieve?

Haven't really heard one. For some liberals it amounts to nothing more than ticking another box in their quest to prove to other enlightened socieities such as the UK the extent to which the backward Irish are catching up with them. It will have fk all impact on the real problems of under age pregnancies, abuse and so on but will lower the barrier for those commercial and criminal enterprises for whom sex is something to make money out of.

Of course if we are truly enlightened we will follow the example of such progressive states as Bosnia, Croatia and the Baltic states where the age of consent is 14. Indeed the EU will probably beat us to it by enforcing that as part of their overall setting of the lowest common demoninator as the standard for social legislation.

In effect, if the standard drops below the bar, then lower the bar?

[owenfeehan]

Age is not a particularly good proxy for maturity, vulnerability or otherwise.

The key consideration is not a physical one, but rather an emotional one.

At whatever age limit, there will always be those taken advantage of, tricked, emotionally mistreated for purposes of sex. This is as true of 40-something year olds as it is of 16 year olds. Practically speaking, it is impossible to regulate for this, and I don't think anybody would want to live in a world which did.

First of all, I believe the best thing we can do to prevent predatorial sex upon the vulnerable is to teach and empower them to be aware of the dangers of these advances and to be able to resist. This is the real key.

Tinkering about with legislation is very much secondary, and is a bit of a smoke screen, hiding away what really needs to be done.

Teenagers will ignore the law for the most part whatever it is. Most "right-thinking" adults will be not engage in predatorial sex in any case outside the zone of social stigma. Those who break social stigma in this regard are quite likely to ignore legislation in any case.

For "right-thinking" adults, social stigma and mores will be the main factor in judging what is right and wrong. I am not certain that an "age of consent" law influences these to any large degree, but I guess it has some effect.

Now none of this to say that there shouldn't be some attempt made to use the law as a stick to discourage the predatorial practices via an age of consent law, and to influence social mores. But we should, I think, bear the following in mind:

a) Let us be aware that whatever the age of consent legislation this will have minimal impact on the problem.

b) The occasional prosecution that might result against predators might give us some sort of intuitive sense of vengance (glad to see the B**tard locked up) but in the great scheme of things, it's not really going to make young people much safer, as such prosecutions will likely only ever be a tiny fraction of the consensual but yet predatorial underage sex that occurs.

c) The damage caused by predatorial sex by a 16 year old on another 16 year old can be just as great as a 20-something or 30-something on another 16-year old depending on the circumstances.

I know people who are 15 with the emotional maturity and responsibility levels of many 30 year olds and vice versa. This is the strange world we live in.

For example, which is morally worse?
- A 19 year old who has consensual sex with a sexually-experienced 15 year after dating for 6 months and using contraception.
- A 17 year old having consensual sex with another sexually-innocent 17 year old after getting that person drunk and using no contraception at all, and telling everyone else in school about it the next day.

Both the current and proposed new laws would lock the first person up while legally sanctioning the second.

d) That given that teenagers will have sex amongst themselves anyways, whatever steps are taken have to balance the positives in being able to convict predators against the following very real negatives:
- Criminalising teenagers for doing what is normal and natural to them will likely further alienate and disenfranchise them from moral authority of the law and society in general.
- If the law is seen as so out-of-touch with their own lives, and so far removed from their own values, the next step for young people is to further easily dismiss the law when it comes to drugs, crime, education, anti-social-behaviour etc.

e) That just because a relationship involves an older person and a younger person does not mean it is necessarily predatory. This may be case a lot of the time, but not always. And criminalising persons innocent of no great sin merely due to their age is undesirable, discriminatory and wrong.

f) Young people today are sexualised at a much earlier age than in the Catholic Ireland of the past. To judge todays generation against the sexual standards of a few decades ago would not make sense.

I think 16 as an agent of consent is the very least that should occur. The reality is that teenagers are having sex at much younger than this, beneath the radar of polite society.

A rolling 2-3 years age gap may not be such a bad idea, but it's still fitting legislation awkwardly and presumptuously to a huge range of circumstances, and judging and criminalizing persons on that basis.

[popper]

What is the rationale behind lowering the age of consent?

What is hoped this will achieve?

Haven't really heard one. For some liberals it amounts to nothing more than ticking another box in their quest to prove to other enlightened socieities such as the UK the extent to which the backward Irish are catching up with them. It will have fk all impact on the real problems of under age pregnancies, abuse and so on but will lower the barrier for those commercial and criminal enterprises for whom sex is something to make money out of.

Of course if we are truly enlightened we will follow the example of such progressive states as Bosnia, Croatia and the Baltic states where the age of consent is 14. Indeed the EU will probably beat us to it by enforcing that as part of their overall setting of the lowest common demoninator as the standard for social legislation.

In effect, if the standard drops below the bar, then lower the bar?

You might well make that argument.

With regard to one of owenfeehan's points, the age of consent is undoubtedly a minor consideration for adults who prey on vulnerable teenagers but lowering the age of consent does make it easier for them to make a legal defence.

[Cael]

While I see the need for the de-criminalisation of young people having sex with young people below the age of consent, this is very much open to abuse. Most cildren of this age are too young to make a decision of this nature. Many are pessurised into doing things because they want to feel loved or respected. While Im not suggessting 16 year olds arent responsible, I think we lay too much of a responsibilty at their feet, particularily in our society where sex is a marketed product that pervades every area of one's life. 16 year olds are still children and should be protected.

I think an age of consent of 16 is fair enough for teenagers of similar age, however I think the age of consent should be 18 in cases where the partner/predator is 21 or older. Any thoughts? Am I misguided because I have a daughter???

Yes Cael you are Right, at 16 or 17 children are 'experimenting' together at similiar age, its what gives them the responsibilty and experiance when their older and in relationships. your absolutely right the age of consent should be higher when the partner or predator is 21 i would go further and raise it to 25, lets just remember that at 16 their still children, sex is not a sign of maturity with 16 year olds, its just that they can.

Well, it wasnt me that wrote it, but I actually dont see much point in trying to legislate against human nature and hormones. For thousands of years 16 would have been peak time for reproduction - thats they way the human body is built. Its like trying to hold back the waves of the sea trying to retard the sexuality of teenagers.

[owenfeehan]

With regard to one of owenfeehan's points, the age of consent is undoubtedly a minor consideration for adults who prey on vulnerable teenagers but lowering the age of consent does make it easier for them to make a legal defence.

But if our goal is to make young people safer what matters really is prevention rather than criminal sanction.

This arises from a reality that such a small fraction of instances of predatorial sex and offenders ever end up in court. Aspiring to deal with the bulk of offenders through conviction (whatever about threat of conviction) isn't likely to be much of a successful strategy.

I think that many older peoples attitudes in these situations have more to do with a sense of vengance against predators than with actually protecting young people.

There are a lot of people out there who would criminalise teenagers and set vastly sub-optimum social policy (thus doing teenagers an injustice), just so that they don't feel powerless when the odd predator who comes before the court is seen to get off the hook. Vengance makes for poor law.

[commentator]

While I see the need for the de-criminalisation of young people having sex with young people below the age of consent, this is very much open to abuse. Most cildren of this age are too young to make a decision of this nature. Many are pessurised into doing things because they want to feel loved or respected. While Im not suggessting 16 year olds arent responsible, I think we lay too much of a responsibilty at their feet, particularily in our society where sex is a marketed product that pervades every area of one's life. 16 year olds are still children and should be protected.

I think an age of consent of 16 is fair enough for teenagers of similar age, however I think the age of consent should be 18 in cases where the partner/predator is 21 or older. Any thoughts? Am I misguided because I have a daughter???

No not misguided but rather "guided". The fact that you have a daughter means you see this in its human reality rather than some intellectual exercise in ever widening the scope of legal sexual engagement. To a parent it is not a parlour game proving how progressive we are but is rather about our kids and how we best equip them for adulthood and defend them as they get there.

The age should remain at 18 as a guiding notion that we seek for proper and defensible reasons to control the sexual use of the young by the older and the sexual experimentation of immature people who are under intense pressure to conform to peer group.

[michael1965]

Age is not a particularly good proxy for maturity, vulnerability or otherwise.

The key consideration is not a physical one, but rather an emotional one.

At whatever age limit, there will always be those taken advantage of, tricked, emotionally mistreated for purposes of sex. This is as true of 40-something year olds as it is of 16 year olds. Practically speaking, it is impossible to regulate for this, and I don't think anybody would want to live in a world which did.

That is true to an extent, but in general (and you have to legislate for the general cases, first and foremost), children are more vulnerable and need to be protected more than adults. The question is where do you draw the line. 18 is the main delineation for most things. I think that reducing it from 17 to 16 for sexual consent is wrong. Personally, I would make it 18, with a defence based on age similarity, but not allowing the age difference to be greater than two years. [edit] by which I mean you don't legislate for the what the actual allowabe age difference is. You leave it up to the DPP, judges and juries to decide what is socially acceptable,maybe with the assistance of some kind of guidelines.[/edit]

I would accept that upping it to 18 could be politically difficult though.

First of all, I believe the best thing we can do to prevent predatorial sex upon the vulnerable is to teach and empower them to be aware of the dangers of these advances and to be able to resist. This is the real key.

Tinkering about with legislation is very much secondary, and is a bit of a smoke screen, hiding away what really needs to be done.

Teenagers will ignore the law for the most part whatever it is. Most "right-thinking" adults will be not engage in predatorial sex in any case outside the zone of social stigma. Those who break social stigma in this regard are quite likely to ignore legislation in any case.

For "right-thinking" adults, social stigma and mores will be the main factor in judging what is right and wrong. I am not certain that an "age of consent" law influences these to any large degree, but I guess it has some effect.

Now none of this to say that there shouldn't be some attempt made to use the law as a stick to discourage the predatorial practices via an age of consent law, and to influence social mores. But we should, I think, bear the following in mind:

a) Let us be aware that whatever the age of consent legislation this will have minimal impact on the problem.

b) The occasional prosecution that might result against predators might give us some sort of intuitive sense of vengance (glad to see the B**tard locked up) but in the great scheme of things, it's not really going to make young people much safer, as such prosecutions will likely only ever be a tiny fraction of the consensual but yet predatorial underage sex that occurs.

c) The damage caused by predatorial sex by a 16 year old on another 16 year old can be just as great as a 20-something or 30-something on another 16-year old depending on the circumstances.

I know people who are 15 with the emotional maturity and responsibility levels of many 30 year olds and vice versa. This is the strange world we live in.

For example, which is morally worse?
- A 19 year old who has consensual sex with 15 year after dating for 6 months and using contraception.
- A 15 year old having consensual sex with another 15 year old after getting that person drunk and using no contraception at all.

Both of the above are wrong. The second one more so, because it is rape. There is no consent at all.

d) That given that teenagers will have sex amongst themselves anyways, whatever steps are taken have to balance the positives in being able to convict predators against the following very real negatives:
- Criminalising teenagers for doing what is normal and natural to them will likely further alienate and disenfranchise them from moral authority of the law and society in general.
- If the law is seen as so out-of-touch with their own lives, and so far removed from their own values, the next step for young people is to further easily dismiss the law when it comes to drugs, crime, education, anti-social-behaviour etc.

I think we need to have a bit more confidence about what we think is right and wrong. Also, I don't think anyone is saying we should criminalise kids who have sex. Thats why everyone accepts that age similarity is a reasonable defence.

Also, I think the media driven hysteria about teenagers is telling us something which might not actually be true (or at least not as true).I personally believe that a lot more teenagers talk about, and claim to have had sex, than actually are doing it. I'm afraid I can't back that up, but I do believe it. The big big big problem we do have is alcohol, and in particular, teenage girls and alcohol which are two things when mixed, are like dynamite.

e) That just because a relationship involves an older person and a younger person does not mean it is necessarily predatory. This may be case a lot of the time, but not always. And criminalising persons innocent of no great sin merely due to their age is undesirable, discriminatory and wrong.

Do you mean "relationship" in general or sexual relationship, because we're just talking about sexual relationships here?

f) Young people today are sexualised at a much earlier age than in the Catholic Ireland of the past. To judge todays generation against the sexual standards of a few decades ago would not make sense.

Is it right that people are sexualised much younger? I can see what you are saying is partly a reaction against Catholic Ireland. But I don't see myself as bound by the church in any way, yet I happen to agree with the church on this issue.

[Cael]

While I see the need for the de-criminalisation of young people having sex with young people below the age of consent, this is very much open to abuse. Most cildren of this age are too young to make a decision of this nature. Many are pessurised into doing things because they want to feel loved or respected. While Im not suggessting 16 year olds arent responsible, I think we lay too much of a responsibilty at their feet, particularily in our society where sex is a marketed product that pervades every area of one's life. 16 year olds are still children and should be protected.

I think an age of consent of 16 is fair enough for teenagers of similar age, however I think the age of consent should be 18 in cases where the partner/predator is 21 or older. Any thoughts? Am I misguided because I have a daughter???

No not misguided but rather "guided". The fact that you have a daughter means you see this in its human reality rather than some intellectual exercise in ever widening the scope of legal sexual engagement. To a parent it is not a parlour game proving how progressive we are but is rather about our kids and how we best equip them for adulthood and defend them as they get there.

The age should remain at 18 as a guiding notion that we seek for proper and defensible reasons to control the sexual use of the young by the older and the sexual experimentation of immature people who are under intense pressure to conform to peer group.

Actually, the more "progressive" we get, the more we try to get our children to delay their sexual activity.

[popper]

Agree with both your posts commentator. And likewise, I am not a Catholic but would support their position and that of the Rape Crisis Centre on this.

As you say, similarity in age has always been a legitimate defence and will remain so. This is about more than that and indeed to an extent is liberal posturing. Nothing to do with addressing real problems on the ground. Teenagers also drink and smoke below the legal age but don't hear anyone advocating lowering the legal age with regard to them.