An alternate proposal on the age of consent

[KingKane]

This would be my initial suggestion for an alternate approach which would involve leaving the age of consent as it is. I find the direct linkage between the age of consent and the absolute zone of protection.

An absolute zone of protection up to the age of 12 irrespective of the age of the other person. Thereafter until the age of 15 the zone of protection would kick in if the age gap was greater than a year. Between 15 and 17 the age gap could be up to 2 years without the zone of protection.

There are inherent weakness to this I will admit, but I think that linking the age of consent and zone of protection as Derek McDowell and the Dail committee have done is not necessary or appropriate.

Suggestions of how one might modify this are welcome.

[meriwether]

I agree. There is no need to lower the age of consent to 16, but I feel strongly that making criminals of 16 year olds is also wrong.
This is a reasonable compromise, that may or may not need tweaking, but its certainly a step in the right direction.

[Pidge]

Before we can tackle the issue of ages, we'd need to look at the core problem - sexy children.

Aside from that, the idea of an absolute zone of protection seems to me to be a good one. I am curious, however, as to why the age gap changes from one year to two?

[Coles]

Good to see a bit of lateral thinking on this issue. King Kane, I think your initial proposal could prove complicated.

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.

I didn't get any response when I posted this, which on Politics.ie suggests that it's actually quite a good idea... otherwise I would have been attacked and insulted...

I still think it would cover all the bases of the 'age of consent' argument. Any thoughts?



[Pidge]

Good to see a bit of lateral thinking on this issue. King Kane, I think your initial proposal could prove complicated.

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.

I didn't get any response when I posted this, which on Politics.ie suggests that it's actually quite a good idea... otherwise I would have been attacked and insulted...

I remember not grasping a similar idea on a previous thread.

If we assume that a sixteen year old is harmed somehow by sex, then what difference does it make if the other person in the sexual relationship is sixteen, twenty, or a hundred?

The one point I can see (and don't necessarily agree with) is that a twenty year old may be able to convince a sixteen year old easily into sex.

[rover]

i would prefer something like the system in operation in latvia

age of consent of 16, which drops to 14 where both people are under the age of 18

so two 14 yr olds can consent to sex with each other; a 14 yr old and a 17 yr old can consent; and a 16 yr old can consent to sex with anyone over the age of 14

and then 14 downwards would be the so-called absolute zone of protection

i think this is what michael mcdowell had in mind last summer but was too much of a political coward to come out and say it

[KingKane]

Before we can tackle the issue of ages, we'd need to look at the core problem - sexy children.

Aside from that, the idea of an absolute zone of protection seems to me to be a good one. I am curious, however, as to why the age gap changes from one year to two?

Because I think that the idea of first years in secondary school going out with someone in third year is very much not the norm. A year above and below is not too uncommon.

[Coles]

Good to see a bit of lateral thinking on this issue. King Kane, I think your initial proposal could prove complicated.

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.

I didn't get any response when I posted this, which on Politics.ie suggests that it's actually quite a good idea... otherwise I would have been attacked and insulted...

I remember not grasping a similar idea on a previous thread.

If we assume that a sixteen year old is harmed somehow by sex, then what difference does it make if the other person in the sexual relationship is sixteen, twenty, or a hundred?

The one point I can see (and don't necessarily agree with) is that a twenty year old may be able to convince a sixteen year old easily into sex.

I'm not sure if I understand the difficulty you have with my proposal. Children need education and information in order to make the wisest choices with regards sexual activity. But they also need protection from demented older pervert weirdos who just see them as 'sexy children'.

[Pidge]

Before we can tackle the issue of ages, we'd need to look at the core problem - sexy children.

Aside from that, the idea of an absolute zone of protection seems to me to be a good one. I am curious, however, as to why the age gap changes from one year to two?

Because I think that the idea of first years in secondary school going out with someone in third year is very much not the norm. A year above and below is not too uncommon.

I know what you mean, and intuitively it doesn't seem right.

But what also doesn't seem right is making laws purely on the basis of what's "the norm". What's the difference between a fifteen year old having sex with a fifteen year old or a twenty-five year old? I'm not expressing an opinion with a question here, I just don't get the difference (other than a vague feeling of "ugh".)

[stringjack]

I know what you mean, and intuitively it doesn't seem right.

But what also doesn't seem right is making laws purely on the basis of what's "the norm". What's the difference between a fifteen year old having sex with a fifteen year old or a twenty-five year old? I'm not expressing an opinion with a question here, I just don't get the difference (other than a vague feeling of "ugh".)

This debate is more or less wholly populated by people who have difficulty moving their argument beyond 'ugh'.