debate: what makes a pedo a pedo

[nomadjack]

Statement 1. "David where are you getting this stuff from because it's rubbish. The legal age of consent is 18 years of age.

Statement 2. "As I have already said, and as the site you've just posted a link to supports, "the age of consent is at the minimum in some states 16, in another 17, and another 18."

Statement 3. There are no provisions under any act I can find that has a defense for someone having sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16.

Statement 4. "The laws that David's quoting / using to prove his point about legal sex between minor under the age of 16 but of or over the age of 10 are defenses to the various sections they are attached to..."

Sorry OEP but I don't see how you can reconcile statements 1 and 2 and 3 and 4. In the first you say the legal age of consent is 18 - in the second you put the age of consent as ranging from 16-18 depending on the state.

You also contradict yourself in terms of whether or not there are legitimate defenses to having sex prior to age 16.

I don't see what there is to argue about.

[OEP]

David where are you getting this stuff from because it's rubbish. The legal age of consent is 18 years of age.

There are no provisions under any act I can find that has a defense for someone having sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16.

"As I have already said, and as the site you've just posted a link to supports, the age of consent is at the minimum in some states 16, in another 17, and another 18."


"The laws that David's quoting / using to prove his point about legal sex between minor under the age of 16 but of or over the age of 10 are defenses to the various sections they are attached to..."

Sorry OEP but I don't see how you can reconcile both sets of statements. In the first you say the legal age of consent is 18 - in the second you put the age of consent as ranging from 16-18 depending on the state.

You also contradict yourself in terms of whether or not there are legitimate defenses to having sex prior to age 16.

I don't see what there is to argue about.

In the first instance I was quoting WA law only, the other references to legal age of consent are from the different states and territories Acts, as they differ from state to state.

There's no contradiction on the legitimate defenses, or lack thereof, they are different because they're quoted from different state / territory acts.

[nomadjack]

David where are you getting this stuff from because it's rubbish. The legal age of consent is 18 years of age.

There are no provisions under any act I can find that has a defense for someone having sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16.

"As I have already said, and as the site you've just posted a link to supports, the age of consent is at the minimum in some states 16, in another 17, and another 18."


"The laws that David's quoting / using to prove his point about legal sex between minor under the age of 16 but of or over the age of 10 are defenses to the various sections they are attached to..."

Sorry OEP but I don't see how you can reconcile both sets of statements. In the first you say the legal age of consent is 18 - in the second you put the age of consent as ranging from 16-18 depending on the state.

You also contradict yourself in terms of whether or not there are legitimate defenses to having sex prior to age 16.

I don't see what there is to argue about.

In the first instance I was quoting WA law only, the other references to legal age of consent are from the different states and territories Acts, as they differ from state to state.

There's no contradiction on the legitimate defenses, or lack thereof, they are different because they're quoted from different state / territory acts.

Sorry, but run that past me again. Keeping in mind that the age of consent under WA law is 16 and that under the WA act there are legitimate defenses.

Again, how can you reconcile statements 1 with 2 and 3 with 4?

[OEP]

Statement 1. "David where are you getting this stuff from because it's rubbish. The legal age of consent is 18 years of age.

I was quoting from the WA Criminal Code. It's incorrect the legal age of consent is 16, my bad.

Statement 2. "As I have already said, and as the site you've just posted a link to supports, "the age of consent is at the minimum in some states 16, in another 17, and another 18."

This is from the various state and territory acts as they differ from state to state and territory. It was meant to help clarify my original post and inform about the difference in age of consent between the various states and territories. Of course the 18 year old one is incorrect, it should be 16.

Statement there are no provisions under any act I can find that has a defense for someone having sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16.

What I should have posted, and what I've since correctly posted on numerous occasions, is that the defense to having sex with a minor under the age of 16 is only a defense if the alleged offender "believed on reasonable grounds" that the other person was 16 years old or older at the time of the offence and they were no more than two years older at that time.
There are variations in the different acts which I have posted and provided links to, and a defense in one of the states or territories (I can't remember which one and can't be bothered looking again) due to marriage, again which I've provided a link to.

In layman's terms this means if the alleged offender knew the other person was under the age of 16 then they can be prosecuted under the law of the state / territory where the offence was committed. I'll point out again this is not the case for the state or territory which has a defense for marriage.

Statement 4. "The laws that David's quoting / using to prove his point about legal sex between minor under the age of 16 but of or over the age of 10 are defenses to the various sections they are attached to..."

What's your point here?

What I was pointing out was that David's original post referring to the above effectively was saying children had Carte Blanche to perform whatever sex acts they wanted without being subject to the law. I've been pointing out this is incorrect and they are restricted by the various state and territory acts, there are defenses to these offences but they have restrictions and if you fall outside the elements of those defenses then you are prosecutable under law.
There is another decision the investigating police can make and that is not to proceed with a prosecution because it "wouldn't be in the publics interest".

There are juvenile predators out there as well which is why the laws are structured the way they are (and before you or someone points out the fact I made this comment before but making reference to them as child pedophiles, I'm correcting that because the definition of a pedophile is an adult that's sexually attracted to a child or children).

Sorry OEP but I don't see how you can reconcile statements 1 and 2 and 3 and 4. In the first you say the legal age of consent is 18 - in the second you put the age of consent as ranging from 16-18 depending on the state.

You also contradict yourself in terms of whether or not there are legitimate defenses to having sex prior to age 16.

I don't see what there is to argue about.

There's always something to argue about when your talking about juveniles have sex.

By the way thanks to all who have been involved in this "argument" it's been good to discussing the various points with you. Please continue if you wish.

[OEP]

David where are you getting this stuff from because it's rubbish. The legal age of consent is 18 years of age.

There are no provisions under any act I can find that has a defense for someone having sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16.

"As I have already said, and as the site you've just posted a link to supports, the age of consent is at the minimum in some states 16, in another 17, and another 18."


"The laws that David's quoting / using to prove his point about legal sex between minor under the age of 16 but of or over the age of 10 are defenses to the various sections they are attached to..."

Sorry OEP but I don't see how you can reconcile both sets of statements. In the first you say the legal age of consent is 18 - in the second you put the age of consent as ranging from 16-18 depending on the state.

You also contradict yourself in terms of whether or not there are legitimate defenses to having sex prior to age 16.

I don't see what there is to argue about.

In the first instance I was quoting WA law only, the other references to legal age of consent are from the different states and territories Acts, as they differ from state to state.

There's no contradiction on the legitimate defenses, or lack thereof, they are different because they're quoted from different state / territory acts.

Sorry, but run that past me again. Keeping in mind that the age of consent under WA law is 16 and that under the WA act there are legitimate defenses.

Again, how can you reconcile statements 1 with 2 and 3 with 4?

This post was made before you updated your post. I've provided a more in depth post to your updated version, which is most likely going to be above this one

In regards to the highlighted part - whoops now that's embarrassing

[nomadjack]

Thanks for clarifying OEP. Thought I must have been missing something.

In terms of the original post thanks for putting such a thought-provoking (and brave!) piece together David. As a parent my reaction to paedophiles is probably quite typical - ie I find them morally repugnant and would quite happily gas them as readily as an insect.

If you accept though that the urge to engage in sexual activities with children is an inherited or mentally-induced sickness over which they have no control - no different for example to a person with OCD that cannot control their behaviour, then this is a very difficult position to maintain (Mind you I don't know enough about the pyschology behind paedophilia to make this judgement). The action remains abhorrent and its impact incredibly damaging but how can then hold somebody culpable and punish them for behaviour they can't control? Obviously, for protective purposes you have to, but it does raise legitimate questions about demonisation.

[stui magpie]

Damn, this is an example I think of how a thread can contain some legitimate argument without resorting to the gutter.

Most interesting is the differing points of reference.

OEP, From memory you work in law enforcement and have particular experience in dealing with child molesters. You take a cops view of the legislation. You start with the premise (according to the literal wording) that if the kid is under the prescribed age of consent, then it's a crime. Bang, end of discussion. As a caveat there are defences, including the age difference between the two parties, legitimate belief of age, etc, but you view them as defences against what is in the first place is a criminal act.

i appreciate where David and Nomad Jack are coming from and i fall on their side of the argument. The fact that specific things are a "defence" mean that if you can prove them, it's no longer illegal.

Nice discussion.

[OEP]

Damn, this is an example I think of how a thread can contain some legitimate argument without resorting to the gutter.

Most interesting is the differing points of reference.

OEP, From memory you work in law enforcement and have particular experience in dealing with child molesters. You take a cops view of the legislation. You start with the premise (according to the literal wording) that if the kid is under the prescribed age of consent, then it's a crime. Bang, end of discussion. As a caveat there are defences, including the age difference between the two parties, legitimate belief of age, etc, but you view them as defences against what is in the first place is a criminal act.

i appreciate where David and Nomad Jack are coming from and i fall on their side of the argument. The fact that specific things are a "defence" mean that if you can prove them, it's no longer illegal.

Nice discussion.

Now if I could have just said THAT in my first post I wouldn't have needed to write everything else. Brilliantly worded Stui, should save me from the brain aneurysm that was ensuing.
It's not easy looking up every relevant state and territory act, and reading all the other posted links while trying to look after a 2 and 4 year old on my own.
Very enjoyable and thought provoking discussion though.

** Just thought I'd point out I've never worked in a specialist unit for child sex offenders I was just unlucky enough to deal with a number of very unpleasant cases by being either the first officer on the scene or the most senior officer at the scene (until the relevant specialist unit took over), this mean't having to deal with the offender, victim and sometimes family when their emotions were at their rawest. I was also asked to sit in on some interviews that made my skin crawl, and I'm very hard to shock. **

[CarringbushCigar]

Awesome discussion.

OEP can you check out the age of consent for feathery fauna for me?

[5150]

Off topic (sorry)

but driving in Ascot Vale, I notice a flashing sign while turning into a side street. "Give way to Peds"

Happy to give way to pedestrians, not sure I would brake for Mr Baldy...

[jack_spain]

Sorry I haven't had the time to read all posts, so someone might have mentioned this.

Last week it was reported that in Tassie a woman was given a three-month's suspended sentence for having full sexual intercourse with a 14 year old boy. She wasn't even listed as a sexual offender.

Now the point I raise is this: What if the roles were reversed?

What if a man had sex with a 14 year old girl?

Not only is it a monty he'd have gone to prison and been listed on the sex offenders' register, but people in society might actually have referred to him as a pedophile.

Why the double standards?

[rocketronnie]

Sorry I haven't had the time to read all posts, so someone might have mentioned this.

Last week it was reported that in Tassie a woman was given a three-month's suspended sentence for having full sexual intercourse with a 14 year old boy. She wasn't even listed as a sexual offender.

Now the point I raise is this: What if the roles were reversed?

What if a man had sex with a 14 year old girl?

Not only is it a monty he'd have gone to prison and been listed on the sex offenders' register, but people in society might actually have referred to him as a pedophile.

Why the double standards?

Does Tasmania even have a sexual offenders register? I'm not sure every state does have. I don't see the point of your argument apart that it points towards the strong possibility that your an insecure mysogynist who gets his knickers in a knot about every so-called injustice towards men involving women. Then again we don't know the circumstances of the case nor the judge's thinking behind his judgement. Perhaps you should attempt to assertain this before any argument proceeds further.

[jack_spain]

Sorry I haven't had the time to read all posts, so someone might have mentioned this.

Last week it was reported that in Tassie a woman was given a three-month's suspended sentence for having full sexual intercourse with a 14 year old boy. She wasn't even listed as a sexual offender.

Now the point I raise is this: What if the roles were reversed?

What if a man had sex with a 14 year old girl?

Not only is it a monty he'd have gone to prison and been listed on the sex offenders' register, but people in society might actually have referred to him as a pedophile.

Why the double standards?

Does Tasmania even have a sexual offenders register? I'm not sure every state does have. I don't see the point of your argument apart that it points towards the strong possibility that your an insecure mysogynist who gets his knickers in a knot about every so-called injustice towards men involving women. Then again we don't know the circumstances of the case nor the judge's thinking behind his judgement. Perhaps you should attempt to assertain this before any argument proceeds further.

Oh aren't you a happy little camper today.

My point is very clear. The same offence committed by a man would lead to an immediate jail term. The woman got off scot free. Why?

As far as I'm aware the sex offenders register is a national one, so naturally it would cover Tasmania.

[5150]

Sorry I haven't had the time to read all posts, so someone might have mentioned this.

Last week it was reported that in Tassie a woman was given a three-month's suspended sentence for having full sexual intercourse with a 14 year old boy. She wasn't even listed as a sexual offender.

Now the point I raise is this: What if the roles were reversed?

What if a man had sex with a 14 year old girl?

Not only is it a monty he'd have gone to prison and been listed on the sex offenders' register, but people in society might actually have referred to him as a pedophile.

Why the double standards?

Because he is the only Tasmanian to be known as a legend and get an A in trigonometry.

For the record, Ponting, Boon and Hudson all got B's

Mary Donaldson got a D... for Denmark

[David]

Sorry I haven't had the time to read all posts, so someone might have mentioned this.

Last week it was reported that in Tassie a woman was given a three-month's suspended sentence for having full sexual intercourse with a 14 year old boy. She wasn't even listed as a sexual offender.

Now the point I raise is this: What if the roles were reversed?

What if a man had sex with a 14 year old girl?

Not only is it a monty he'd have gone to prison and been listed on the sex offenders' register, but people in society might actually have referred to him as a pedophile.

Why the double standards?

Does Tasmania even have a sexual offenders register? I'm not sure every state does have. I don't see the point of your argument apart that it points towards the strong possibility that your an insecure mysogynist who gets his knickers in a knot about every so-called injustice towards men involving women. Then again we don't know the circumstances of the case nor the judge's thinking behind his judgement. Perhaps you should attempt to assertain this before any argument proceeds further.

Oh aren't you a happy little camper today.

My point is very clear. The same offence committed by a man would lead to an immediate jail term. The woman got off scot free. Why?

As far as I'm aware the sex offenders register is a national one, so naturally it would cover Tasmania.

We've had at least one fairly vigorously argued thread on this issue before, and I think most that was needed to be said was said. The point I raised in that thread (and I doubt that you will disagree with me here) is that socialised/in-built gender differences mean that one can never simply 'reverse the sexes' in cases like these and come to an identical conclusion. Of course, that does not mean that this boy wasn't exploited, or that the woman didn't deserve to be sentenced, but there are many, many factors that lead to sentencing in cases like these, and I would suggest that gender is rightly one of them.