Lethal Injection Under Fire Again

[Taem]

ANyone?  Even another 12 or 13 year old?  You want them dead?

Come on down here to South Texas, and bring a lot of bullets.  We are a national leader in teen pregnancies, and it is rampant in the junior highs.  Of course, not all impregnation is done with peers, some of it is with older relatives.  :blink:

Occhi
[right][snapback]107268[/snapback][/right]

There I go speaking my mind again without really thinking about what's comming out of my mouth. Sorry, I should have clarified; I meant within the ramifications of the law (i.e. someone over the age of 18 having sexual relations with someone under the age of 13).

[Occhidiangela]

There I go speaking my mind again without really thinking about what's comming out of my mouth. Sorry, I should have clarified; I meant within the ramifications of the law (i.e. someone over the age of 18 having sexual relations with someone under the age of 13).
[right][snapback]107269[/snapback][/right]

The whole age of consent thing is not as simple as it might seem.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been quoted on record as recommending that the age of consent, wait for it, be lowered to 12 to better align with biological development. *HUH?*

But I better understand your position, and I tend to agree with you.

Exploiting the young'ns is just wrong.

Occhi

[GriffonSpade]

Exploiting the young'ns is just wrong.

Occhi
[right][snapback]107273[/snapback][/right]

Exploiting ANYONE is just wrong. Getting people to be in a respectful, or at least COURTEOUS mindset goes a long way in this. Getting society in the mindset to treat sex as more than cheap thrill, a way of venting frustrating and making yourself feel better, and attaching more of a sentimental bond to it would probably go the rest of the way.

IMHO, anyone sick enough to "get-it-on" with a child (under the age of 13) should in-fact die. There is NO excuse for crap like that. It's just sick and wrong and I don't think anyone who commits a crime like that can ever be rehabilitated. Being put on a sex-offender list after having served 5-years is not justice for ruining another persons life, not to mention whoever’s lives they end up ruining because of the mental trauma they suffered from the incident.

Just my 2-cents.

[right][snapback]107273[/snapback][/right]

If you had tried to tell me that crap at the age of 8 or 9, I would've told you to go #$%& yourself and don't treat me like I'm property(The idea of not being able to choose for myself has always pissed me off, such as the idea of some judge deciding who should get custody of you, instead of yourself)

and why is it automatically sick and wrong? It's not sick and wrong if the other person is understanding and willing, no matter the age.(conversely it's always sick and wrong if they arent both understanding and willing)

Also, in some(perhaps many or even most) cases most of the trauma comes from the reactions to it of those around them(people freaking out about what happened or whispering about you and pointing fingers and generally acting like youre diseased, or being piteous can be profoundly detrimental, as they internalize that something truly horrible has happened to them making it difficult to deal with, instead of possibly just being confused and hurt.)

I was under the impression that our prisons were actually "institutions" created for the purpose of "reform." If there is no possibility of reform, then why bother having prisons at all? Why not skip all the 'time-served' crap and just chop of the arm of the thief, castrate the rapist, and execute the murderer? It seems our own justice system is confused on rather to "punish" someone or to "reform" them. Me personally? I say if the evidence is there (i.e. video tape or DNA) then eye-for-an-eye, however is the evidence is insubstantial, then the defendant can only serve prison time if found guilty.
[right][snapback]107273[/snapback][/right]

If this were the case then people who commit accidental crimes or would never again do them wouldn't go to prison would they? Also DNA isn't enough, all ya gotta do is find out where they put the stuff after they take care of it on their own and you can frame them. Also, circumstantial is NEVER beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe the ACTUAL purpose of our legal sytem is Detainment, Punishment, Reforming, and Deterrent(notice i used these points in my first post)

  QUOTE(Doc @ Apr 13 2006, 09:37 PM)
No books. Of any kind, except for religious books. Nothing to distract them during those long nights. Nothing. Let them lay awake at night bored as hell after each horrible day and think about what brought them to this point. And if what brought them to that point just happened to be religion?

I'm sure that abortion clinic bombers would be perfectly happy to sit in their cell and bask in thier self righteous fanaticism.
[right][snapback]107273[/snapback][/right]

I'm with chess, give them the bare minimum their religion requires(givem kosher food or point them towards mecca or whatever) They don't deserve the reprieve from their thoughts or rationalization they can get from religion.

Notes:
1) I'm a virgin
2) I'm an atheist
3) I believe in marriage before sex, and marriage's permanence(a)You're supposed to be devoting yourself to the other person, not devoting yourself to stay with them so long as it keeps you happy, B) marriage does not have to be linked to any certain religion, or any religion at all, and this is how the law should treat it, as there is a seperation of church and state)
4) I'm a reservative libertarian(what does this mean? a) I like making up words, B) I don't think you should be able to infringe on the rights of others merely because you don't agree, but that you shouldn't do something just because you can)

[Premezilla]

The whole age of consent thing is not as simple as it might seem. 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been quoted on record as recommending that the age of consent, wait for it, be lowered to 12 to better align with biological development.  *HUH?*
[right][snapback]107273[/snapback][/right]

Yeesh.

Now that's just crazy talk.

Just because someone is old enough to understand that "yes" means yes and "no" means no does not mean that they have the mental capcity to understand the ramifications of their "consent."

And as for punishment for those convicted of having relations with minors....

....just put them in a little room and make them watch "A Very Brady Christmas" all day.

[Roland]

Before I actually reply to your post Pete, let me clarify, in much simpler terms, my pooint in my above post.

I am not against the death penalty. In fact, for all its faults, I am more or less for it (I don't have a concrete position, but if pressed for an answer, I'd say I'm for it, and certainly not against it). What I am against is needless suffering.

Now, I'm trying to be civil here, as in being a civil person in general. I, like anyone, have the same feeling of "Let 'em hang and rot" when it comes to crimes warranting the death penalty, such as rape, murder, etc. But that doesn't mean those feelings should be put to use. As a good friend once said to me, you can't change how you feel, only what you do about / with it. Just because I may feel that such criminals should get whatever is coming to them (in terms of punishment) doesn't mean that I think it should be carried out, per se. I certainly will state on occasion that I think rapists should be castrated, by a horse (like in olden times, torn limb from limb, by horses), without any drugs. But that doesn't mean if someone tried to make that a form of punishment for rape I'd necessarily support it, if only because of moral complications (I try to be a good human being, and "eye for an eye" doesn't sit as well with my moral side as it does with my vengeful side, which I try to quell).

Now that that's out of the way, let's get to your post.

Hi,
Yes, and it is another example of the problem with the extreme terseness of parts of the US Constitution and Amendments.  There are two issues that must be considered.  One is the mores of the times that statement was written.  At that time, hanging was not a drop that broke the neck, it was slow strangulation.  And it was an accepted, as was ridicule at the pillory.  The 'cruel' punishments were things like drawing, pressing, quartering, etc.  Basically means to torture someone to death.  The framers of the Constitution would not have batted an eyelash at something as humane as lethal injection, except possibly to observe that it was more mercy than the recipient deserved.

I agree. But as our society and country have evolved, so too have your ways. Back then, slavery was well-practiced and accepted, but I think we can all agree that such acts are inhumane. I feel the same way about killing someone in a more brutal fashion than is necessary.

The second point, of course, is that the whole ". . . nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."  is a load of nonsense.  Punishment is cruel or it is not punishment. It is not in it's being cruel that it needs to be judged but in how much of that cruelty is necessary.  When inmates have a better life than they had on the street, with more free time, better health services, even better meals, then is this actually punishment for them?  Wouldn't making little rocks from big ones, or working on a chain gang be more appropriate?  If they are paying a debt to society, shouldn't there actually be some payment?  Even if it is only symbolic?

Agree whole-heartedly, at least about the "payment" bit. I do NOT agree, under any circumstances, that criminals should be treated like kings. I feel only the basic necessities for living (including medical, however) should be provided. A basic bed, 3 square meals (no better than the Armed Forces or high school students get, or we're treating them too good :P), and lavoratory use (bathroom, shower, etc.), along with basic medical services. Beyond that, they should have nothing. Period. Anything more, and they're being treated too kindly, and wasting our tax dollars.

And as to 'unusual', too many people now seem to use the normal life of a non incarcerated member of society as the model for usual.  Once again, if an inmate is living at the standard of his 'usual' out of prison life, and sometimes better, is there any punishment really going on?  Seems to me that there isn't.  If going to prison is little more than an inconvenience, if there's no mental or physical pain involved, then it becomes meaningless.  And judging from what is happening in the USA, our attitude to 'cruel and unusual punishments' has destroyed the concept of correction in our correction facilities and has left only a means to briefly protect society from predators.

Once again, I agree whole-heartedly. See what I said above. Anything beyond the basic neccessities is overdoing it.

As for the whole death penalty debate, Jimmy is glue.

--Pete
[right][snapback]107130[/snapback][/right]

So very true. But I felt the need to speak my mind on just this one part of this topic, since normally I avoid any discussion of these red-hot topics altogether (save for occasional reading). As I said, I'm more or less for the death penalty, provided it's not used too extremely (i.e. grand theft auto, although a felony, shouldn't be cause for death; murder and rape, however, should, IMHO). As for actual incarceration, you can read my thoughts on that above. Criminals today have it too good. WAY too good. It needs to stop (although whether it will is an entirely different matter, as we both know). They should not get any more than absolutely necessary to keep them alive. They should NOT have a "normal" life by our standards. They should have a sub-normal life, only providing enough to keep them alive and (more or less) healthy. Beyond that, it becomes luxury, and a waste on our tax dollars and our entire legal system.

You and I think more alike than you may realize Pete. We both tend to have very down-to-earth attitudes about things, very cut-and-dry. So far as I can tell, we agree on everything you've said in your post, which is about what I expected. The only point I was trying to make in my original post is one seen by Chesspiece: if they're going to die, let them die "in peace". Dying, and the time served beforehand, should be punishment enough. No need to force them to suffer needlessly, least of all to fulfill our rashful desire to "make them pay". Death, IMHO, is a fitting enough penalty all on its own, especially when it's preceeded by much time with nothing to do but contemplate your sins (think "time out" of our younger days, a punishment that always seemed to work well before it became "too cruel" :P). Beyond that, and we begin to sink down to no better than them.

Despite my nature, I try my hardest not to be a vengeful person. Revenge may be a dish best served cold, but I prefer not to serve it at all. There are better ways to solve things, in my opinion, and they don't have to be all candy and cupcakes.

Edit:
Just to prove I'm not a softy towards criminals, I'll throw in another punishment I find completely fitting: isolation. A week in a 3' x 3' cell with no windows of any kind is a damn fine punishment, if you ask me. And if they go crazy from it? Oh well. Lock 'em in a straight-jacket and throw them in a padded room. I'm not candy-ass, but I'm not butcher either. I fall inbetween, although definitely leaning more toward the latter than the former. Isolation is, in my opinion, probably one of the best punishments I've even seen devised. I really can't think of much worse than being locked in a tiny pitch black cage, at least that doesn't cross my moral boundaries. Frankly, I think all death-row inmates should be put in permanent isolation until their final day.

[Roland]

Won't comment on your slippery slope other than to disagree that such a slope is any threat within this context.  The sky is not falling.

Read my reply to Pete. Maybe I was a little off-base in my original post, or at least insofar as my "supporting argument", so to speak. I was kinda going off the top of my head, so I may have made some wrong notations there. Apologies if that is so, especially since it seems to have confused what I was actually trying to say. Like I told Pete, I'm no softy. ;)

Poor Jimmy.  I am now party to the desecration of his adhesive corpse.  For shame.  :unsure:

Occhi
[right][snapback]107198[/snapback][/right]

Eh, that makes two of us. But at least we're all being civil (for now). What usually makes these topics so horrid is not so much the topic itself, but rather what the discussion eventually devolves into. :P I don't mind discussing such things, provided I'm in the mood (sometimes, deep political / moral / religious / whatever discussions are just too much thinking for my tired brain, especially after midnight) and that all parties involved remain civil. But maybe that's just me. :)

At any rate, I'm sorry if I chose the wrong things to support my position. Maybe I would have been better if I had just stated my point and let it stand on its own, rather than bog it down with "support". Hope I didn't lose too much merit in what I was trying to say.

Boy, now I'm up to three posts in this thread, when I only wanted to state one simple point. Maybe I should have stayed out entirely? :unsure:

[Roland]

Just because someone is old enough to understand that "yes" means yes and "no" means no does not mean that they have the mental capcity to understand the ramifications of their "consent."

Ah, but is that the government's job to say so, or the parents?

Oh no, I've opened another can of worms! :P

(BTW - I'm for the latter. While I'm morally against sex under a relative age {17 being the usual number I come up with, but IMO it's all arbitrary anyway, subject to the persons involved}, at least to an extent, I don't believe that it should necessarily be outlawed. As far as I'm concerned, there is not enough medical and scientific evidence to prove that being ABLE to have sex under the age of 18 has any truly harmful effect on the involved individuals, speak scientifically / medically. And, there's also no proof, of any kind, that just because someone CAN do something that they necessarily will Myself, I waited until I was 19, simply because I didn't feel comfortableon a spiritual level until then, and even then I knew full-well the risks involved, so I took all the proper precautions I possibly could to avoid any complications, be they STDs, pregnancy, whatever. I've always been in the "knowledge is power" camp, rather than the "shelter everyone from everything" camp. To me, teaching is the greatest power. Although we all have free will, it's the knowledge and wisdom we have that really determines whether that will causes harm or not, and because of that teaching is so powerful. If we teach that irresponsible sex {and even "responsible" sex} can have dire consequences, than we have done all we truly can and should. It is up to the individual to decide what they end up doing. As far as I'm concerned, the "age of consent" should be left up to the parents and their child. It should not be the government's job to babysit our children. That is what parenting is all about. If two consenting children of 13 wish to have sex, AFTER they have been taught all they can be about the risks, then let them hang by however much rope they thread themselves, and let the parents help share the burden. There is no reason, that I can see, for the government to be regulating an "age of consent", especially when it can classify an otherwise normal law-abiding citizen into a criminal. Morality can only be regulated so far, and quite frankly, I think it's being regulated too much. But that's an even bigger discussion that I have no desire to get into, and I've said more than I intended already.)

Edit:
To clarify one point - I don't think sex between a minor and an adult should be allowed, but that such limitations should be within reason. I see no reason why, for example, a 17 year old cannot have sex with an 18 year old. OTOH, a 12 year old having sex with an 18 year old definitely strikes me as wrong. Again, it's all arbitrary, and so I'm ducking out of this discussion after this post, but I wanted to clarify my views. I don't think adults having sexual relations with children is appropriate, but then we get into the argument of "what is an adult". My rule of thumb? Beyond 3 years is sketchy, at best. Personally, I think the age of consent should be 16, period. Anything less, and it starts to look a little too early to me, thinking of a human's mental development. Any later, and it's just too arbitrary, and too "against nature".

Anyway, that's the last I'm going to say on the subject. It's already devolving into way too convoluted a "discussion" for me to even keep track of, let alone add anything constructive, so I'm out.

[GriffonSpade]

Yeesh.

Now that's just crazy talk.

Just because someone is old enough to understand that "yes" means yes and "no" means no does not mean that they have the mental capcity to understand the ramifications of their "consent." 

And as for punishment for those convicted of having relations with minors....

....just put them in a little room and make them watch "A Very Brady Christmas" all day.
[right][snapback]107283[/snapback][/right]

brady is cruel and unusal...In fact, i say we strap them down, put them on life support, and tickle them until there is nothing left of their minds except for a gibbering mass of flesh. Much less cruel. :wacko:

Consent doesnt mean jack unless you understand what youre consenting to(Damned companies that should be punished for false and misleading advertisements!)

[Occhidiangela]

What I am against is needless suffering.
[right][snapback]107287[/snapback][/right]

Who isn't? ;) Trouble is, we are back to very subjective criterion in bounding "needless" and "suffering."

Punishment by itself is a limited form of vengeance. The issue of personal reform, or re education, or transformation in prison, is at best a work in progress, and at worst a complete failure.

Let's look at one of the more insidious hazards of incarceration: Being gang raped by other men in prison. You don't have to be very liberal to call that needless suffering, vigilante activity, or simply assault.

Why is that put up with? It wasn't part of the sentence. An assault like that outside the wire is handled with some severity, sexual assault and rape.

How is felonious sexual assault, a sentence not handed down by a jury or a judge, an accepted "bonus" punishment. Hell, let's just flog them, formally, and take control of the process! (Sarcasm intended)

I don't have the answer for untying that Gordian Knot, but I'll ask you how that fits into your context of "needless suffering."

Occhi

[Roland]

Who isn't?  ;)  Trouble is, we are back to very subjective criterion in bounding "needless" and "suffering." 

Punishment by itself is a limited form of vengeance.  The issue of personal reform, or re education, or transformation in prison, is at best a work in progress, and at worst a complete failure.

Let's look at one of the more insidious hazards of incarceration: Being gang raped by other men in prison.  You don't have to be very liberal to call that needless suffering, vigilante activity, or simply assault. 

Why is that put up with?  It wasn't part of the sentence.  An assault like that outside the wire is handled with some severity, sexual assault and rape.

How is felonious sexual assault, a sentence not handed down by a jury or a judge, an accepted "bonus" punishment.  Hell, let's just flog them, formally, and take control of the process! (Sarcasm intended)

I don't have the answer for untying that Gordian Knot, but I'll ask you how that fits into your context of "needless suffering."

Occhi

Exactly how you would think: it's needless suffering. I don't approve of such behavior. I don't think it should be allowed. And it saddens me that such things are actually almost encouraged in prison. A prison sentence in itself should be enough, especially if it includes the death penalty. Personally, I think criminals get out of jail too easily. 20 years for murder? Sorry, but that should be life, as in "life without parole". There should be no chance to come back. Of course, I'm referring to 2nd and 1st degree. Manslaughter always stuck me as more of an accidental type of thing, and I don't think someone should be put to death simply for that. 20 years for manslaughter doesn't strike me as very unfair.

I'm not going to touch your comments on reform. That's a tangled knot that I want no part of, at least right now. Somehow, I don't think much of any of us have enough answers to figure that one out.

[Chaerophon]

Ah, but is that the government's job to say so, or the parents?

It's the government's job.

A 12 year old is not legally allowed to live without guardianship, not legally allowed not to attend school, etc. for good reason - the welfare of the child. These "limits" are not to be left up to the parent to decide, because should the parent choose an alternate path for the child, there is a reasonable social consensus around the idea that that decision would be to the detriment of the child's eventual ability to act as a functioning citizen capable of the rationally revising their own goals / surviving as functioning and contributing members of society capable of reasoned decision - in sum, the child will be damaged.

The point is this: should the parent choose to condone such an act (illegal sex with someone much older at the age of 12), it amounts to neglect or abuse: there are certain rights that are socially secured for the child. It is NOT the state's job to dictate the terms of child-rearing to the parents, and there is enormous flexibility allowed to parents in terms of what they teach their children, etc.; however, there are certain limits that cannot be crossed, for the sake of the child, who is not capable of understanding all of the ramifications of certain decisions for him/herself. One of these limits would be crossed in encouraging or even just condoning the sexual relationship of a 12 year old and a 21 year old, full stop.

I suppose that this boils down to an empirical question: is a 12 year old capable of making such a decision for themselves? My own suspicion is that if they're choosing to have sex with someone much older than themselves, there's something funny going on, NOT TO MENTION the fact that the person who is having sex with them has some real problems.

[Doc]

Ah. Sex, death, and punishment. Sounds like a Tolstoy book no?

Since this is sliding in to what society accepts as right or wrong and how to punish those that do wrong...

Why is it that a teen having sex with another teen or an older person is somehow bad or wrong... I mean, that will get you locked up right?

Yet, you can marry a 12 to 13 year old girl (Or for that matter a boy) and do whatever you please. Sure, people frown on it, (well, some people) but it is somehow acceptable to do this. It makes it right somehow. It makes it perfectly legal for a grown adult of any age to have sexual relations with an underaged child.

There is quite a bit of that round here. You don't see it in the city much. But you go in to the little backwoods settlements and rural communities that are little more than a stoplight and a gas station, and trust me, you'll see it. A lot of folks passing through just think it's just a little girl out with her father, but nooo.

I've heard this is also true of a lot of areas, including Utah and the polygamist crowds.

Some of the snake handlers round these parts believe that it is sinful for a girl to keep having her period and not be married, that if she can bleed, she can breed, and not getting married when it happens is some terrible sin against God.

See, there just aint enough consistancy. People make to many exceptions to the rule, allow some folk to get away with it, and prosecute others, and there is this whole slippery slope thing going on where everybody somehow thinks they can get away with it. People can see other people getting away with it and they probably start to thinking that they can get away with it to. I mean, it has to cross through some perverts mind that since it is ok for so and so to have sex with his 13 year old wife, that is somehow perfectly ok for them to have sex with their 13 year old "girlfriend'. Or younger. You get the idea I hope. I saw this touched briefly on earlier in the thread, about how it is the government's job to protect the kids because some times parents don't. And I agree. Parents shouldn't let their daughters or sons getting married or having sex at those young ages, and as much as it bothers me to say this, excuses be damned, religious or otherwise, somebody needs to put their foot down and enforce these legal restrictions with NO exceptions. When some people get special exceptions, suddenly everybody believes they are entitled to get them.

[Mithrandir]

What does the death penalty really solve? It doesn't deter crime. It costs much, much more to execute an individual than imprison them for life. It is applied completely arbitrarily. There were 123 death row exonerations since 1973.

When you throw in cases like what happened to Earl Washington ( link: http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab019/e...ngton.html ), I litterally feel sick to my stomach.

I've asked it in previous threads and I'll ask it again... Why are so many people so freakin' bloodthirsty? When does the cycle of murder and killing end? How is it justice to convict someone of a horrible crime against humanity - and then perform said crime against humanity on them in turn at greater expense and while admiting that there is the possibility of them being innocent? There's an identity crisis here.

Can we please just put the Middle Ages and Hammurabi behind us?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf

Consistent with previous years, the 2004 FBI Uniform Crime
Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate.
The South accounts for over 80% of executions. The
Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, again had
the lowest murder rate.

• The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life.
Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state’s executions. (L.A. Times, March 6, 2005)
• In Kansas, the costs of capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-capital cases, including the costs of incarceration.
(Kansas Performance Audit Report, December 2003).
• In Indiana, the total costs of the death penalty exceed the complete costs of life without parole sentences by about 38%, assuming
that 20% of death sentences are overturned and reduced to life. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002).
• The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the
costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment. The majority of those costs occur at the trial level. (Duke University, May 1993).
• Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in
prison without parole. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each
execution. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000).
• In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at
the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).

In 96% of the states where there have been reviews of race and
the death penalty, there was a pattern of either race-of-victim
or race-of-defendant discrimination, or both. (Prof. David
Baldus report to the ABA, 1998).

I feel as though people pushing the "prisons are too cushy!" opinion are arguing from the wrong side of the issue on that one. Isn't it more a commentary on how #$%&ty our society is at the moment that people are *trying* to get thrown into jail just so they can have warm meals, air conditioning and a place to sleep? Heaven forbid California take that $114 million and put it into poverty-fighting programs.

It's just one ugly cycle: spend more money to execute people, therefore less support for the downtrodden, therefore more people turn to crime, therefore we spend more money to execute them, therefore there's even less money... Disgusting. It's the only word to describe it. Disgusting

Where's the "Arguing over the internet is like..." .gif when you need it? I need to remind myself every now and then or I get carried away over here on my soapbox.

[Drasca]

It's the government's job. 
[right][snapback]107319[/snapback][/right]

You know that saying, "The devil is in the details"? It applies here. That's why its a gordian knot, a can of worms, and a whole bunch of litigation, red tape, and hullabaloo. There are a lot of angles to approach. I can only show a few.

Right now, every state in the US has its own policy. Go take a look at www.ageofconsent.com to see just some of the craziness involved.

Then there's the matter of enforcement. Who gets prosecuted, who doesn't. Does the teenager get jailed for sleeping with another teenager? What about the parents of that kid that give their kids condoms, or give their kid a bus ticket to canada to see their boyfriend/girlfriend.

Granted, a 21 yr old should know better to sleep with a 17 year old in the state of California, but under current laws the 21 yr old could get into deep cowpie. I for one, was capable of a lot of poor judgement up through the first 21st years of my life. Current laws will nitpick and punish.

However, there are substrings to every consent law. Some allow for minor couples to sleep with each other legally, or with reduced sentence. if they're within 3 years of each other. Some change the rules for homosexual relations, on both the punishing and permissive ends.

If the AoC was put to 12, I have no doubt there'd be a lot of strings to this, as every state is obsessed with the sexual behaviour of minors. If it were 12, it'd only apply for people within 5 years of them. Or some oddity. For most states, the current age AoCis 16, and with a lot of conditionals, but let's not be in denial about kids that sleep around from age 12-15. They do it.

Go fishing with this can of worms, and you'll discover a lot of stink. Like Occhi, I have no answers, but at least I can show you it is big, very big, not h2g2 Universe big, but full of nightcrawlers.

Edit to add:

Sex, death, and punishment. Sounds like a Tolstoy book no?

Hey, what's sex without death? Who wants to live forever? Surely not the black widow spider's men, or the preying mantis's, or any male ant and bee. Nor Isis and her dead husband Osiris, the pairing of both living god and dead god (literally, as much as a myth can be literal) spawned Horus. Life, death, sex, life!

[kandrathe]

Too often the problem with the system is it's sharp edges. Young adults are not allowed to vote, drive a car, engage in sex, drink alcohol, smoke, fill gas containers, or buy ammunition. Many demonstrate competance and maturity to be able to handle some of these things at an earlier age, and there are driving "permits" and levels of non-enforcement nearer to the edge. But, the system smacks of injustice due to the edge. It's really should be a continuum of responsibility, where some youths might not be considered adults until they are 25, and some might be fully mature at age 16.

Our system is such that you have a child at 11:59pm, and full fledged adult AT 12:00am. We even have a law in our State now that denies consuming alcohol for that hour between when they become legal, and when the bars close at 1am. I say, give them a break and let them fill gas containers at age 17. :) Really though, if youths would be patient and wait with some of their party and hormonal drives for a few years they might not muck up their lives as much. I think parents should be legally responsible for their offspring until age 18-21, with the parents deciding when to set them free.

I'm more concerned about a childs real rights that are violated, like the right to not be physically, mentally, or sexually abused, the freedom to practice their religion and the basic right to have access and be protected by the law as people and not to be treated as chattel. But, that needs to be metered through the custody of parents, where the parents are sound and are appropriatly protecting the childs interests.

[Premezilla]

It should not be the government's job to babysit our children...there is no reason, that I can see, for the government to be regulating an "age of consent", especially when it can classify an otherwise normal law-abiding citizen into a criminal. [right][snapback]107290[/snapback][/right]

Especially because the government will already be arguing over segregated school-zoning policies, appropriateness of the death penalty, and whether or not using a needle to administer the death serum is too painful for the serum-ee.

[Premezilla]

But, that needs to be metered through the custody of parents, where the parents are sound and are appropriatly protecting the childs interests.
[right][snapback]107335[/snapback][/right]

Ah, but the issue then arises as to whether or not the parents are competent enough to dole out such judgements. What about the parents who are otherwise incapacitated? (Perhaps those waiting in the padded confines of death row isolationism?) The parents who aren't there, and who shuttle the kids off to the grandparents'/aunt or uncle's/other relative's house? There are an infinite amount of variable that could stem from every possible circumstance, which is why I think the Constitution is a bit vague.

The interpretation of the law has changed as the times have changed, adapting to fit whatever situation the US finds itself in.

I'm starting to stray away from my point. If the parents are unable to make sound decisions as to the welfare of their children, what then?

[GriffonSpade]

It's the government's job. 

A 12 year old is not legally allowed to live without guardianship, not legally allowed not to attend school, etc. for good reason - the welfare of the child.  These "limits" are not to be left up to the parent to decide, because should the parent choose an alternate path for the child, there is a reasonable social consensus around the idea that that decision would be to the detriment of the child's eventual ability to act as a functioning citizen capable of the rationally revising their own goals / surviving as functioning and contributing members of society capable of reasoned decision - in sum, the child will be damaged. 

The point is this: should the parent choose to condone such an act (illegal sex with someone much older at the age of 12), it amounts to neglect or abuse: there are certain rights that are socially secured for the child.  It is NOT the state's job to dictate the terms of child-rearing to the parents, and there is enormous flexibility allowed to parents in terms of what they teach their children, etc.; however, there are certain limits that cannot be crossed, for the sake of the child, who is not capable of understanding all of the ramifications of certain decisions for him/herself.  One of these limits would be crossed in encouraging or even just condoning the sexual relationship of a 12 year old and a 21 year old, full stop.

I suppose that this boils down to an empirical question: is a 12 year old capable of making such a decision for themselves?  My own suspicion is that if they're choosing to have sex with someone much older than themselves, there's something funny going on, NOT TO MENTION the fact that the person who is having sex with them has some real problems.
[right][snapback]107319[/snapback][/right]

Your suspicion means NOTHING. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. What if there ISN'T something funny going on? You're looking at people like statitics, not individuals, and taking away someone's right to choose based on these generalizations. "Reasonable social consensus" AKA "What most people think" is akin to "common sense," and is therefore meaningless. Like I said earlier, just because you don't agree with it doesn't give you the right to deny it to someone else. Even if this consensus is true in general, is it because of the sexual relations themselves or abuses that often come with it? Can you tell me it isn't from the beating, alchoholism, failing schooling, lack of a loving & supportive environment, etc. that isn't causing this and not the relations themselves? Don't assume; don't generalize; give people the chance to prove themselves on an individual basis, or you'll be oppressing people, not protecting them.

What does the death penalty really solve? It doesn't deter crime. It costs much, much more to execute an individual than imprison them for life. It is applied completely arbitrarily. There were 123 death row exonerations since 1973.

When you throw in cases like what happened to Earl Washington ( link: http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab019/e...ngton.html ), I litterally feel sick to my stomach.

I've asked it in previous threads and I'll ask it again... Why are so many people so freakin' bloodthirsty? When does the cycle of murder and killing end? How is it justice to convict someone of a horrible crime against humanity - and then perform said crime against humanity on them in turn at greater expense and while admiting that there is the possibility of them being innocent? There's an identity crisis here.

Can we please just put the Middle Ages and Hammurabi behind us?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf
I feel as though people pushing the "prisons are too cushy!" opinion are arguing from the wrong side of the issue on that one. Isn't it more a commentary on how #$%&ty our society is at the moment that people are *trying* to get thrown into jail just so they can have warm meals, air conditioning and a place to sleep? Heaven forbid California take that $114 million and put it into poverty-fighting programs.

It's just one ugly cycle: spend more money to execute people, therefore less support for the downtrodden, therefore more people turn to crime, therefore we spend more money to execute them, therefore there's even less money... Disgusting. It's the only word to describe it. Disgusting

Where's the "Arguing over the internet is like..." .gif when you need it? I need to remind myself every now and then or I get carried away over here on my soapbox.
[right][snapback]107330[/snapback][/right]

It's the methodology that's flawed, not the means themselves. Circumstantial evidence should never allow anything higher than parole, and Execution should require Damning evidence, not a mere conviction. Prison conditions should be determined by the severity of your crime with capital unreformable/unforgivable criminals(murder, rape, severe health & environmental code violations, organized crime, and laundering hundreds of millions of dollars being amongst the worst) having the worst conditions, and repentant/minor/accidental criminals having the best. Executions are insanely expensive because of inefficiency. The cycle of bloodshed and murder ends when people start respecting or at least being courteous to others, everyone has everything they could ever want, and when everyone more or less agrees on everything, or when we lose our free will, or WHEN WE ARE ALL DEAD. To me, when you severely infringe upon another's rights(ie rape, murder, torture, massive theft, slavery) you sacrifice your own. Most of your complaints are about the How, not the what and why.

[Drasca]

If the parents are unable to make sound decisions as to the welfare of their children, what then?
[right][snapback]107338[/snapback][/right]

When all parents fail, we're doomed as a species. While you can be faithless and critical about parents as you'd like, the government will is guaranteed to do worse. Go investigate the child services branch of your state or local government. It is guaranteed to be full of nightmare stories.

For one, I do not wish a McCarthyist or an authoritarian government which can override parental judgement at any time and take away kids from their parents at the government's whim. The governement's power over our lives should be limited, and not extended, especially over family domain.

edit grammar

[GriffonSpade]

When all parents fail, we're doomed as a species. While you can be faithless and critical about parents as you'd like, the government will is guaranteed to do worse.  Go investigate the child services branch of your state or local government. It is guaranteed to be full of nightmare stories.

For one, I do not wish an McCarthyist or authoritarian government which can override parental judgement at any time and take away kids from their parents at the government's whim. The governement's power over our lives should be limited, and not extended, especially over family domain.
[right][snapback]107346[/snapback][/right]

Yes, essentially, we live like this: You can do whatever you want, as long as you do exactly what we(those in power) want you to.

Yes, and ironically the ones that need it the most, ones treated extremely poorly in horrible conditions are often not helped because of the low standards in them, while people with comparitively minor problems outward, in the suburbs and the like, are essentially harassed in some cases by social workers that are know-it-all control freaks.

(Particular horror story my math teacher had when he was, if I remember correctly, interning in social services, is that a heroin addict prostitute had a daughter, and they were PAYING her, supposedly to help the baby, however she was spending it on heroin, and when she was out of money they'd bring her more! and he brought it up with the board or whatever they are, but they told him, basically, to drop it and that she was "improving," that is only using it once or twice a week instead of every day! This was apparently not enough to take the child away. However, the daughter was raped by one of her mother's "clients" and she said she didn't know about it, so the baby was finally taken away for NEGLIGENCE. However, the grandmother got custody of her....and the grandmother lived with the babies mother. Truly horrifying, yet nothing was really done, and this is probably a decade or 2 ago, though I seriously doubt it has changed all that much.)