another abuser caught

[SOSAGES]

so what if a child consents to these acts?

[Nugget]

Surely that's why there's a legal age of consent?

[SOSAGES]

but thats broken by many a randy teenager in fact i was 21 days shy of my 16th when i first got lucky i dont think i did anything wrong the young lady in question was 2 months away from her 16th.. i have a scottish buddy who lost his at 13 to a 16 year old girl i doubt he will be wanting her locked away (especially as they are nor happily married)

you wouldnt have to engage in a sexual act with the child - many people are locked away for unsuitable pictures what if the child was fully aware of what was going on and agreed for these pics to be taken and then MR x is found with them in his home, i spose thats illigal as well yeah? so as long as a child (girl or boy) is 16 or over someone could legally take the pics or engage in sexual acts with the child as long as they agreed of course..

[Pierre]

Can I just point out the obvios ---- SOD HIM --- What about the child ???? The child is the person who has to live with what happened for the rest of there lives. They can get let out early !!!

" What about the criminal - how is he going to cope ect "is all we ever hear these days... Sod him... He lost the right to respect when he violated a child.... Sod his human rights - what about the childs ?

Thankyou

[Pierre]

so what if a child consents to these acts?

This is murkey territory.

There is a world of difference to a sexually active 15 year old and 6 year old that still plays with dolls and teletubbies.

I wouldn't like to say where the demarcation line is, but suffice to say there is a legal age of consent.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by SOSAGES

so what if a child consents to these acts?

As I understand it, the Law considers ANY sex with an underage child statutory rape. They do not have the right to give consent.

I think the police tolerate kids having sex if they are within a couple of days of being 16 though, but as Pierre says, there is a world of difference between a sexually active 15 year old, and a 6 year old.

[Nugget]

Exactly! How can you make the presumption that a 6 year old child (for example) can give their consent?

If you take the defintion of rape as 'to force someone to have sex when they are unwilling', the act of consent is removed from the equation - the police / social services / whoever may not always get it right, but the laws (in this case those governing statutory rape) are there to protect everyone, whether they are 6 or 60.

[SOSAGES]

its a murky world we live in.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Rubbish yourself.

Highlighting the emotional impact of an issue can help bring more people in to discuss the relevant issues, thereby making for a healthier debate.

I personally think emotion should be left out of most debates, focus on the issues repercushions and what can and cannot be gained.

I think punishment for punishments sake is the least honourable aim of the justice system, so rehabilitation or counceling should be exhausted before life imprisonment or castration occurs.

[Stuart]

Emotion should always be left out of reasoned debate. As soon as you introduce emotion, reason often goes out the window.

But, a subject such as this will always stir emotions within people.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Pierre

This is murkey territory.

There is a world of difference to a sexually active 15 year old and 6 year old that still plays with dolls and teletubbies.

I wouldn't like to say where the demarcation line is, but suffice to say there is a legal age of consent.

Lets then throw this into the debate...
....just to show that the age of concent is a bit like the speed limit
(I do not condone underage sex, but what is underage-for the human race?)

Originally Posted by SOSAGES

any women get done for pedophilia ?

Yes, but cases like those get much less coverage and the attitude often seems to be "lucky boy" rather than "poor girl".

also whats the law have to say about ages of the children involved? does it stop being pedophilia after a certain age or is it dependant on the age of the pedophile? (i doubt)

"Paedophilia" or "Child Abuse" are not legal terms. The sentences depend on the ages involved and sex of the victim.

The first important age is 13, below that the penalties are more severe, up to life imprisonment.

For more info, see http://www.rapecrisis.co.uk/police_reporting4.htm (although that site seems to be a little out of date as it implies that it is still an offence for a man and a woman to engage in consensual anal sex)

Originally Posted by Pierre

Bit over the top *attack* being a bit emotional there.

Yawn. Is this the best you can do?

No, I don't know them personally, but I think it is a safe assumption.

You *think*...!!!

Highlighting the emotional impact of an issue can help bring more people in to discuss the relevant issues, thereby making for a healthier debate.

Unfortunately it does not "make for a healthier debate" because when emotion becomes involved, rational thought tends to go out through the window. There are innumerable examples of this in these forums alone!!!

I was not making it representative of all paedophiles you have jumped to that conlusion yourself. I was merely highlighting it as scenario that can,has and could happen.

Yes, but you, yourself said (I quote) "This is the scenario that frightens the public"

Yet this scenario is actually *extremely* unlikely! However because it is "emotional" any *rational* consideration of the risks is overwhelmed.

I've never heard of a Ford Capri raping a child??

Ah, *more* reasoned debate...

Just because a child is more likely to be killed by a car/whatever does not detract from the argument and is quite quite frankly a very weak point.

In 2001 over five *THOUSAND* children were killed or seriously injured in accidents on Britain's roads.

http://www.theaa.com/staticdocs/pdf/...ild_safety.pdf

Can you *really* just ignore that with a glib comment??

And I don't dispute that. The shame is that before you have the "evidence" that a Paedophile is a re-offender a child must either be raped or killed.

Yes, I agree it is a shame, however until you have the ability to read people's minds or peer into the future, the next best option is to give them psychological counselling, put them on the sex offenders register and monitor their behaviour, to try to *prevent* them from re-offending.

Originally Posted by stuartbe

Are we forgeting something here people... We are debating about the human rights of the ofender.. Should he be castrated / should he get a nice cushy cell then 24hour police protection !!!

Can I just point out the obvios ---- SOD HIM --- What about the child ???? The child is the person who has to live with what happened for the rest of there lives.

I'm sorry, Stuartbe, but this is *EXACTLY* what I am talking about when I refer to "Appeal to Emotion".

I am *not* forgetting about the child, however neither am I forgetting that *everyone*, *including* the child *and* the offender have rights!

If we forget that, if we allow emotion to override reason, we risk allowing lynch law, we risk damaging our system of justice and we risk losing those principles by which we call ourselves "civilised".

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Lets then throw this into the debate...
....just to show that the age of concent is a bit like the speed limit
(I do not condone underage sex, but what is underage-for the human race?)

The brutally objective fact is that, for the human race, once a girl has started her periods she is capable of reproduction, it's as simple as that.

The other fact to consider is that as I've mentioned in debates like this before, "childhood" is a modern concept and the product of our "luxury" and "free time" society.

For the majority of human existance, there has been no such thing as childhood, children were additional workers, given the "light" jobs that they could do whilst everyone else got on with the "heavy" work.