|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: MAPPA
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It gets hard after an incident. But you have to draw the perspective that one dangerous person did the sex offence. A location didn't, being out side didn't, doing normal activities didn't, like taking a bus, walking in a park or anything else. The offender did it. And only special bad people do offences. It takes some many months to years before such a perspective is possible consistently. But that's the goal.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is difficult to get jailed for a sexual offence or on onto the sex offenders register - (contrary to press reports) - in the vast majority of cases someone jailed for a sexual offence will have done something seriously harmful.
Depends. Where I live it's relatively easy. 18 year old consensual sex with 16 year old girl friend is statutory rape.
surprising ways to become a registered sex offender
A friend was a battered wife, that's what landed her in prison and on the list. Husband abused the kid, beat her for protesting, beat her for trying to grab the kid and leave. She finally succeeded in escaping with the kid. When he was arrested they tracked her down and she got double the prison time he did, kid thrown into the often brutal foster care system.
I later protested to a friend who worked in prosecutor's office, she said a woman's job is to protect the kid, her failure was a worse crime than what he did to the kid, being intimidated and beaten was no excuse, finally escaping was no merit, she should have done it sooner.
So, being too battered to control your husband can land you in prison and on the registered sex offenders list when you never hurt or tried to hurt anything and even tried to stop someone else.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
There's been a real reduction in child mortality in the last century. Part of this is not doing things that used to happen, child seats in cars, bicycle helmets, not letting them play in traffic.
There's no doubt things have been lost, but parental attitudes have changed to this protection. See the web site for Free Range Kids if you want to see a pushback.
There's currently a school of thought that traffic deaths are preventable. New York is following the lead of several other cities in trying to get the death rate to close to zero. That may be impossible, but a lot of deaths occur over and over in the same places. Part of the strategy is to investigate every death and figure out how it might be prevented. Part of it is slowing down cars in the city.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
For 'police intelligence' read what? For police to have something officially on-file because either a crime has been committed or someone has been arrested and charged with something is one thing.
But in many instances so-called 'intelligence' has turned out to nothing more than gossip.
"Intelligent" and "Police" have been sadly proven - -in some high profile cases - to be words that rarely work together.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is difficult to get jailed for a sexual offence or on onto the sex offenders register - (contrary to press reports) - in the vast majority of cases someone jailed for a sexual offence will have done something seriously harmful.
Depends. Where I live it's relatively easy. 18 year old consensual sex with 16 year old girl friend is statutory rape.
surprising ways to become a registered sex offender
A friend was a battered wife, that's what landed her in prison and on the list. Husband abused the kid, beat her for protesting, beat her for trying to grab the kid and leave. She finally succeeded in escaping with the kid. When he was arrested they tracked her down and she got double the prison time he did, kid thrown into the often brutal foster care system.
I later protested to a friend who worked in prosecutor's office, she said a woman's job is to protect the kid, her failure was a worse crime than what he did to the kid, being intimidated and beaten was no excuse, finally escaping was no merit, she should have done it sooner.
So, being too battered to control your husband can land you in prison and on the registered sex offenders list when you never hurt or tried to hurt anything and even tried to stop someone else.
As regards the OP, being unable to effectively protect a child is a problem if you work with children. Though I don't think that would get you jailed and put on the sex offenders register in the UK - which is where this law re spouses applies - it would be more likely that the child would go on the child would be put on on the at risk register, and if the safety plan didn't work sovial services would take the matter to civil court to get the child removed.
I am unclear why you think statutary rape is not a problem.
I am unclear why the writers of that article don't think incest is a problem.
In the UK I don't think you can prosecute children who provide photographs as a result of being groomed by others. However, we do recognise that some young people engage in sexually harmful behaviour - and their are specialist services designed to intervene in those circumstances - some of which sit within youth offending teams.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I am unclear why you think statutary rape is not a problem.
The purposes of a sex offender registry must be to mark out people who should be considered special risks. For this reason, it is absurd to place someone who urinates in an alley on the register.
In the case of two similar-age teens, I rather think the same argument applies. I don't think statutory rape is a non-problem, exactly (although the existence in many but not all localities of "romeo and Juliet" laws rather suggests that it is widely accepted that at some point it is a non-problem), but the question must be whether the older member of such a teen couple poses an increased risk, and in most cases the answer is "no".
But surely we have data here? We have a significant ensemble of cases of young teachers getting entangled in sexual relationships with their pupils. This is the thing that we are typing to prevent with the sex offender's registry.
So look at those teachers, and ask the question: was there any evidence that as older teenagers they were inappropriately involved with younger teens? Is there actually a correlation between 18-year-olds with 16-year-old girl and boyfriends, and those who at 20-something go on to take advantage of their pupils? My guess is that the answer is that there is no correlation at all, in which case putting such teenagers on the register is nonsense.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"Intelligent" and "Police" have been sadly proven - -in some high profile cases - to be words that rarely work together.
My ex-wife, who worked clerical jobs for the county sheriff, said her fellow administrative types have a saying: "It's a good thing crooks are stupid."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My ex-wife, who worked clerical jobs for the county sheriff, said her fellow administrative types have a saying: "It's a good thing crooks are stupid."
Our household saying equates to "It's a good thing crooks are more stupid than the cops."
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I would agree about public urination.
In the UK an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old is not committing statutary rape - because the age of consent is 16. There are specific laws governing sexual relationships that violate positions of trust, where you could be convicted of anoffence for having sex with a pupil or patient, for example, even if they are over 16.
When trying to assess risk of sexual offending, you look at previous history sexually inappropriate behaviour, and how early it starts. Most people who sexually abuse, have been sexually abused themselves. They often come from families where boundaries around sex are poorly maintained. The propensity or preparedness to violate social rules around sex, is a risk factor for doing so in the future - even if the rules themselves change in your life time.
So convictions for homosexuality remain relevant in assessing future risk - and there is an evidence to support that increased risk. However, most studies of risk are done with people who have offended - ie, it is an indicator of increased risk of recidivism. Rather than a statement that gay people are more likely to sexually offend (they are not - within the UK legal framework.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When trying to assess risk of sexual offending, you look at previous history sexually inappropriate behaviour, and how early it starts. Most people who sexually abuse, have been sexually abused themselves.
So should we be putting victims of sexual abuse on the register? Is someone who was abused as a child more or less likely to go on to commit sexual offences as an adult than someone who had a boy / girlfriend just the wrong side of the age limit?
If I can paraphrase the rest of your post, you seem to be saying that people who commit crimes require both the desire to commit the act and the willingness to ignore the fact that it is illegal.
You claim an increased risk of committing sexual offences based on a history of violating sex laws, even when the "violations" are things like having consensual gay sex that wouldn't be illegal today. So I have another question: is this (why is this?) restricted to sexual behaviour? Wouldn't someone who happens to have a predeliction towards children, and has demonstrated his willingness to risk legal sanction by a prior conviction for burglary have the same risk as the same person with a prior conviction for sex in public, say?
I'm not really understanding the logic here. The logic seems to be that people who are willing to break one law in regard to sexual behaviour will be more willing to break a different law with regard to sexual behaviour, but no more or less willing to break laws surrounding non-sexual behaviour.
I would find it surprising indeed if that was true. Is there data?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
When weighing things up, I think ‘do I know these people well enough to trust them with open access to my house or bank accounts?’ Well if I don’t know if I can trust them with my house keys, bank card and PIN numbers, then why would I trust them with my kids?
No-one here locks their doors anyway, and kids regularly play outside alone. Sleep overs are extremely common. And I've seen one of my colleagues (we're teachers) hand a pupil her debit card and give them her PIN to go and get something from a shop while on a school trip. It's also standard practice to leave your keys in the unlocked car.
Different worlds, eh?
Thing is, we were talking about our most treasured childhood memories. Quite a few referenced sleep overs with grandparents or other relatives, then said that they'd never let their kids do that as it was too risky. That struck me as sad.
Tubbs
Well around here stopping at grandmas is not what the kids mean by a sleepover. A sleepover is when you go and sleep at a friends house..
It is a different scenario – if somebody won’t let their kids stay at a relative’s house them maybe they know something about the relative that we don’t.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Trust isn't one thing. Would I have trusted my ex with my PIN? Of course not. He was crap with money. Would I trust him with my kids? Absolutely!
Of course trust is multi faceted and what you have just shown a perfect example of what I was trying to say about knowledge of a person.
I said
‘When weighing things up, I think ‘do I know these people well enough to trust them with open access to my house or bank accounts?’ Well if I don’t know if I can trust them with my house keys, bank card and PIN numbers, then why would I trust them with my kids? ‘
It was about knowledge of a person and why would I give access to my children to people I don’t know well enough to know how trustworthy they are>
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When trying to assess risk of sexual offending, you look at previous history sexually inappropriate behaviour, and how early it starts. Most people who sexually abuse, have been sexually abused themselves.
So should we be putting victims of sexual abuse on the register? Is someone who was abused as a child more or less likely to go on to commit sexual offences as an adult than someone who had a boy / girlfriend just the wrong side of the age limit?
If I can paraphrase the rest of your post, you seem to be saying that people who commit crimes require both the desire to commit the act and the willingness to ignore the fact that it is illegal.
You claim an increased risk of committing sexual offences based on a history of violating sex laws, even when the "violations" are things like having consensual gay sex that wouldn't be illegal today. So I have another question: is this (why is this?) restricted to sexual behaviour? Wouldn't someone who happens to have a predeliction towards children, and has demonstrated his willingness to risk legal sanction by a prior conviction for burglary have the same risk as the same person with a prior conviction for sex in public, say?
I'm not really understanding the logic here. The logic seems to be that people who are willing to break one law in regard to sexual behaviour will be more willing to break a different law with regard to sexual behaviour, but no more or less willing to break laws surrounding non-sexual behaviour.
I would find it surprising indeed if that was true. Is there data?
So firstly, whilst most abusers have been abused - most people who are abused do not go on to be abusers. The discrepancy is because most abusers abuse more than one person - which is also why recidivism is such a concern.
There are two facets to assessing risk, what iare called actuarial / static risk factors, and dynamic risk factors. A static risk factor is something like - having comitted a sexual offence, or having witnessed domestic violence in childhood. They are things that having happened, don't change - they can't unhappen. They are factors that allow us to say, people with x, y, z static risk dactor present have twice the risk of doing activity h in the future. Depending on how much the static risk factors increase the risk, you may or may not think it is worth placing restrictions on a person or their associates as a result - and that is essentially what is happening in the OP situation.
To assess as specific individual's risk of reoffending at a specific time, you need to look at dynamic risk factors - some of which are general (is this person currently abusing drugs or alcohol and therefore disinhibited) and some of which may be unique to the individual (eg this person is at most risk of looking at child porn on the internet when a personal relationship has just ended).
Predicting reoffence is difficult, but structured assessment tools perform alot better than chance or clinical consensus alone. There is a lot of research on the subject, though quality various. However, the observation that prior willingness to break the law regarding sex is not based on a particular theory or logic as such, it is based on large scale observation.
The models and research are based almost exclusively on men - because they have higher rates of offending (as far as we know) and do not necessarily hold true for female offenders - whose patterns of behaviour are less well understood.
The sex offenders register has multiple functions, one is punishment, one is surveilance - if laws regarding risk management are going to derive fromit then they need to think carefully about what offences get you registered. UK rules about this are different than US rules. Also you don't remain on the register for life for all offences. It seems as if the government is intending to target people convicted of serious offences of violence and sexual violence - perhaps they are using the wrong tool for that.
However.
Going back to dynamic risk factors, and some of the examples given in linked articles. Grevious Bodily Harm (GBH) is a very serious offence, one that has often resulted in life changing injuries to the victim. Now someone may have done that 20 years ago, perhaps it was what they did to a girlfriend who cheated on them. They may have engaged in genuine personal growth and that is why they haven't reoffended, or you may find if you put them in exactly the same circumstances again they do exactly the same thing again.
Just because someone has been punished, by prison time or whatever, does not necessarily mean they have changed.
Sometimes people's violence is so predictable, those around them simply ensure it doesn't happen. Apparently, if you insult the pope's mother he will hit you - so you probably don't.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So firstly, whilst most abusers have been abused - most people who are abused do not go on to be abusers.
OK - so whilst being a victim of child abuse is a risk factor, it is not sufficient to warrant preventing victims of child abuse from being teachers and so on.
What about 18 year old boys with 15-year-old girlfriends (you said all the data is based on male offenders, so we'll go with that.)
Do most such boys go on to commit further sexual offenses? Do they do so more or less often than child abuse victims? Do they grow up to be teachers who sleep with half the fifth form, or do they mostly not?
Do they do so at a rate that differs from 15 year old boys with 15-year-old girlfriends?
quote:
Just because someone has been punished, by prison time or whatever, does not necessarily mean they have changed.
Yes, indeed. And just as you wouldn't want to employ someone with a pile of convictions for shoplifting as a security guard, so you wouldn't want to employ adults who have sex with children as teachers. I don't dispute that at all. This is true both from the point of view of safeguarding your stock, or children, and from the point of view of not placing temptation in the path of someone who might not be strong enough to be drawn back in to his old ways.
We have agreed that public urination is not a useful predictor of sexual offending. I am wondering whether teen sex might not fall into the same category.
quote:
However, the observation that prior willingness to break the law regarding sex is not based on a particular theory or logic as such, it is based on large scale observation.
Sure. Did these studies test for a correlation between sexual offending and a prior willingness to break the law in non-sexual matters?
Obviously rapists are more likely to commit further rapes than someone selected at random from the population. Your description of these studies is that people with unrelated sexual convictions (you gave the example of consensual gay sex when that was illegal) are more likely to commit rape / sexual assault than a randomly-selected person from the population. What about burglars? Are they more likely to commit rape than the random person? Did the studies look?
quote:
Apparently, if you insult the pope's mother he will hit you - so you probably don't.
It sounds like I should insult her twice, so he can hit me on both cheeks.
[ 24. January 2015, 20:11: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am not going to do a full metaanalysis, it is a massive field of research and most of my references are in the manuals I use for various forms of structured risk assessment - which are at work.
But to take the example of an 18 year old who has sex with a 15 year old - and doesn't see this as a wrong thing to do (as opposed to an illegal thing to do).
This would suggest he doesn't recognise she could not give informed consent. Or care. Which raises the question as to whether he will realise or care, for example, that a very drunk woman can't give consent ? It also suggests he will make excuses to himself about this, she said she wanted to so it was OK etc. At what age will he decide he is too old to have sex with fifteen year olds, 19, 20, 21 ? 40 ?
What other behaviours that seem to him trivial will be OK, looking at porn featuring 15 year olds, telling himself that of course they wouldn't have done it if they didn't want to ?
You use the terminology or Romeo and Juliet, but the reality is that teen relationships in our culture are vanishingly unlikely to be true love long term relationships. And of course, it didn't end that well for Romeo and Juliet.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Doublethink.: This would suggest he doesn't recognise she could not give informed consent. Or care.
Or alternatively, they are just teenagers doing what teenagers do.
I'm personally more comfortable if the line were put at 16 instead of 15, but I don't believe that every 18 year old guy in that situation will turn out to become a serial rapist.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am going to guess that at least partly depends how you define rape.
Fundamentaly what you are arguing is that informed consent is not relevant. I disagree.
[ 24. January 2015, 21:30: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Doublethink.: Fundamentaly what you are arguing is that informed consent is not relevant. I disagree.
No, I just have a different definition of what informed consent is. Dutch law agrees with me on this one, and permits sex for teenagers under 16 under certain circumstances (one of them being that the age difference should be small).
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
OK. But given the long term poor outcomes involved, I think they would do well to rethink their legal framework.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Doublethink.: OK. But given the long term poor outcomes involved, I think they would do well to rethink their legal framework.
I don't feel that the Netherlands are characterised by 'long term poor outcomes'. Teenage pregnancies and STDs have been quite low, although I admit they are rising a bit in some neighbourhoods in the big cities.
If this continues to grow, than maybe the legal framework will need to be reviewed in the future, if that appears to be the solution (which I'm not convinced it is).
And anyway, this is a far cry from "a 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old will become a sex offender in the future", drivel for which you haven't given any basis yet.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
All this nuanced talk of assessing risk just illustrates that a law that sweeps up everybody is a blunt instrument. Indeed, the whole purpose of some laws is to say "we can't handle the time, effort and expense of assessing you individually, we're going to make some assumptions".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
When weighing things up, I think ‘do I know these people well enough to trust them with open access to my house or bank accounts?’ Well if I don’t know if I can trust them with my house keys, bank card and PIN numbers, then why would I trust them with my kids?
No-one here locks their doors anyway, and kids regularly play outside alone. Sleep overs are extremely common. And I've seen one of my colleagues (we're teachers) hand a pupil her debit card and give them her PIN to go and get something from a shop while on a school trip. It's also standard practice to leave your keys in the unlocked car.
Different worlds, eh?
Thing is, we were talking about our most treasured childhood memories. Quite a few referenced sleep overs with grandparents or other relatives, then said that they'd never let their kids do that as it was too risky. That struck me as sad.
Tubbs
Well around here stopping at grandmas is not what the kids mean by a sleepover. A sleepover is when you go and sleep at a friends house..
It is a different scenario – if somebody won’t let their kids stay at a relative’s house them maybe they know something about the relative that we don’t.
Maybe. And sometimes for good, perfectly non-sinister reasons. When people tell you that it's the stuff they're read in the papers that made them too scared to allow their kids to stay with other family members, even though they know it would be fine then ...
Maybe you can be too careful. Most kids have limited social interaction with people outside their school or family. Many don't know people from other generations. Many don't venture out on their own until they reach secondary school. We'll probably end up with a generation who don't spend a night away from home until they get to university.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Doublethink.: OK. But given the long term poor outcomes involved, I think they would do well to rethink their legal framework.
I don't feel that the Netherlands are characterised by 'long term poor outcomes'. Teenage pregnancies and STDs have been quite low, although I admit they are rising a bit in some neighbourhoods in the big cities.
If this continues to grow, than maybe the legal framework will need to be reviewed in the future, if that appears to be the solution (which I'm not convinced it is).
And anyway, this is a far cry from "a 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old will become a sex offender in the future", drivel for which you haven't given any basis yet.
.
In the UK they are already a sex offender - in this scenario. Question is rather, do you think they will do it again ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Fundamentaly what you are arguing is that informed consent is not relevant. I disagree.
No, I think what I am saying is that maturity is a continuous process. A child of 16 years and one day is not any more or less capable of giving informed consent to anything than one of 15 years and 364 days.
Legal systems don't deal well with continua, though, and so we draw bright lines at a kinda-sorta reasonable place, and then deal with the consequences. So the law views the two-day older person above as entirely competent to give consent (as long as it's not with a teacher or similar), and the younger one as not. Which is an obvious nonsense that is the result of drawing these bright lines.
Most people seem to agree that there's not much gain to be had from prosecuting two 15-year-olds that have sex. I'm not saying that we should refrain from prosecuting 18-year-olds in the same situation, but that the consequences of such a prosecution shouldn't be as long-term as an entry in the register.
In other words, the legal consequences should recognize that there are shades of grey here.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I am going to guess that at least partly depends how you define rape.
Fundamentaly what you are arguing is that informed consent is not relevant. I disagree.
it is highly relevant. But a proper analysis of the law in NSW (I think it's the same in the other States and in England) has been gender neutral for some years now. See for example the NSW Crimes Act That means that if 2 15 year olds have sex together, each has committed an offence and as a consequence each should be placed on the offenders register. The girl has shown as much a disregard of the boy's legal incapacity as has the boy in relation to the girl.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Doublethink.: In the UK they are already a sex offender - in this scenario. Question is rather, do you think they will do it again ?
Do what again? It doesn't matter one bit what I think, the burden is on you now. If you say, an 18 year old had sex with a 15 year old and is therefore a sex offender, and will thus continue to commit to commit sex offences, then the burden of proof is on you. Where are your data? You are just being stupid.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The 18 year old with a 15 year old is an complicated one.
I have dealt with the fall out with girls lying about their age on nights out. Even knowing those girls and seeing them dressed up I couldn't tell for some of them if they were 13, 14, 15 or 16. There is another whole series of issues about hook up culture and not checking further before getting into a sexual relationship, but that's a different question.
I have dealt with under age teenage girls after they got into situations that got out of hand. The 14 year old who became repeatedly pregnant in a relationship with a 19 year old. That went to child protection. The girl who went after a boy she fancied and ended up in a group sex situation and had sex with a boy she hated. Both boys were about 18 at the time. She was horrifically traumatised, but the consent issues were very blurred so although the police did get involved it was with limited effect. I suspect from his anger one of the boys did end up on the sex offenders register.
Now those boys were reckless and I suspect that they are in a pattern that might repeat as one of the lads was a father at 16 and is now involved with another younger girl who he was grooming under-age.
I have also dealt with under age teenage boys in sexual relationships with under age girls and heard their concerns and worries. One lad was finding it difficult to deal with the girl's demands to keep on having sex after they had started - iirc he was 15 and she was 14. There was another lad who did not cope when the girl became pregnant and had an abortion. I'm currently having conversations with a 14 year old who assures me he is sexually active (I believe him) and a just 16 year old father.
Then there are the under age boys on the sex offenders register for acts of sexual assault. I know a few of them too. There are assessments that attempt to assess their risk in the future.
For 14 and 15 year olds there is a disregard for the law generally - because they are teenagers and they don't think that regret will mean anything later. Because as far as they are concerned they can handle whatever the law is trying to protect them from. Because they don't understand that what they are doing is unacceptable / illegal / not allowed, because their home situation is so skewed. Because everyone is having loads of sex (the media tells them so) so adults are keeping something great from them.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Mistaking the age of a child over 13 is a defence in law. Current MOJ guidance around prosecution can be found here. You will notice the emphasis on child protection before prosecution for close in age cases under 16.
Leroc, I am not making some wierd claim in identifying that at 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old is a sex offender. That is the law in this country.
Here is some recidivism data, thought I note it is a rather old study.
There are many other studies but few will be looking at just 18 year olds. However, my experience is similar to CKs in so far as it is the case that people tend to show repeating patterns of behaviour. They don't fall for one 15 year old, and then when it ends they start dating people their own age.
However, my experience is skewed by working mostly with people who already have a history of repeated incidents. Which have usually then been no crimed, or words of advice given, and then we are expected to manage the risk to the community. It really isn't as easy to get to court, let alone onto the sex offenders register as you seem to think.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Doublethink.: Leroc, I am not making some wierd claim in identifying that at 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old is a sex offender. That is the law in this country.
I know. This isn't what I'm attacking.
quote:
Doublethink.: Here is some recidivism data, thought I note it is a rather old study.
Also, the categories are a bit too broad to prove either of our sides.
When I was in secondary school, there were many couples. Usually the age difference would be 1–2 years, sometimes 3. Some of these couples would have sex.
Of course, you can dismiss these all as "teenage relationships aren't really serious", and in fact I don't think that any of these relationships lead to marriage, but that's too easy. Some teenage relationships can last for years, and can be rather mature.
Now, if I had a 15 year old daughter who was in a relationship with an 18 year old, I would probably ask her to wait a bit. But if it would happen, that wouldn't automatically make him a pervert.
What you're saying is that he'd be an 18 year old guy, having a relationship with a 15 year old. YAnd he'll probably continue to be attracted to 15 year olds when he grows other.
What I'm saying is that he's an 18 year old guy, having a relationship with someone who's a bit younger than him. And he'll probably continue to be attracted to women a bit younger than him when he grows older.
When I was 18, I had a relationship with a 15 year old (we didn't have sex until later, but it could have happened then). I'm older now, and I'm not attracted to 15 year olds anymore. I don't think that's unusual.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I can think of hundreds of teenagers I've worked with, very few of whom I think are in a pattern of seeking out relationships with under age girls continuously. But there are a few we were noting when they came into the local youth provision because we weren't comfortable with the way they continued to groom young girls as they grew up - and we had a duty of protection for those young girls.
But I have heard an attitude from more than one teenage boy that says that it's too much effort to be signed up for a C card and that the way to protect against STIs is make sure that you only have sex with clean girls - ie virgins.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I can think of almost no circumstances in which labelling someone a pervert is helpful.
I note you comment on asking your daughter to refrain - who is the child in the scenario you give - rather than her boyfriend. It is the adult's duty to protect the child, as you apparently did.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Doublethink.: I note you comment on asking your daughter to refrain - who is the child in the scenario you give - rather than her boyfriend. It is the adult's duty to protect the child, as you apparently did.
Yes, but there is still a big difference between your position and mine.
Consider two male 18 year olds, let's call them Jack and John.
Jack is a predator. He grooms 15 year old girls, trying to have sex with as many of them as he can. He tries to trick them by promising to buy expensive gifts, or by having them drink alcohol. And when push comes to shove, he's not shy of using a little force in making them do what he wants.
John is in a relationship with Jane, who is 15 years old. They started calling eachother boyfriend and girlfriend when he was 15 and she was 12. They visit eachother's families regularly. They started out with hand-holding, then kissing. And when he was 18 and she was 15, they had sex.
Maybe they shouldn't have. But at least they are serious about their relationship (as serious as they can be as teenagers), and they used a condom.
I understand that you mostly meet Jacks at your work. But there are many, many Johns out there. I personally know a lot of them.
Now if I were Jane's father, I would probably have a long talk with my daughter. But chances are I wouldn't report John to the police. Which under Dutch law means that no crime has been committed.
Now, fast forward a couple of years. The relationship between John and Jane ended when he was 20 and she was 17. He was in university in another city, she still lived with her parents, their lifes just grew apart.
In his twenties, John dated a couple of other women, most of them slightly younger than him. And when he was 32, he married Anne, who was 28 and who happens to be a teacher. She loves her job and she's good at it. Once again, I think this is very common.
Now, what you're saying is that Anne should be punished. She should be let off from her work. I think that's completely unfair.
What is needed is a way to separate the Jacks from the Johns. I feel that the Dutch system is rather good at that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All this nuanced talk of assessing risk just illustrates that a law that sweeps up everybody is a blunt instrument. Indeed, the whole purpose of some laws is to say "we can't handle the time, effort and expense of assessing you individually, we're going to make some assumptions".
1. Isn't this how most laws work?
2. Supposing you had the time, how would that work? How would you properly, and accurately assess?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All this nuanced talk of assessing risk just illustrates that a law that sweeps up everybody is a blunt instrument. Indeed, the whole purpose of some laws is to say "we can't handle the time, effort and expense of assessing you individually, we're going to make some assumptions".
1. Isn't this how most laws work?
It's how some laws work, but here it is the way the law is implemented that is causing the problem. Implementation has become a blunt instrument (because the government is scared stupid of a press backlash if any child is harmed) hence these 'zero-tolerance' labels, which invariably lead to 'unthinking assumption of worst-case scenario'.
quote:
2. Supposing you had the time, how would that work? How would you properly, and accurately assess?
You'd treat every case individually, and where there are disputes, call in the judge. That's what they are for, IMHO.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
2. Supposing you had the time, how would that work? How would you properly, and accurately assess?
Isn't that what we're discussing. Doublethink has talked about risks of sex offenders reoffending (actual data, based on a significant ensemble of sex offenders, which has been demonstrated to be a more accurate predictor than the opinion of some specialist in an individual case).
I am suggesting that, while I believe those numbers as far as they go, that they might combine into one class people who are at increased risk of committing future sexual offenses (and so perhaps should be banned from being around children) with people who might not be (the "John" in LeRoc's tale).
So I am suggesting that further studies should be done to try to separate the "John" people from the dangerous people, so that we're not inflicting unnecessary punishment on John. As far as we know (and Doublethink is a professional, whereas I am a guy on the sidelines throwing peanuts), such studies have not been done, so we're speculating.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
2. Supposing you had the time, how would that work? How would you properly, and accurately assess?
You'd treat every case individually, and where there are disputes, call in the judge. That's what they are for, IMHO.
That's not an answer. That's passing the buck. It just means that we rephrase lilBuddha's question as "How should the judge properly and accurately assess?"
And no, you can't say "he takes advice from experts" or we just go round again.
The data (see Doublethink's posts, and the papers that she refers to) indicate that asking whether, statistically, someone looks like a repeat sex offender is a more accurate predictor of repeat sexual offending than an expert's opinion of whether it's likely.
This tells you that overriding the statistical predictor should be both rare and use only information that isn't considered by the predictor.
I suggest that being LeRoc's "John" might be one such piece of information.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Ideally, risk assessment should include actuarial *and* dynamic risk assessment together with structured professional judgement - but we do not have, or have any realistic prospect of obtaining, the resources to provide that level of assessment in every case.
Probation, community sentences and the sex offender register are all partly concerned with managing the risk of people who *have already shown themselves* to present an elevated level of risk compared to non offenders. There are already multiple formal and informal filters that act to screen out less risky people before they get to court. So the folk already convicted are highly selected subset of the population.
[ 25. January 2015, 18:03: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Probation, community sentences and the sex offender register are all partly concerned with managing the risk of people who *have already shown themselves* to present an elevated level of risk compared to non offenders. There are already multiple formal and informal filters that act to screen out less risky people before they get to court. So the folk already convicted are highly selected subset of the population.
It is a point worth emphasising. Those people who have been charged, convicted and sentenced to prison time for sexual offences are (barring a very few exceptions) those who pose a great risk to the public.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
The research Doublethink. cited doesn't give us much information here. Are they talking about Jacks or Johns, or are they lumping them together?
The way it works in the Netherlands, is that it first depends on Jane's parents. Since she is between 12 and 15, different from other crimes, they are the only ones who can report this. If they choose not to report (for example because they think Jane's boyfriend really is a John), then no crime has happened.
Next in line is the judge. She has a lot of leeway. Basically what she tries to do is decide whether she is dealing with a Jack or with a John here. I guess she'll use various information sources at her disposal: interviewing the people involved, asking for the opinion of professionals ...
I have the feeling that this works. And that the system isn't overburdened.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It is a point worth emphasising. Those people who have been charged, convicted and sentenced to prison time for sexual offences are (barring a very few exceptions) those who pose a great risk to the public.
Not quite so fast. Those with superior social skills, with the ability to exert influence, and have never been caught, may pose a great risk. Hence various professionals with very lengthy histories of sexual assault whose lengthy history only comes to light once one person has come forward, which then allows other penguins to jump off the ice berg into the sea, hoping to avoid the legal sharks who lie in wait in order to secondarily traumatize the victims. We only hear of a few of these unfortunately, with epidemiological information informing us that most victims never come forward.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Does this affect family members other than partners?
A couple of years after my son left cubs, his former cub scout leader was caught up in a swoop on people who had downloaded indecent images of children. It was quickly established, from the timing of the downloads, that it hadn't been him, but had been his father who had access to his computer. The police followed it up, as they were concerned that the father also had access to routine admin stored on the computer about the cubs - names / addresses / d.o.b.s etc, but the police reassured parents that there was no issue re the cubs.
Hypothetically, had the son been a teacher (he wasn't) would he have to leave home to keep his job? Would a 16 year old doing a college course in childcare be able to live at home if his / her father had been convicted of downloading indecent images? Would a nineteen year old doing a degree in education be able to go home over the summer holidays and continue to use his / her parental address as their postal address?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Probation, community sentences and the sex offender register are all partly concerned with managing the risk of people who *have already shown themselves* to present an elevated level of risk compared to non offenders.
This is circular. The question (in the case of LeRoc's John, for example) is whether someone who has committed a sexual offence (in this case, being 18 with a 15-year-old girlfriend) presents an elevated risk of future offending compared to non-offenders.
You can't answer that by saying "he's just been prosecuted for underage sex - he's already done it."
The question is answered in the affirmative, in the general case, by comparing the recidivism rates for sexual offenders with the incidence of sexual offending in the wider population.
The open question is whether this is still true in the specific case of a "John".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
On actuarial measures of risk the answer would be yes he does. The biggest predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.
Both Jack and John have already done something harmful - in which they have placed their own needs and desires above the welfare of the person they profess afection for, and above the law.
Early first age of intercourse is associated with various life disadvantages and that is before you start to talk about the attachment issues. In addition, the girls most likely to have early sex tend to have other vulnerabilites around them.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Data suggests child protection in the Netherlands is not impressive given the relative wealth of the country - this being based on percentage of child deaths owing to child maltreatment - though not as bad as the USA.
(I was astonished the first dutch national prevalence study wasn't conducted untill 2005. They are currently conducting awareness campaigns etc so figures will rise for non-fatal abuse.)
[ 25. January 2015, 20:12: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
On actuarial measures of risk the answer would be yes he does. The biggest predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.
This whole discussion centres on whether this actuarial average, which we all agree holds on average in the general case, is also true in the "John" case. And, so far as you have said, and so far as I have been able to find, nobody knows. All the studies everyone has done have lumped John in with a larger class of sex offenders and found an increased propensity to future offending (which would be true whether or not Johns were at elevated future risk, because we all agree that the rest of the sex offenders are.)
The studies have placed John in the class "sex offenders" because he has been convicted of a sexual offence. The question, which so far as I know has not been answered, is whether John's future behaviour will match that of class "Sex Offender" or that of class "Randy Teenager".
Or whether an 18-year-old shagging a 15-year-old is at greater risk of future sexual offending than a 15-year-old shagging a 15-year-old.
None of this has anything to do with whether 15-year-old sex is a good idea, or should be condoned, or anything like that, and none of this has anything to do with whether John should face punishment for having illegal sex.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The way it works in the Netherlands, is that it first depends on Jane's parents. Since she is between 12 and 15, different from other crimes, they are the only ones who can report this. If they choose not to report (for example because they think Jane's boyfriend really is a John), then no crime has happened.
Next in line is the judge. She has a lot of leeway. Basically what she tries to do is decide whether she is dealing with a Jack or with a John here. I guess she'll use various information sources at her disposal: interviewing the people involved, asking for the opinion of professionals ...
I have trouble with your repeated comment that without reporting, no crime has been committed. On the facts you base the comments, a crime has been committed, simply not reported.
Your suggestion that a judge may go around informing herself for her own information sources, and also interview people, does not fit at all into the legal system in England, and those countries whose legal systems derive from the English. A judge acts on the evidence presented in a court. A children's court can operate more informally than one for adults, but most here would see a judge's collecting and acting upon material independently as dangerous and a denial of procedural fairness.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
There's a thing called the "nomothetic fallacy" (ecological inference fallacy) which should caution making inferences about individuals because of the group to which they belong. Notwithstanding that the first author of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (link is to a book review of it and a couple others, a good summary of the issues) has suggested that 'individual differences are the least interesting thing about people' (I have the book). This PDF contains the actuarial rating scheme used in Canada for federal risk assessment on page 26, though it may be revised, the link is dated 2002.
Although an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old may be a sex crime, to make inferences that the 18 year is at risk for other sexual misconduct may be simply false. In Canada, I have observed that the parents generally drive the report and police investigation, and once investigated, if the 15 year old appears to have given consent, it isn't prosecuted. If it was, judges take discretion sometimes to not register the person as a sex offender nor to order the sample of DNA to be collected and put in the database.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
2. Supposing you had the time, how would that work? How would you properly, and accurately assess?
You'd treat every case individually, and where there are disputes, call in the judge. That's what they are for, IMHO.
ISTM, it can be much more complicated in these kinds of cases than other types of crimes, such as simple assault. The victim understanding that they are a victim is often a huge complication.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In addition, the girls most likely to have early sex tend to have other vulnerabilites around them.
And this is one reason why the Jack and John scenario mentioned by LeRoc is incomplete. We tend to think in and either/or framework when the reality is much more varied.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Doublethink.: Data suggests child protection in the Netherlands is not impressive given the relative wealth of the country - this being based on percentage of child deaths owing to child maltreatment - though not as bad as the USA.
This has exactly zero to do with my argument.
quote:
Gee D: I have trouble with your repeated comment that without reporting, no crime has been committed. On the facts you base the comments, a crime has been committed, simply not reported.
No. The way I understand it, it is exactly as I said it. If a teenager aged between 12 and 15 has sex with someone close to her age and her parents choose not to report it, no crime has been committed under Dutch law.
quote:
lilBuddha: And this is one reason why the Jack and John scenario mentioned by LeRoc is incomplete. We tend to think in and either/or framework when the reality is much more varied.
Duh. I'm writing a post on a bulletin board. Of course it's simplified and incomplete.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
