 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
OEP 
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | Kingswood, I reckon age of consent laws exist for a very good reason, and as OEP says, there always has to be a cut-off somewhere. Few people know this, but the minimum 'age of consent' is actually 10 in Australia - provided that the other party is no more than 2 years older - and that continues up until the age of 16 or 17, depending on which state you're in. In every state except South Australia and Tasmania, 16 is the basic age of consent - a 16 year old can have sex with anybody, as long as they are not in an authority role (e.g. teachers, step-parents, coaches). I almost wonder if the age should be raised, as I tend to think that a 16 year old these days is far more mentally immature than a 16 year old would have been 50 or 100 years ago.
As for the child beauty contests, I don't think the parents (the organisers may be a different matter) have paedophilic tendencies, I think they're just mindblowingly stupid. Why would you actively participate in the sexualisation of your child? Not to mention the skewed ideas of body image and 'beauty' that such an event encourages. The tabloid media can be so hysterical about protection of children (the Henson incident was its nadir, in my opinion), yet why don't we hear more about this warped, borderline insane eroticisation of children over in America?
Sorry rocketronnie, I'll respond to your post in depth in a bit - I just wanted to get these out of the way. |
David where are you getting this stuff from because it's rubbish. The legal age of consent is 18 years of age. There are no provisions under any act I can find that has a defense for someone having sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16.
In the case were one of the party is of 16 years of age but under 18 years of age the accused party must prove they believed the other party was 16 (or older) and that they were no more than 3 years older at the time. It is not a defense if one of the persons was under their care, supervision or authority of the other.
See the attached link for the Criminal Code of WA and read from page 166 on:
http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/pco/prod/FileStore.nsf/Documents/MRDocument:16730P/$FILE/CrimCdActCompilationAct1913_14-h0-01.pdf?OpenElement
To help here's some of the base point;
1. Section 319 (2)(c) - A child under the age of 13 is incapable of giving consent.
2. Section 320 - Child under 13, sexual offences against.
3. Section 321 - Child of or over 13 and under 16, sexual offences against.
4. Section 321 (9)(a) + (b) - It's a defense if the alleged offender believed the other party was 16 years and they are not more than 3 years older.
5. Section 321 (9a) (a) + (b) - no defense under section 321 (9) if the other party was under the alleged offenders care, supervision or authority.
Also if your considering a situation were the persons concerned are married then the legal age for marriage is 18. Parental consent for children of 16 years of age but under 18 years of age was rescinded and now any exception must be presented before the courts for a magistrate or judge to decide, and there would have the exceptional circumstances for approval to be granted (i.e. one of the two requesting parties would be deceased prior to both being of legal age to marry).
Obviously being married is a defense under the Criminal Code (WA) hence the need to jump through hoops to get approval for an underage marriage.
If you could provide a link or some sort of substantive proof of your claim of legal sexual intercourse for a person of 10 years of age or over if neither party is 2 years older than the other, it would make for interesting reading I'm sure.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
 |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Some of them do, I think. Stupid as in unintelligent? Because I was taught to do it. Give me an example of a defense if one of the persons was under their care supervision or authority of the other. What makes it so obvious? Tell me more about your marriage. That's just an academic question. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| OEP wrote: | | David wrote: | Kingswood, I reckon age of consent laws exist for a very good reason, and as OEP says, there always has to be a cut-off somewhere. Few people know this, but the minimum 'age of consent' is actually 10 in Australia - provided that the other party is no more than 2 years older - and that continues up until the age of 16 or 17, depending on which state you're in. In every state except South Australia and Tasmania, 16 is the basic age of consent - a 16 year old can have sex with anybody, as long as they are not in an authority role (e.g. teachers, step-parents, coaches). I almost wonder if the age should be raised, as I tend to think that a 16 year old these days is far more mentally immature than a 16 year old would have been 50 or 100 years ago.
As for the child beauty contests, I don't think the parents (the organisers may be a different matter) have paedophilic tendencies, I think they're just mindblowingly stupid. Why would you actively participate in the sexualisation of your child? Not to mention the skewed ideas of body image and 'beauty' that such an event encourages. The tabloid media can be so hysterical about protection of children (the Henson incident was its nadir, in my opinion), yet why don't we hear more about this warped, borderline insane eroticisation of children over in America?
Sorry rocketronnie, I'll respond to your post in depth in a bit - I just wanted to get these out of the way. |
David where are you getting this stuff from because it's rubbish. The legal age of consent is 18 years of age. There are no provisions under any act I can find that has a defense for someone having sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16.
In the case were one of the party is of 16 years of age but under 18 years of age the accused party must prove they believed the other party was 16 (or older) and that they were no more than 3 years older at the time. It is not a defense if one of the persons was under their care, supervision or authority of the other.
See the attached link for the Criminal Code of WA and read from page 166 on:
http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/pco/prod/FileStore.nsf/Documents/MRDocument:16730P/$FILE/CrimCdActCompilationAct1913_14-h0-01.pdf?OpenElement
To help here's some of the base point;
1. Section 319 (2)(c) - A child under the age of 13 is incapable of giving consent.
2. Section 320 - Child under 13, sexual offences against.
3. Section 321 - Child of or over 13 and under 16, sexual offences against.
4. Section 321 (9)(a) + (b) - It's a defense if the alleged offender believed the other party was 16 years and they are not more than 3 years older.
5. Section 321 (9a) (a) + (b) - no defense under section 321 (9) if the other party was under the alleged offenders care, supervision or authority.
Also if your considering a situation were the persons concerned are married then the legal age for marriage is 18. Parental consent for children of 16 years of age but under 18 years of age was rescinded and now any exception must be presented before the courts for a magistrate or judge to decide, and there would have the exceptional circumstances for approval to be granted (i.e. one of the two requesting parties would be deceased prior to both being of legal age to marry).
Obviously being married is a defense under the Criminal Code (WA) hence the need to jump through hoops to get approval for an underage marriage.
If you could provide a link or some sort of substantive proof of your claim of legal sexual intercourse for a person of 10 years of age or over if neither party is 2 years older than the other, it would make for interesting reading I'm sure. |
We've raised this before in another thread.
http://www.childwise.net/downloads/Age_of_consent.pdf |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You've completely missed my point. I was commenting on your incorrect "age of consent" statement regarding the age actually being 10 years of age if neither party is two years older than th more the other.
This is not the case in any state or territory in Australia.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Why do you always enter these debates so late, RR? LOL
That's a great run-down of psychology in practice, thanks. And it definitely facilitates informed reasoning. (However, I don't think anyone has "blatantly misused" any information).
I believe what you've said totally reinforces the medical view even if it is viscerally difficult to view the perpetrators that way. The whole set of deceit and manipulation behaviors are classified as characteristics of disorders in other cases, while the infantile sexuality, history of abuse, etc. reinforce this, so I'm not sure what makes this different apart from its detestable nature. The fact the perpetrator actually reasons their behaviour is normal and society is misguided is evidence of significant delusion. Moreover, we have no problem accepting the distorted pleasure feedback mechanism as a malfunction when it comes to say drug addiction and gambling, so why not in this case?
It goes without saying that strong measures are required to contain offenders and protect children. But we also have an obligation to treat offenders, unless of course treatment itself genuinely does worsen the rate of offence.
I also still don't believe in thought crime, however vile and antisocial a thought, simply because policing it would lead to state violence and abuse of monumental proportions. However, I definitely believe in early medical intervention of a forceful nature to stop antisocial thought becoming crime, though the history of such medical interventions themselves is a litany of shocking abuses.
As far as I know what I'm outlining here is nothing new; I've read such ideas numerous times in relation to discussions of "the criminal gene". |
|
|
|
|
tcnthat
Joined: 25 Jun 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Some great insights RR, thanks.
_________________
Black. White. Forever. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| OEP wrote: | You've completely missed my point. I was commenting on your incorrect "age of consent" statement regarding the age actually being 10 years of age if neither party is two years older than th more the other.
This is not the case in any state or territory in Australia. |
Admittedly, the ACT is the only place where this is spelled out specifically, but I think we are to presume that it is the same in all other states and territories. This is so because the '2 year rule' seems fairly consistently in place for teenage sex in the other states, and there are no other explicit provisions for sex between two minors, which, as we know, happens frequently and would almost certainly never be prosecuted. Your understanding [that the age of consent is 18] is completely incorrect, so what is your current understanding of the age of consent laws when dealing with people younger than 16?
Edit: perhaps you are partially correct - admittedly, it is possible that the minimum age also differs across the states. The pages I linked to, however, made no mention of it - perhaps it is simply assumed that as soon as a child reaches puberty, the two year rule kicks in. I'm not sure.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | OEP wrote: | You've completely missed my point. I was commenting on your incorrect "age of consent" statement regarding the age actually being 10 years of age if neither party is two years older than th more the other.
This is not the case in any state or territory in Australia. |
Admittedly, the ACT is the only place where this is spelled out specifically, but I think we are to presume that it is the same in all other states and territories. This is so because the '2 year rule' seems fairly consistently in place for teenage sex in the other states, and there are no other explicit provisions for sex between two minors, which, as we know, happens frequently and would almost certainly never be prosecuted. Your understanding [that the age of consent is 18] is completely incorrect, so what is your current understanding of the age of consent laws when dealing with people younger than 16?
Edit: perhaps you are partially correct - admittedly, it is possible that the minimum age also differs across the states. The pages I linked to, however, made no mention of it - perhaps it is simply assumed that as soon as a child reaches puberty, the two year rule kicks in. I'm not sure. |
Oh FFS David, it's not my understanding it's the bloody law not some hypothesis. The LAW clearly states the age of consent is 18 years of age, there are provisions for those having sex from the age of 16 years to 18 years but these are fairly restrictive.
With regards to two minors (under 16 years of age) having sex it would be at the discretion of the Police investigating the incident as to who, if anyone, would be charged. This would again be guided by the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act, and then a final determination would be made on whether a prosecution would be in the publics interest.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm a little confused as to why you keep saying that the age of consent is 18 when the webpages that nomadjack and I linked to quite clearly state that, while the age of consent varies from state to state, it is 16 in all states and territories except South Australia and Tasmania, where it is 17. The only manner in which the age of 18 even enters the discussion is little more than a footnote - that the age of consent is 18 where authority figures (i.e. teachers or care-givers) are concerned. Have you read the links? It also quite emphatically states that in the ACT, at least, the minimum age of consent is 10 with a 2 year gap applying up until the age of 16 - the situation for pre-16-year-old sex in the other states appears to be a little more ambiguous, but it would seem that similar rules apply. Why are we even arguing about this? If you were to claim that the information on the two webpages was spurious, then fair enough, but I just checked the wikipedia page and it reiterated this information wholly.
Why are we even talking about this? It was only an offhand comment in response to what was already a deviation from the topic at hand.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | I'm a little confused as to why you keep saying that the age of consent is 18 when the webpages that nomadjack and I linked to quite clearly state that, while the age of consent varies from state to state, it is 16 in all states and territories except South Australia and Tasmania, where it is 17. The only manner in which the age of 18 even enters the discussion is little more than a footnote - that the age of consent is 18 where authority figures (i.e. teachers or care-givers) are concerned. Have you read the links? I don't know why we're arguing about this. It also quite emphatically states that in the ACT, at least, the minimum age of consent is 10 with a 2 year gap applying up until the age of 16 - the situation for pre-16-year-old sex in the other states appears to be a little more ambiguous, but it would seem that similar rules apply. Why are we even arguing about this? If you were to claim that the information on the two webpages was spurious, then fair enough, but I just checked the wikipedia page and it reiterated this information wholly.
Why are we even talking about this? It was only an offhand comment in response to what was already a deviation from the topic at hand. |
To start, using your sites as a reference:
The ACT Crimes Act Section 55, subsection 3(a) & (b)(i)(ii) state - "It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (2) if the defendant establishes that—
he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the person on whom the offence is alleged to have been committed was of or above the age of 16 years; or
at the time of the alleged offence—
the person on whom the offence is alleged to have been committed was of or above the age of 10 years; and
the defendant was not more than 2 years older."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/ca190082/s55.html
Tasmania's Criminal Code Act 1924 Section 13 states - "Nothing herein contained shall affect His Majesty's Royal prerogative of mercy."
http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=69%2B%2B1924%2BAT@EN%2B20100226010000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=
Section 124, subsection 2 states - "It is a defence to a charge under this section to prove that the accused person believed on reasonable grounds that the other person was of or above the age of 17 years."
Section 124, subsection 3(a) & (b) state - "The consent of a person against whom a crime is alleged to have been committed under this section is a defence to such a charge only where, at the time the crime was alleged to have been committed –
that person was of or above the age of 15 years and the accused person was not more than 5 years older than that person."
that person was of or above the age of 12 years and the accused person was not more than 3 years older than that person."
http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=69%2B%2B1924%2BAT@EN%2B20100226010000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=
The Victorian Crimes Act 1958 Section 45, subsection 3(a) & (b) state - "Subsection (1) does not apply to an act of sexual penetration if-
the child is aged between 10 and 16; and
the persons taking part in the act are married to each other.
Subsection 4(a), (b) & (c) state - "Consent is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) unless at the time of the alleged offence the child was aged 10 or older and-
the accused satisfies the court on the balance of probabilities that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the child was aged 16 or older; or
the accused was not more than 2 years older than the child; or
the accused satisfies the court on the balance of probabilities that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that he or she was married to the child.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s45.html
NSW, NT, QLD, WA, and SA have no provisions for a defense for sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of 16 years.
In short of all the acts stated in these sites only the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 allows for consensual sexual intercourse for a minor aged 10 years and older, if the parties concerned are married.
All the other acts give a defense only if the alleged offender believes on reasonable ground the other person was either 16 or 17 years old, once that has been established to the courts satisfaction then the other subsections come into effect.
On it being an off hand comment, well that ain't going to fly, especially when your claiming as fact that 10 year olds can legally have sex as long as the other person isn't more than two years older. It's completely false and an incredibly irresponsible thing to be writing, hence my continuing strong rebuttals.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| OEP wrote: | | David wrote: | I'm a little confused as to why you keep saying that the age of consent is 18 when the webpages that nomadjack and I linked to quite clearly state that, while the age of consent varies from state to state, it is 16 in all states and territories except South Australia and Tasmania, where it is 17. The only manner in which the age of 18 even enters the discussion is little more than a footnote - that the age of consent is 18 where authority figures (i.e. teachers or care-givers) are concerned. Have you read the links? I don't know why we're arguing about this. It also quite emphatically states that in the ACT, at least, the minimum age of consent is 10 with a 2 year gap applying up until the age of 16 - the situation for pre-16-year-old sex in the other states appears to be a little more ambiguous, but it would seem that similar rules apply. Why are we even arguing about this? If you were to claim that the information on the two webpages was spurious, then fair enough, but I just checked the wikipedia page and it reiterated this information wholly.
Why are we even talking about this? It was only an offhand comment in response to what was already a deviation from the topic at hand. |
To start, using your sites as a reference:
The ACT Crimes Act Section 55, subsection 3(a) & (b)(i)(ii) state - "It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (2) if the defendant establishes that—
he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the person on whom the offence is alleged to have been committed was of or above the age of 16 years; or
at the time of the alleged offence—
the person on whom the offence is alleged to have been committed was of or above the age of 10 years; and
the defendant was not more than 2 years older."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/ca190082/s55.html
Tasmania's Criminal Code Act 1924 Section 13 states - "Nothing herein contained shall affect His Majesty's Royal prerogative of mercy."
http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=69%2B%2B1924%2BAT@EN%2B20100226010000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=
Section 124, subsection 2 states - "It is a defence to a charge under this section to prove that the accused person believed on reasonable grounds that the other person was of or above the age of 17 years."
Section 124, subsection 3(a) & (b) state - "The consent of a person against whom a crime is alleged to have been committed under this section is a defence to such a charge only where, at the time the crime was alleged to have been committed –
that person was of or above the age of 15 years and the accused person was not more than 5 years older than that person."
that person was of or above the age of 12 years and the accused person was not more than 3 years older than that person."
http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=69%2B%2B1924%2BAT@EN%2B20100226010000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=
The Victorian Crimes Act 1958 Section 45, subsection 3(a) & (b) state - "Subsection (1) does not apply to an act of sexual penetration if-
the child is aged between 10 and 16; and
the persons taking part in the act are married to each other.
Subsection 4(a), (b) & (c) state - "Consent is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) unless at the time of the alleged offence the child was aged 10 or older and-
the accused satisfies the court on the balance of probabilities that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the child was aged 16 or older; or
the accused was not more than 2 years older than the child; or
the accused satisfies the court on the balance of probabilities that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that he or she was married to the child.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s45.html
NSW, NT, QLD, WA, and SA have no provisions for a defense for sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of 16 years.
In short of all the acts stated in these sites only the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 allows for consensual sexual intercourse for a minor aged 10 years and older, if the parties concerned are married.
All the other acts give a defense only if the alleged offender believes on reasonable ground the other person was either 16 or 17 years old, once that has been established to the courts satisfaction then the other subsections come into effect.
On it being an off hand comment, well that ain't going to fly, especially when your claiming as fact that 10 year olds can legally have sex as long as the other person isn't more than two years older. It's completely false and an incredibly irresponsible thing to be writing, hence my continuing strong rebuttals. |
OEP I'm putting this as politely as I can but you are TOTALLY WRONG on this.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs16/rs16.html |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | OEP wrote: | | David wrote: | I'm a little confused as to why you keep saying that the age of consent is 18 when the webpages that nomadjack and I linked to quite clearly state that, while the age of consent varies from state to state, it is 16 in all states and territories except South Australia and Tasmania, where it is 17. The only manner in which the age of 18 even enters the discussion is little more than a footnote - that the age of consent is 18 where authority figures (i.e. teachers or care-givers) are concerned. Have you read the links? I don't know why we're arguing about this. It also quite emphatically states that in the ACT, at least, the minimum age of consent is 10 with a 2 year gap applying up until the age of 16 - the situation for pre-16-year-old sex in the other states appears to be a little more ambiguous, but it would seem that similar rules apply. Why are we even arguing about this? If you were to claim that the information on the two webpages was spurious, then fair enough, but I just checked the wikipedia page and it reiterated this information wholly.
Why are we even talking about this? It was only an offhand comment in response to what was already a deviation from the topic at hand. |
To start, using your sites as a reference:
The ACT Crimes Act Section 55, subsection 3(a) & (b)(i)(ii) state - "It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (2) if the defendant establishes that—
he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the person on whom the offence is alleged to have been committed was of or above the age of 16 years; or
at the time of the alleged offence—
the person on whom the offence is alleged to have been committed was of or above the age of 10 years; and
the defendant was not more than 2 years older."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/ca190082/s55.html
Tasmania's Criminal Code Act 1924 Section 13 states - "Nothing herein contained shall affect His Majesty's Royal prerogative of mercy."
http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=69%2B%2B1924%2BAT@EN%2B20100226010000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=
Section 124, subsection 2 states - "It is a defence to a charge under this section to prove that the accused person believed on reasonable grounds that the other person was of or above the age of 17 years."
Section 124, subsection 3(a) & (b) state - "The consent of a person against whom a crime is alleged to have been committed under this section is a defence to such a charge only where, at the time the crime was alleged to have been committed –
that person was of or above the age of 15 years and the accused person was not more than 5 years older than that person."
that person was of or above the age of 12 years and the accused person was not more than 3 years older than that person."
http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=69%2B%2B1924%2BAT@EN%2B20100226010000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=
The Victorian Crimes Act 1958 Section 45, subsection 3(a) & (b) state - "Subsection (1) does not apply to an act of sexual penetration if-
the child is aged between 10 and 16; and
the persons taking part in the act are married to each other.
Subsection 4(a), (b) & (c) state - "Consent is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) unless at the time of the alleged offence the child was aged 10 or older and-
the accused satisfies the court on the balance of probabilities that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the child was aged 16 or older; or
the accused was not more than 2 years older than the child; or
the accused satisfies the court on the balance of probabilities that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that he or she was married to the child.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s45.html
NSW, NT, QLD, WA, and SA have no provisions for a defense for sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of 16 years.
In short of all the acts stated in these sites only the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 allows for consensual sexual intercourse for a minor aged 10 years and older, if the parties concerned are married.
All the other acts give a defense only if the alleged offender believes on reasonable ground the other person was either 16 or 17 years old, once that has been established to the courts satisfaction then the other subsections come into effect.
On it being an off hand comment, well that ain't going to fly, especially when your claiming as fact that 10 year olds can legally have sex as long as the other person isn't more than two years older. It's completely false and an incredibly irresponsible thing to be writing, hence my continuing strong rebuttals. |
OEP I'm putting this as politely as I can but you are TOTALLY WRONG on this.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs16/rs 16.html |
Oh my GOD!
As I have already said, and as the site you've just posted a link to supports, the age of consent is at the minimum in some states 16, in another 17, and another 18.
Those sex acts performed under the age of 16 are not legal, they are an offence, as is clearly stated in every bloody site that has been used to try and disprove me.
The laws that David's quoting / using to prove his point about legal sex between minor under the age of 16 but of or over the age of 10 are defenses to the various sections they are attached to, and in all the cases except one (and that was due to marriage) the alleged offender has to believe on reasonable grounds that the other person was 16 years old, and difference in age between the two was no more than two years.
If they can't do this or if they knew the other person was under 16 years of age they are guilty of an offence.
Read the entire section of each of the acts that are being posted and you'll see that I'm TOTALLY RIGHT on this.
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This segment of nomadjack's link seems pretty definitive:
| Quote: | What if both parties are under the age of consent?
"Normal" sexual exploration
It is a common and normal part of sexual development for young people to explore and experiment in sexual interactions with their peers (Araji, 2004; Barbaree & Marshall, 2006; Eade, 2003). Appropriate sexual exploration is when there is mutual agreement between same- or similar-aged peers, it is non-coercive and all participants have the control to participate, continue or stop the behaviour. If two young people who are close in age engage in a sexual relationship and there is no evidence of a power imbalance or violence, the sexual interaction is not a legal issue (Barbaree & Marshall, 2006). The state jurisdictions that provide a legal defence when the sexual interaction is between two young people close in age (Western Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory) are attempting to find a balance that protects children and young people from adult sexual exploitation in a way that does not criminalise them for having sexual relationships with their peers. |
Anyway, I'm over this topic. I don't care particularly either way and this is derailing what, I feel, was an interesting thread.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | This segment of nomadjack's link seems pretty definitive:
| Quote: | What if both parties are under the age of consent?
"Normal" sexual exploration
It is a common and normal part of sexual development for young people to explore and experiment in sexual interactions with their peers (Araji, 2004; Barbaree & Marshall, 2006; Eade, 2003). Appropriate sexual exploration is when there is mutual agreement between same- or similar-aged peers, it is non-coercive and all participants have the control to participate, continue or stop the behaviour. If two young people who are close in age engage in a sexual relationship and there is no evidence of a power imbalance or violence, the sexual interaction is not a legal issue (Barbaree & Marshall, 2006). The state jurisdictions that provide a legal defence when the sexual interaction is between two young people close in age (Western Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory) are attempting to find a balance that protects children and young people from adult sexual exploitation in a way that does not criminalise them for having sexual relationships with their peers. |
Anyway, I'm over this topic. I don't care particularly either way and this is derailing what, I feel, was an interesting thread. |
Obviously your not or you wouldn't keep defending your stance.
The legal defenses they are referring to I have already quoted numerous times and the other course of action open to investigating officers is "not in the publics interest (to prosecute)", which I have also referred to in a previous post. None of these change the legal age of consent.
The reason I keep rebutting these incorrect statements is because your original comment of children of or over the age of 10 can legally have sex as long as they are not more than two years apart (yes it was a small part of a larger post, but a very important part) needs to be correctly defined. There are juvenile pedophiles in this world and if your statement wasn't held accountable then how would they ever be prosecuted ?
Everything I've done in this thread has been in keeping to the tone of the threads topic - "what makes a pedo a pedo".
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
