It was discussed in an earlier blog that the enforcement of age of consent laws is very difficult and is essentially there as a deterrent. So how does this policy impact enforcement? Well in order for one to get charged for an offence under age of consent laws, there has to be a complaint.
Take this example:
A 14 year old is caught having sexual relations with a 21 year old. The 14 year old is caught by either
- The parent
- A friend of the 14 year old of the same age
- A friend of the older person
Who would be most likely to go to the police with this information of illegal activity?
Most, if not all people would say the parent would be the most likely to file a complaint. There are multiple reasons that either friend would not disclose to authorities, for example, being unknowledgeable about the laws, the perceptions either friend has in relation to sexual "conquests," fear of getting the friend in trouble etc. A main reason that a parent would want to file charges would be to protect their child, most parents (ideally) would have the best interests of their child in mind. An author who conducted a study on perceptions of sex below the age of consent stated this issue very well:
"For the law to be enforced effectively, it is necessary to know the public's perception of the relationship that the law is trying to control. If there is not a good degree of consensus between the law and public opinion, people will not report illegal relationships as crimes and may not be willing to give evidence in court." - Below the Age of Consent: Influences on Moral and Legal Judgments of Adult–Adolescent Sexual Relationships
Many people would not want to file charges especially if they do not see the act as being wrong, so perceptions plays a huge role in the enforcement of this law. The law is meant to protect from harm, but if there is a lack of reporting we must take this into consideration if we want to truly protect those who need it.
L.L.
1 comment:
I've had a quick look over the project, and thanks for putting it together. I have one major problem with the philosophy expressed throughout - a problem that I see as a structural assumption present in most social work.
It is of course very correct (and very easy) to question the treatment of teenage relationships in done with an anti-oppression/constructionist viewpoint such as that advocated by the authors here.
So it follows that if we see sex between teenagers as a "consensual" form that is facing persecution, we should lobby for its exclusion from the predatory model and the punishments it brings with it.
Of course, at this stage, we are OK. The model is accounting for diversity; at least more than the law itself, and that is to be applauded.
But how do we decide that teenage sex is consenting? If, for example, we say that both parties enjoyed the exchange, knew what it entailed and did not "exploit" one another, does this not open the door for further "pro diversity" or anti-oppressive exceptions?
Take for example a (now adult) gay friend of mine, who was having sexual interactions with gay adult men from the age of nine, and penetrative sex by the age of twelve. I am fully aware that he does not regret these contacts and sees himself as an initiator. Looking back fondly on these inductions, he tells me that he is still closely connected to one of these people, and the relationship is on good terms.
What if my friend were to claim that he and his partner should be spared from this punishment because their relationship defied the predatory model? Are you not compelled to deconstruct the dominant narrative and indeed admit that the exception is valid? In fact, considering that just about every historic survey of gay boys introduced by much older males shows a 50-70% positive recall of initiatory contact, are we not compelled to make even more exceptions? If not, why? If we are overriding consequence with some broad-stoke dogma ("cognitive ability", "inequality", etc), surely we are falling on our own anti-dogmatist/anti-oppression sword?
Post a Comment