From: niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:06:04 GMT

In <BzJwG5.AsB@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Dec20.062934.11373@u.washington.edu> by tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith):
>>In <BzJ70q.5Dr@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:

>> >What OTHER purpose is there behind ELIMINATING age of consent?

>> Would you care to explain what magic thing happened to me when I turned
>> 16 that suddenly made me capable of driving a car?  What magic thing

>The law magically makes it legal.  Of course there's no magic to it all.  The
>law sets a reasonable age at which you can be presumed to be able to be 
>trusted to drive.  Of course the difference between this and child molestation
>is that there is no organized lobby with the self serving interest of getting
>children to drive before they're ready.

Well, calling it "self serving" is just bad political rhetoric, since
ALL lobbies are self serving; it isn't something special about NAMBLA.

Furthermore, there *are* organized lobbies which argue for more rights
for minors, though I'm sure driving isn't high on their list.

I wouldn't swear to it, but from what I remember about the Libertarian
Party platform, many of the laws discriminating against minors *would* 
have to be altered or eliminated.

Nevertheless, you immediately set up a straw man, since no one is
arguing for getting children to do things "before they're ready."
They're arguing that many people ARE ready before 18, and to set 18 as
an arbitrary cutoff is, well, arbitrary.

>> happened at 18 that made me suddenly competent to decide who I would have
>> sex with and made me competent to vote?  And explain the biological
>> changes that my body suddenly underwent on my 21st birthday that made
>> it able to consume alcohol?  Also explain why on my 7th and 14th
>> birthdays I underwent sudden mental changes affecting my ability to
>> perform intentional torts and beyhave negligently -- and other kids in
>> other states did not undergo these changes.
 
>As you well know (or should) the hallmarks of good law (indeed western law in
>general) are specificity, predictability, and comprehensibility.  What you
>(and NAMBLA) attempt to do is to so diminish (or eliminate) these qualities
>that a molester can "finesse" the legal system, or at least paralyze it so as
>to be able to molest with impunity.  

Not in my book.  The hallmarks of good law in MY book are rationality,
fairness, and respect for individual liberties. 

Is it rational to forbid a 20 year old to drink?  Is it fair?  It's 
certainly specific, predictable, and comprehensible, so by your standard, it
should be allowed.  Of course, not allowing women to vote also is
specific, predictable, and comprehensible.

>> Also explain why the ages for these various things are different in
>> some other countries, with no apparent harm.
 
>Explain to me why other countries allow indefinite imprisonment without
>trial, torture, and rape of female prisoners.

I really don't think he's talking about China, here.  I think he's
referring to places like the Netherlands, though I can't be sure.  And
he did say "with no apparent harm."

I doubt that the countries *you're* talking about allow these things
with no apparent harm.

>> Age of consent is an approximation, intended to protect the average person
>> from harm that they are not competent to protect themselves from.  Do you
>> find it inconcievable there there may be other ways to do this?  For example,
>> suppose a test could be devised that a person could take, and if they pass
>> they are declared legally an adult?  Wouldn't this be better than an
>> arbitrary age of consent?

>I find it inconceivable that an alternative is possible which would protect
>the interests of the child.  That is of course NOT the goal of NAMBLA.  Their
>SOLE interest is the URGES of child molesters.  I have NO difficulty choosing
>between the interests of children and the foul desires of rapists.

Of course not.  After all, there is only One True Way (tm), and if
anyone deviates from it, they must be a child molester.  

"I mean, like rape law.  The only way to abolish rape is to make sex
illegal.  Otherwise we get those fuzzy cases where the question of consent 
comes up.  What if the man gives the woman a lollipop and tricks her
into having sex?  If you don't forbid all sex, you must be a rapist."

Are you really saying there is no possible way to write a law which only
allows consensual sex without forbidding all sex?   The "bribe the kid with 
a lollipop" analogy falls apart, since it is quite possible to acknowledge
that a child can be unable to consent without setting an arbitrary age
for that test.

Maybe that isn't the best *policy* because it might be unworkable in
practice, but that doesn't mean that anyone who thinks it might be
correct is a rapist/child molester.

I mean, that *is* the way they do it for adults, you know.  There are
certain people, who, because of mental retardation and the like, are
unable to consent.  But the law doesn't forbid having sex to protect
these people; it simply forbids having sex with those who cannot consent
as well as those who don't.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc