|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 6, 2011 8:45:20 GMT -5
Which explains why the courts keep needing to be reminded "She was asking forit" is not a valid defense for rape. Because there is a Lawful Stupid equivalent for evil as well as Good. I think for the most part courts are past the "she was asking for it" as a mitigating factor these days. Juries, on the other hand... That's pretty optimistic of you. |
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Aug 6, 2011 9:01:58 GMT -5
To drawn a parallel to another possibly-victimless crime, prostitution... Sure, there are some men and women in the industry who are being vicitmized, but others do it of their own free will. (Not long ago, there was a true story going around the ABA about a young lawyer in California who was moonlighting as an escort in order to pay off her student loans.) But saying "well, it's OK if everyone consents" risks woman who are too terrorized by their pimp to admit they are not doing this willingly. So instead, prostitution - even when all parties really are doing it of their own free will - is blanket illegal. Do you honestly believe that there is logic behind America's prostitution laws? Here's a heads up, there isn't. Prostitution is illegal in the US because the Bible says it should be (because it gave Bible-times women more independence than literate men wanted them to have). In virtually all other developed countries, which generally do have logic behind their laws, prostitution is legal. The US's prostitution laws are backwards and based on misogynistic ideas. Here is a map of the places that prohibit and allow prostitution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prostitution_laws_of_the_world.PNGEDIT: Sorry for the off topic rant. EDIT 2: Changed the link to one with explanations for the colours. |
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Aug 6, 2011 10:27:17 GMT -5
I did not know prostitution was legal in Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 6, 2011 11:03:46 GMT -5
I think for the most part courts are past the "she was asking for it" as a mitigating factor these days. Juries, on the other hand... I'm not so sure. Least, not in the US. What does that have to do with a British incest case? Well, Eric tends to speak from legal knowledge based in this country, which routinely infuriates me (The system, not Eric). This seemed like a statement of retardation in the name of legal expediency. Which, again, I blame on the system itself and not on Eric for being the messenger. Just clarifying pre-emptively and all. "It's easier top blame both parties rather than get to the heart of the matter" seems like something a bureaucrat should be saying, not a lawyer. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 6, 2011 11:04:51 GMT -5
I did not know prostitution was legal in Canada. It's not legal, just necessary. Sometimes the only way to survive on those cold winter nights is to pay someone to rub up against you. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 6, 2011 11:18:43 GMT -5
In virtually all other developed countries, which generally do have logic behind their laws, prostitution is legal. The US's prostitution laws are backwards and based on misogynistic ideas. That's a bit misleading. While prostitution is technically legal in many developed nations, the activities surrounding it are often criminalized, making it anywhere from inconvenient to difficult to nearly impossible to actually engage in the practice, depending on the nation. |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Aug 6, 2011 12:30:26 GMT -5
But if we accept this is so, wouldn't it make more sense to determine which party is the victim, and prosecute the perpetrator accordingly, rather than throwing BOTH parties in prison? Yes, exactly this. In a case of coercion, it's hardly appropriate to try or jail the individual so coerced! I get the prostitution example, but even there (perhaps especially there) I feel that such an approach is foolish and detrimental. In that case, the prostitute is a victim, and punishing her serves no purpose. In virtually all other developed countries, which generally do have logic behind their laws, prostitution is legal. The US's prostitution laws are backwards and based on misogynistic ideas. That's a bit misleading. While prostitution is technically legal in many developed nations, the activities surrounding it are often criminalized, making it anywhere from inconvenient to difficult to nearly impossible to actually engage in the practice, depending on the nation. Legal: paying for sex. Illegal: putting one's penis in the sundry ports of entry of an individual to whom one is not married. |
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 6, 2011 12:53:39 GMT -5
I did not know prostitution was legal in Canada. It's... complicated. And more than a little stupid. While having sex for money is technically legal, you cannot communicate that you are offering to do so or looking for someone who is. Loose euphemisms such as 'escort' services can occasionally squeak on by so long as nobody flat out states what the 'service' actually is. Living off the avails of prostitution is also illegal so I'm really not sure what the hell loopholes people have to work through. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 6, 2011 12:56:47 GMT -5
More than a little stupid indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 6, 2011 12:58:32 GMT -5
So, it's legal but it's practically impossible to actually do it legally?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 6, 2011 13:01:27 GMT -5
Pretty much. Same with a number of other countries, which is why Shadoom's link was rather misleading.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 6, 2011 14:47:58 GMT -5
Every civilization struggles with defining the individual's role in relation to society. I am generally more deferential to the needs and desires of society over individual rights: I believe that within certain boundaries individuals have the duty to comport themselves in a responsible and dignified manner. So long as these boundaries do not contradict the "supreme boundary" (aka the Constitution) I most likely will have no problem with them. I am not at all a subscriber to the notion that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want.
That being said, I don't think they should go to jail, and my only concern with making this activity illegal is that it could infringe on privacy rights. I have absolutely no qualms with forbidding public acceptance of their relationship by allowing them to marry. It perverts the long-held conception of what constitutes a parent/offspring relationship in a way that could cause severe mental distress in those participating. I'd be open to considering legitimate psychological research that shows incestuous relationships can be healthy, but I would be wary of allowing society to redefine what is commonly considered part of a healthy parent/offspring relationship.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 6, 2011 15:06:53 GMT -5
Are you arguing criminal culpability, severity of charge, or the merits of the prison system itself? D. All of the above? Plus some bemusement at the tendency for courts to punish the people who appear to be the "victims" of the crime for which they are being punished. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 6, 2011 15:33:55 GMT -5
I find it odd that you seem to think freedoms should hinge on proving that an activity won't cause harm, rather than the other way around. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Aug 6, 2011 15:50:30 GMT -5
... a four-year sexual relationship together ...
The adverb allows the reader to distinguish this from a four-year sexual relationship by oneself.
|
|
