Log in

No account? Create an account

It not a joke!!! It is the truth!!!

Giving people what they want: violence and sloppy eating

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
mini me + poo
A fascinating split on the U-18 prostitution question. I can see arguments both ways. Any comments as to why people hold the views they do?

At one point, it was going to be an absolute offence - if the person being paid was 17, you were guilty full stop. Now, it will be a defence if you have a reasonable belief they were 18 or over.

  • 1
I don't see why it should be any less legal to have sex (whether for money or not) with someone over the age of consent but below 18 - isn't that what consent means? That they are able to make a choice about what they do with their bodies?

Yeah, what Val said, also a) the less laws there are the better b) Pat Califia's point about teenage runaways - they are often running away from far worse and they have to get by somehow.

(Deleted comment)
Almost anything sexual with, or in the presence of, an under 13 year old will be an absolute offence, as will inciting them to do something sexual.

I'm biased, I admit. If I hadn't been able to make money (and, more importantly, get food and/or shelter) from sex work aged 16-18, I'd probably have had to do a lot worse.

Hmm - I'm really not keen on absolute offences with no mens rea component. Motoring offences used to be the only place you'd find such things, but I guess that breached the bulwark and this is part of a small trickle at the start of the flood. Now there's all sorts of possession offences and pollution/health and safety stuff too. And now this.

I can see the practical argument for some of these, but as someone with woolly liberal leanings, I really can't let improved conviction rates outweigh the possibility that you could convict someone of something when there is no possible way they could have known they were doing something wrong.

  • 1