I always assumed that for convictions, a minor is deemed to be less able to reason than an adult and therefore requires either leniency or some sort of consideration similar to how the statutory minor age works. Because otherwise, why have a juvenile system at all? If we think that they are young enough to reform, then what is that really saying? That’s saying, I think, that we deem their character and ability to judge right from wrong to still be malleable. That says, we didn’t think they had the full ability to begin with similar to the age of consent.
The reasons for having a juvenile system are similar, but trial as an adult isn’t based on a criminal’s perceived maturity and therefore responsibility and cognizance for their actions - it’s based on a societal need to remove someone who despite their immaturity is committing heinous crimes beyond what the juvenile system is designed to deal with. It’s not a recognition of that child as an adult, it’s simply a way to change what sentencing options are available for the judge.
She committed suicide 3 years later, and there’s no indication that this relationship had anything to do with it, other than her parents word. It sounds more like she was a tragically messed up kid who didn’t get the help they deserved.
However, actual age of consent notwithstanding, someone in a position of trust should quite rightly be castigated and, yes, if the situation warrants it (like here), prosecuted. Your sophistry is irrelevant.
So tell me, you support fifty-something year old teachers having sexual relationships with fourteen year old students?[quote=“AshleyYakeley, post:42, topic:8538”]
I think I might delete this from that page, as it’s not supported by the reference.
[/quote]
Inducing a minor who is less than eighteen (18) to be engaged in
sexual activities is subject to punishment under the Child Welfare
Law. According to Japanese Court cases, " inducing a minor to be
engaged in sexual activities means an act of working on a minor to
have intercourse or analogous conducts ( including oral and anal sex)
with him or her, or with someone else by exering influence on the
minor virually.
It’s a pretty safe bet that the relationship had something to do with her being, in your words, “a tragically messed up kid”. It’s really hard to read this as anything but an adult in a position of authority who should have helped or at least tried not to hurt taking advantage of a bad situation.
Did you read what I wrote? For example, Washington State is one of the many parts of the U.S. where there is no statute prohibiting all sex with children.
Note the key condition “by exering influence on the minor virually”. “Exering” is presumably “exerting”. Perhaps you can tell me what “virually” means? “Virtually”? It rather looks like the Child Welfare Law punishes coercion of anyone under 18 into sex. It doesn’t change the age of consent.
Hey, I’m not saying 13 isn’t way too young, just that that is the law in Japan.
I’m not saying the guy wasn’t a dirtbag or wrong, I was just trying to clarify the use of the term rape. When it’s used on its own, rape implies force and non-consensual sex. I merely wanted to point out that it should be prefaced with statutory.
