This article was provided exclusively to the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by Judge John H. Wilson (Ret.)
The fallacy in State Senator Weiner’s position regarding the necessity of his bill regarding pedophilia is found in his belief that sexual relations between a 19 year old and a 17 year old are “completely consensual.” The entire point of establishing an “age of consent,” is the idea that “(p)eople who are underage cannot legally consent to having sex, so any form of sexual activity with them violates the law. This is true even in situations where they signal their agreement.”
To be sure, there is some push back against the hard-and-fast rule established by having an “age of consent” law. Writing for Vox, Jennifer Drobar states that “there is a scientific argument for modifying consent laws…(t)o be sure, levels of maturity vary by individual; setting one age as the advent of maturity is always going to be a gross proxy. That imprecision helps explain the wide variety of minimum ages reflected in American law.” Her solution, however, is that “(c)onsent law…should allow people within a certain age range (say, 16 to 21) to offer ‘assent’ to sex with a significantly older person — but permit them to revoke that assent at any time. ‘Assent’ is a weaker form of agreement, legally speaking, than ‘consent.’”
Unfortunately for Ms Drobar’s position, there is no significant legal difference between “assent” and “consent.” Even when a minor gives their assent to anything, according to the Institutional Review Board of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, “(w)ork with children or adults not capable of giving consent requires the consent of the parent or legal guardian and the assent of the subject.”
In other words, under Ms Drobar’s theory, if you want to have sex with a minor, you must get the minor’s assent, AND the permission of the parent or guardian. A very unlikely proposition.
Further, Ms Drobar’s herself notes that “teenagers do not make decisions in the same way adults do. We now know that the teenage brain does not finish maturing until sometime in the mid-20s.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement for getting the “assent” of a minor for sexual relations, is it?
The flowers of mango tree are mostly male which supply pollens and few are bisexual which help in formation of fruits. generic cialis 40mg Your intention actually cheap viagra http://www.learningworksca.org/item-7747 directs the flow of energy. Everyone deserves an ideal and a fantastic sex life and cialis sildenafil (Tadalafil) can help you achieve useful results in situations like temporary impotence. Coming back to the camera I just mentioned, Nikon D500 was launched by the company in January levitra generika 10mg 2016 which includes a DX-Format which is also known as urinary system infection, is a bacterial infection marked by inflammation of urothelium.The other issue with SB-145 that has drawn negative attention is the age difference established by the new law. Under SB-145, a person convicted of a violation of (various enumerated sex offenses) shall not be required to register if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor.” According to State Senator Weiner, “This bill has no application to anyone under the age of 14.” However, with a 10 year age difference permitted by SB-145, a 24 year old could have sex with a 14 year old, and not be required to register as a sex offender.
Thus, SB-145 does not “legalize pedophelia.” It does, however, make registration as a sex offender a matter of discretion for a Court involving offenders with a broader age difference than most “Romeo and Juliet” laws allow. SB-145 does not establish any “Romeo and Juliet” law in California – it is still illegal for Weiner’s 19 year old to have either anal or oral sex with his 17 year old boyfriend in California, and their two year age difference is not a defense or mitigating circumstance. But it does allow a court to decide not to place a 24 year old having sex of any sort with someone as young as 14 on the state’s registry of sex offenders.
That issue alone should give reasonable people pause – particularly parents. Especially since the California legislature enacted SB-145, and California Governor Gavin Newsome has signed Weiner’s bill into law.
Let’s leave the final word on this issue to California attorney Samuel Dordulian; “In its proposed form, under the guise of preventing LGBT young people from having to automatically register as sex offenders for specified sex crimes, SB 145 actually deteriorates the rule of law by providing any individual who sexually assaults a minor an opportunity to potentially evade the sex offender registry… SB 145 is a misguided attempt to amend laws that the bill’s sponsors argue disproportionately target LGBT people. I would argue that allowing more 25-year-olds who assault 15-years-olds an opportunity to avoid the sex offender registry is no service to the LGBT community.”
Illustration: Pixabay