Children and Rights

[Travis Retriever]

A continuation of this topic Veganism/Vegatarianism
In it, I said I wanted to talk about talk Children and Rights (and by extension) responsibilities.
I'm feeling daring.
I want to relate this to age-of-consent laws (including stuff on the internet; e.g. a minor roleplaying with an adult), and whether or not they are legitimate, and whether or not they help.

What do you think?

[MrBogosity]

If you've seen my video "Fuzzy Logic and the Definition of Species," then imagine me making the same video about the age of consent. It's insanity that at 17 years and 364 days you don't have the capacity to consent, but 24 hours later you do. Another perfect instance, I think, in which fuzzy logic can make things clearer.

[Travis Retriever]

You do make a point.
After all, as Morrakiu told me,

"It was just a jab at the universal application of the non-aggression principle.
But if you want to go deeper....
When is Aisha a person who can make her own choices?
I would say taking her away from Muhammad wouldn't constitute aggression, because I think she isn't developed enough to make her own decisions on such a matter. When does she have that 'personhood'? If she was 18 and Jesus was trying to take her away from Muhammad, it's aggression.
The line we draw (18) is arbitrary."

However, how would this fuzzy logic by implimented?
Would it be, say, if the person is classified as .5 child and .5 adult, would the person...erm...making love to him or her get .5 punishment?
I'm not too confident about this.

Also, what about online activities, where, unless force, fraud or duress is used to get said person to comply, it would (technically, or could technically) be a thought crime, because no physical touching/contact is made?

And speaking of lame laws, I read in Wikipedia that in New York State it is illegal for two 16 year olds to have sex (if memory serves).

[Virgil0211]

Well, what about when people get old and are deemed "unfit to stand trial"? What are the criteria used for this? Would this be a better basis for determining personal responsibility?

[Travis Retriever]

Well, what about when people get old and are deemed "unfit to stand trial"? What are the criteria used for this? Would this be a better basis for determining personal responsibility?

You mean the person who is pressed with charges?

[Virgil0211]

You mean the person who is pressed with charges?

Yeah. I guess I worded it badly. Basically, what I meant was that it might be better to establish criteria by which people could be determined to be responsible for their own actions. Or something. I mean, age is rather arbitrary, and people reach various levels of maturity within that time frame.

[MrBogosity]

However, how would this fuzzy logic by implimented?
Would it be, say, if the person is classified as .5 child and .5 adult, would the person...erm...making love to him or her get .5 punishment?
I'm not too confident about this.

No; fuzzy logic isn't about severity or probability or anything like that.

If a person's membership in the consenting set is 0, then they can convict just on the basis of proving it happened. If it's 1, they can't convict at all (unless it's genuine rape or something).

If it's .0001, then the defense can make the argument that the sex was consensual, but the burden of proof will be high. It won't be much at all at .4999, though. But in this range, it will be a positive defense.

At .5, it's the greater weight of the evidence--which side has the best evidence for or against the person's ability to consent.

At .5001, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but it's not that much higher than greater weight. However, their burden at .9999 would be enormous.

Get it?

[Travis Retriever]

No; fuzzy logic isn't about severity or probability or anything like that.

If a person's membership in the consenting set is 0, then they can convict just on the basis of proving it happened. If it's 1, they can't convict at all (unless it's genuine rape or something).

If it's .0001, then the defense can make the argument that the sex was consensual, but the burden of proof will be high. It won't be much at all at .4999, though. But in this range, it will be a positive defense.

At .5, it's the greater weight of the evidence--which side has the best evidence for or against the person's ability to consent.

At .5001, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but it's not that much higher than greater weight. However, their burden at .9999 would be enormous.

Get it?

Don't worry, I re-watched your fuzzy logic video before posting that, so I knew it didn't have anything to do with probability.  It was the severity of punishment.

OK, I think I got you.
But where would the gradient be located in terms of age?
That is, when does it start to change from 0, slowly going to 1?  How is that to be determined?
Also, how would it work for internet stuff (e.g. the roleplay thing I mentioned); especially if the two are located in two different countries?

[MrBogosity]

OK, I think I got you.
But where would the gradient be located in terms of age?
That is, when does it start to change from 0, slowly going to 1?  How is that to be determined?

I have no idea.

[Virgil0211]

Don't worry, I re-watched your fuzzy logic video before posting that, so I knew it didn't have anything to do with probability.  It was the severity of punishment.

OK, I think I got you.
But where would the gradient be located in terms of age?
That is, when does it start to change from 0, slowly going to 1?  How is that to be determined?
Also, how would it work for internet stuff (e.g. the roleplay thing I mentioned); especially if the two are located in two different countries?

Well, what's the lowest age of consent in developed countries? Maybe we should start there?

[Lord T Hawkeye]

In Canada it used to be 14 but in 2008, they jacked it up to 16.  Why that number?  Who knows...

[Travis Retriever]

@Shane:  OK, thanks for the input.

@Virgil:  I don't know.  It could be an appeal to common practice even with that, maybe.  I would be a bit more comfortable with something a bit more solid in science backing it up.  
I was thinking on average when they start to develop sexually, (e.g. around 12-13ish).
It reminds me of that segment on Penn Says when he talked about "Sexting".

@Lord T Hawkeye:  "Your guess is as good as mine." as Pat Condell would say.