Replies

Continuing on with permitting the behavior after becoming legally able to consent casts the victim in a different light in the eyes of a jury. Whether it strikes you as arbitrary or not, the law is what is being brought to bear, here. If guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, then come sentencing considerations, and that will likely diminish perception of the severity of the damage done to the victim. Still a crime and still wrong, but punishment may be lessened as a result.

So just where do you determine the age at which the victim became legally able to consent? Was it when he was 12, 14, 16?

What you seem to be saying is that a victim of sexual child abuse is at some arbitrary point in time, on one date on the calendar a victim and then magically the very next day on the calendar able to consent and therefore a willing participant even if they are still under 18 at the time and the perp had complete control over them?

So at 8 it was abuse, but then at 12 or 16, he must have come to like it and encouraged it therefore diminishing the severity of the damage done to the victim and lessening the punishment of the abuser? Really? Really?

So just where do you determine the age at which the victim became legally able to consent? Was it when he was 12, 14, 16?

The law makes that determination and the law is what is being brought to bear. That he continued on as an adult legally able to consent will potentially affect sentencing for the crime. It's not what I'm saying, there is no magic. Minor children under the law at some point reach their majority and become accountable adults under the law.

There have been and continue to be efforts to lower the age of consent to age 12. Direct your ire to those who would pervert the law to satisfy their perversions, rather than at me. I'm merely pointing out the implications present.