Teen sex, is the answer better education.Mature discussion

Anything and Everything about Uplink

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver

User avatar
edd8990
level5
level5
Posts: 1738
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Crewe, Cheshire, England
Contact:

Postby edd8990 » Sun May 16, 2004 10:36 pm

You can't tell youths not to do something. Saying "You cannot do this" to a teenager just makes many of them do it at the first availible oppertunity. Its common Teenage rebellion. Neither can you lecture adolescents(sp?) about this or any other issue - they wont listen. You have to get them to debate the issue, whilst trying to stear it in the direction you want. Until teachers get used to not telling their pupils about the isue, but talking with them about this issue, education will not work.
Deepsmeg
level5
level5
Posts: 6510
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:26 pm
Location: Register 2102
Contact:

Postby Deepsmeg » Mon May 17, 2004 9:36 am

You know what I find funny?
Miss Jones is 15 years, 364 days, 23 hours old.
If she has sex with someone, it will be illegal and iressponsible, etc.
She is immature at the moment and will not be able to understand the implications of her actions...

An hour later, how much has actually changed?
Image
einstein
level5
level5
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 5:23 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby einstein » Mon May 17, 2004 10:09 am

Deepsmeg, this is the problem with laws that regulate social behaviour... they have to use precise definitions in order to create legal certainty in a context where there can be no definites... If in fact the test for capacity to consent to sexual relations was changed to one of "maturity of the individual", then for a start how would that be determined? Is it a subjective or an objective determination you plan on using? If it is subjective - how do you plan on discovering how mature someone is? If it is objective - then you are simply imposing another arbritary standard to the situation.

But more importantly, if there is no definite cut off... it wold create problems with people having sex and committing an offence but not knowing they were. Or, a situation where they would under the present law be commiting an offence but they are in fact not because the younger party is considered mature. There could be no legal certainty, which is at the heart of the principle of the Rule of Law (a central constitutional principle in most liberal democracies)

Law isn't the perfect way to control social relations - but then nothing else has worked nearly as well (other things that have tried: religion, fear, direct rule)...
HairDryer
level2
level2
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Location: UK

Postby HairDryer » Mon May 17, 2004 10:10 am

meh its all too confusing to me...

The law sucks it's not simple enough, why do they have to write everything in riddles?
kitty
JakeMMA
level2
level2
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 6:42 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby JakeMMA » Mon May 17, 2004 12:43 pm

im sure they do it just to piss you off HairDryer :wink:
junkie, crackhead drugged out punk,
sleeping in the dirt and p*ss,
scheming of a better way,
sh*t out of luck, he needs his fix
einstein
level5
level5
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 5:23 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby einstein » Mon May 17, 2004 5:23 pm

Couple of reasons:
1, The language used is an attempt to be extremely precise, to avoid ambiguities (but they really don't do that too well)
2, To keep people like me in business making lots of money - who would really need a lawyer if the law was readable?!
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon May 17, 2004 6:11 pm

What pisses me off is people using legal language and not being clear. Like you said the whole point of all the legalese is to be absolutely clear, yet it seems most of the time people screw it up for various reasons and only serves to confuse and confound things. This also happens with mathematical proofs. Manytimes the proofs are massively complicated even for simple concepts.
Adriac
level5
level5
Posts: 3504
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2002 7:20 am

Postby Adriac » Mon May 17, 2004 11:12 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:What pisses me off is people using legal language and not being clear. Like you said the whole point of all the legalese is to be absolutely clear, yet it seems most of the time people screw it up for various reasons and only serves to confuse and confound things. This also happens with mathematical proofs. Manytimes the proofs are massively complicated even for simple concepts.


I would blame that on not being fluent at legalese.

[edit]
Is it fluent at or fluent in? Whatever works, I suppose...
[/edit]
00010001000100000000101100010111000 10110000100010001100001011111000101 10000100100000111100010000000011010 0001011000111100001000100001011
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon May 17, 2004 11:19 pm

No, its the fact that people write laws and contracts in vague and non-specific ways. Any lawyer will tell you so, einstein just did.
Deepsmeg
level5
level5
Posts: 6510
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:26 pm
Location: Register 2102
Contact:

Postby Deepsmeg » Mon May 17, 2004 11:22 pm

einstein wrote:If you are easily disturbed by words of a sexual nature, please stop reading


s.9(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 wrote:A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved-

(a) penetration of B's anus or vagina with a part of A's body or anything else,
(b) penetration of B's mouth with A's penis,
(c) penetration of A's anus or vagina with a part of B's body, or
(d) penetration of A's mouth with B's penis,
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.



Yes, very inspecific...
Image
Darkshine
level5
level5
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2002 2:39 pm
Location: Southsea

Postby Darkshine » Mon May 17, 2004 11:44 pm

As einstein pointed out, its mean to be very specific and cover up any 'what if?' factors. And like ein also said, that's the whoel reason people train for years to be lawyers - a lwayer isn't somebody with special powers or anything, but someone who has simply dedicated themselves to fully understanding the laws which Joe Average finds complicated and confusing, because as im sure ein would testify (no pun intended) the majority of a lawyers work can be done by simply being fully aware of the legal facts.
It's a difficult job, and that's precisely reason it's so well payed, and held in high esteem.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Tue May 18, 2004 12:08 am

My point was that when laws and statues say things like "expert advice or assistance" they are being far too general and thus the legalese is rather wasted. This type of issue arrises with almost all technical jargon. I see it a lot in computer stuff where technical terms are thrown about just because they are technical terms even though less technical laguage would be more appropriate. I am just saying that if you use technical language you need to use it properly or you are simply superficially complicating something without reason. People have a tendancy to show off by using technical or otherwise obfuscated language to prove how educated they are. However manytimes they either use the languge inproperly or unneccessarily. Adriac has previously pointed out this tendancy with the use of Latin (or mock Latin).

Adriac: it's "fluent in." :)
Deepsmeg
level5
level5
Posts: 6510
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:26 pm
Location: Register 2102
Contact:

Postby Deepsmeg » Tue May 18, 2004 12:17 am

heretay siway othingnay ongwray ithway ockmay atinlay!
Image
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Tue May 18, 2004 12:28 am

That's pig Latin (sort of), silly. :P
einstein
level5
level5
Posts: 1463
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 5:23 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby einstein » Tue May 18, 2004 1:24 am

The purported purpose of statutes being drafted the way they are is an attempt to be concise, and not to leave what a lay person may term "loop holes" - a lawyer calls them "woooooo - that just saved my client a few million or some time in jail!"

However, the fact that 80% of cases before the Court revolve around statutory interpretation is a testement to the fact that no matter how the legislation is termed there will be disagreement in it.

Stews, occassionally (quite often actually) the drafters intend a certain statutory provision to be vague, which allows a general rule to be established and the precise application to be determined by the Courts on a case by case basis. This can be both a blessing and a curse. Take as an example, in relation to any decision regarding a child, "the welfare of the child shall be the paramount consideration" - for a start "the welfare" is very vague... what affects the childs welfare? what should the court consider? While, at first glance (or in legalise/latin, prima facie) this may appear undesireable, it allows the Courts to consider whatever it thinks relevant and consider all the circumstances of the case as relevant. Contrasting this with the position in England which outlines certain factors the court should consider (granted, the last of which is "all the facts and circumstances of teh case" so the positions are not substantively different)....

Basically my point is... ambiguity is a double edged sword. It can be advantageous in certain circumstances, but creates legal uncertanity in others which will be undesireable (best example being criminal/penal law provisions - as the general principle is that a person should be able to regulate their conduct so as to stay within the law (i.e. do anything so long as it is not prohibited, or 'sail as close to the wind' as they wish), this is only possible if the law is clear)

And yeah, einstein would testify that you must know all the facts and circumstances of a case in order to apply the law but this a problem that lawyers, both in training and in practice, must deal with - a lack of all the facts. Most advice a lawyer will give will be: well if this is the case, then this... and if this is the case, then that... until every fact has come to light there can be little absolute certainty in a piece of legal advice.

Lawyers will used latin because it says succinctly in a maxim what would take a paragraph to explain - also most legal systems (Anglo-American anyway... continental is different) stem from the Civil Law (or roman law), and the romans spoke latin! :D Also, there are times when i'll use supra, infra, inter alia, prima facie, etc simply because it is the language I am now trained (or in training to use). It is amazing, if you read decisions written by judges, which are in a very extravagent style, constantly you do pick up the nuances of their writing styles... i suppose it is like anything. Read a quality newspaper - improve your vocabulary.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest