13% of Pitcairn islanders found guilty of child sex offenses

[Righ]

Challenge to jurisdiction set to ensue

Since this represents fully half of the viable male sexual partners of the island, it could spell the end to the settlement. A further six Pitcairn islanders now living in Australia will face the court next year.

Fascinating history, beautiful island, horrifying sounding life.

[AOFanboi]

It's basically a case of whether the Pitcairnians qualify as an indigenous people which can have cultural practices which are at odds with law (in this case the British age of consent - 16), and whether Pitcairn is some sort of "colony" and Britain should get their hands off because having colonies makes you a bad country.

Age of consent laws are strange beasts anyway, the limit ranging from 12 to 20 in the countries that have them. (Other countries either have laws against any extramartial sex, or have weird laws speaking of after-the-act medical examination or girls getting their periods and stuff.)

If the few inhabitants of Pitcairn think their culture has practiced an age of consent of 12, are the British afraid that allowing it in that remote part of the Imperium Anglicana is going to lead to demands of the same at home? Perhaps: After all, it only took a few screaming tabloid newspaper front pages to lower the criminal minimum age to ten...

[eldaec]

I see this as a straightforward tyranny of the majority thing.

It's not ok to have sex with kids, even if 51% of your population say it is.

If 51% of the population of a US state, or of Puerto Rico, or of the Falklands voted to say it's ok, you'd still expect a higher tier of government to do something to protect the 49%.

[Calantus]

That was one of the arguments used against the trial. It was, however, decided that it wasn't a proper cultural aspect of the pitcairns. The case also contained rape charges, independant of age of consent, so they would still have been in trouble.

And it was less a tyranny of the majority, and more tyranny of the island leader (who is a direct descendant of the mutiny leader dontchaknow) and his mates.

We got alot of coverage here in Aus.

[DarkDryad]

While I think sex with kids is a bad thing dont forget that untill rather recently  People were married and having kids at age 13 and 14 here in the states. My wifes grandmother was married and had a kid by 14.

[Paelos]

A 12 year old doesn't know anything about sex nor should they have to yet. These men took away whatever lingering childhood these girls could have had left, and they raped more than their bodies. This isn't the case of a young girl and a young man being paired up in a marriage. These men were well into the autumn or even winter of their lives.

I don't care if your culture says it ok, because its not. If you want to say that they were getting married in a bizarre ritual, well I suppose you have to respect that. I didn't see that fact anywhere. This was nothing but perverted, unchecked lust, and I believe in a God that will judge them better than we can for those crimes.

[Merusk]

A 12 year old doesn't know anything about sex nor should they have to yet. These men took away whatever lingering childhood these girls could have had left, and they raped more than their bodies. This isn't the case of a young girl and a young man being paired up in a marriage. These men were well into the autumn or even winter of their lives.

Would it upset you to find out that "childhood" is a 19th century phenomenon?  Prior to that you were expected to act as an adult starting at about the age of 6 and were married around 12-13 if a girl and in your 20s as a man.   I'll find the info when I get home, since I read published info and not web info on the concept of 'childhood' and when it developed.

[Paelos]

A 12 year old doesn't know anything about sex nor should they have to yet. These men took away whatever lingering childhood these girls could have had left, and they raped more than their bodies. This isn't the case of a young girl and a young man being paired up in a marriage. These men were well into the autumn or even winter of their lives.

Would it upset you to find out that "childhood" is a 19th century phenomenon?  Prior to that you were expected to act as an adult starting at about the age of 6 and were married around 12-13 if a girl and in your 20s as a man.   I'll find the info when I get home, since I read published info and not web info on the concept of 'childhood' and when it developed.

So was freedom for the slaves.

[Roac]

A 12 year old doesn't know anything about sex nor should they have to yet.

Myself, and most 12 year olds I knew, knew quite a bit about sex.  Hardly everything and not all correct, but it's not like people at that age were isolated from it, or would be unable to deal with it.  It's about that age when puberty starts up, and when they teach sex ed in the schools (~7th grade).  The only real limiting factor to what they know is the reluctance of adults to teach the subject.

Not that I think people ought to be busting cherries at the ripe old age of 12, or that the guys in that article were in any way justified.  Age limitations are in place to protect youth, and I think they're a good idea; but at the same time, don't take that to sell the youth short as to what they understand.  They don't know it all, but often I think they're more aware than adults like to give them credit for.

[Alkiera]

A 12 year old doesn't know anything about sex nor should they have to yet. These men took away whatever lingering childhood these girls could have had left, and they raped more than their bodies. This isn't the case of a young girl and a young man being paired up in a marriage. These men were well into the autumn or even winter of their lives.

Would it upset you to find out that "childhood" is a 19th century phenomenon?  Prior to that you were expected to act as an adult starting at about the age of 6 and were married around 12-13 if a girl and in your 20s as a man.   I'll find the info when I get home, since I read published info and not web info on the concept of 'childhood' and when it developed.

So was freedom for the slaves.

And while the end of slavery is cultural win, the creation of a long 'childhood' as a win or loss is yet to be determined.

There are too many people in the US, at least, who STILL haven't grown up, and they're in their 30's and 40's.  These people refuse to take responsibility for their actions, refuse to help themselves when letting others take care of them is far easier, and then produce offspring and teach them to act the same way.  Frankly, I think there is little physically/developmentally in the way from having a human become an adult at 15 or earlier;  the only issues are cultural, because we refuse to teach children how to become adults, and it's illegal to push them out to let them learn on their own until 18.  

This should not be construed to imply I think what these men did was okay...  IMO, all sex outside of marriage is wrong.  It just causes all kinds of problems.  The lack of maturity on the part of a large percentage of Americans under 40 is a seperate issue.

Alkiera

[Roac]

There are too many people in the US, at least, who STILL haven't grown up, and they're in their 30's and 40's.

The US in particular (other countries/cultures are fighting this on their own battlelines) are stuck on an issue; personal freedom vs social responsibility.  Can't have both.  If we push through either social structure or government an agenda of social responsibility, that will require a restriction of personal freedoms.  If we take an attitude of empowerment of the individual to decie their fate, we run the certainty that many individuals will take irresponsible actions.

And so you get, if we made the subject very simplified, a liberal vs conservative view.  That's not to say that a hardline conservative view is best, since there are negative consequences to tightening down the bolts that much, but it's worth thinking about.  Most Americans highly value personal freedom, so it's a judgement of how far we can take that until the social costs become unacceptable.

[Alkiera]

There are too many people in the US, at least, who STILL haven't grown up, and they're in their 30's and 40's.

The US in particular (other countries/cultures are fighting this on their own battlelines) are stuck on an issue; personal freedom vs social responsibility.  Can't have both.  If we push through either social structure or government an agenda of social responsibility, that will require a restriction of personal freedoms.  If we take an attitude of empowerment of the individual to decie their fate, we run the certainty that many individuals will take irresponsible actions.

And so you get, if we made the subject very simplified, a liberal vs conservative view.  That's not to say that a hardline conservative view is best, since there are negative consequences to tightening down the bolts that much, but it's worth thinking about.  Most Americans highly value personal freedom, so it's a judgement of how far we can take that until the social costs become unacceptable.

I can accept what you say, but I'm curious curious how you'd define social responsibility with regards to personal responsibility, which I feel has no problems with personal freedom.

To me, personal responsibility means I can do what I want, but I should think about the fallout beforehand, and that when I screw up, I own up to it, and do what I have to to make up for my mistakes.

Social responsibility is different than that, I'm curious what your definition is.

Alkiera

[Paelos]

You want to marry a 12 year old, she wants to marry you, and her parents are down with it, then the government can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned.

If you want to fuck numerous 12 year olds for your own pleasure, you can burn for it. That's my take, and I think drawing it into a debate over age of consent is tacky for what happened to these girls.

[personman]

You want to marry a 12 year old, she wants to marry you, and her parents are down with it, then the government can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned.

Hmm - well as someone with a pure pedigree in Appalachian eugenics all I can say is I vociferously disagree.

[Calantus]

You want to marry a 12 year old, she wants to marry you, and her parents are down with it, then the government can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned.

Hmm - well as someone with a pure pedigree in Appalachian eugenics all I can say is I vociferously disagree.

I am confused.

Eugenics was primarily concerned with making sure that certain people did not breed, mostly based on race and disorders, right? Soooo... what does that have to do with whether or not the govt should be able to tell you whether you can or cannot marry a 12 year old?

[Alkiera]

You want to marry a 12 year old, she wants to marry you, and her parents are down with it, then the government can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned.

If you want to fuck numerous 12 year olds for your own pleasure, you can burn for it. That's my take, and I think drawing it into a debate over age of consent is tacky for what happened to these girls.

I agree on the former and the latter.

As far as the age of consent, nothing I said had anything to do with it.  Everything I said had to do with the issue of people growing up, and the fact that we tell kids, 'just be a kid, go nuts, it's what kids do...  be serious later'; and that they seem to have taken that philosphy as the one thing they learn from childhhod, and continue to act that way once they've reached what is nominally adulthood.

Alkiera

[SirBruce]

You want to marry a 12 year old, she wants to marry you, and her parents are down with it, then the government can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned.

Hmm - well as someone with a pure pedigree in Appalachian eugenics all I can say is I vociferously disagree.

I am confused.

Eugenics was primarily concerned with making sure that certain people did not breed, mostly based on race and disorders, right? Soooo... what does that have to do with whether or not the govt should be able to tell you whether you can or cannot marry a 12 year old?

He was being ironical.  See, the key word is Appalachian eugenics, meaning the Appalachian mountains, meaning remote backwater states like West Virginia where the alleged tradition among the mountainous  hillbillies is to marry young, preferably your sister.  So by claiming he has that sort of background, he's saying he comes from people whom you  would normally expect to be all for the kind of thing you describe, and yet he's not.  This rhetorical point is thus supposed to lend added weight to his opinion, in addition to being intellectually amusing.

Perhaps he should have used another word besides eugenics, such as geneaology or genetics.  Eugenics is almost doubly humorous, though, as if to suggest this sort of beheavior among hicks was actually somehow accomplishing progress towards an ideal strain of humanity.

Bruce

PS - I'd love to comment further on this thread, but if I did, people would say I supported raping 12 year olds.

[Alkiera]

PS - I'd love to comment further on this thread, but if I did, people would say I supported raping 12 year olds.

As evidence, I commented in this thread, and others implied that I supported the rape of 12 year olds.

Geez.

Alkiera

[Paelos]

PS - I'd love to comment further on this thread, but if I did, people would say I supported raping 12 year olds.

As evidence, I commented in this thread, and others implied that I supported the rape of 12 year olds.

I must have missed that comment, I can't seem to find it anywhere.

And Bruce showing restraint is good, let keep that trend going.

[Alkiera]

PS - I'd love to comment further on this thread, but if I did, people would say I supported raping 12 year olds.

As evidence, I commented in this thread, and others implied that I supported the rape of 12 year olds.

I must have missed that comment, I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Sorry, a bit of hyperbole.  It WAS mentioned that it was tacky to bring up the nature of childhood and the age of consent in response to an article about a case where some men were being charged with rape.

My comments were in fact in response, not to the article, but to other's comments on it.

Alkiera

[Paelos]

Yeah, I said that, and it is tacky, but I don't think you rape children.

We square?

[personman]

He was being ironical.

Thank you Bruce - dead on target.

[AOFanboi]

If 51% of the population of a US state, or of Puerto Rico, or of the Falklands voted to say it's ok, you'd still expect a higher tier of government to do something to protect the 49%.

Since age of consent in states varies from 14-18 depending on the state, the "higher form of governement" (federal level) seems to accept the states' rights to decide. There is apparently a federal law making it a crime to cross state borders for the purpose of having sex (ie. going from an 18-limit state to a 14-limit one to have sex with a 14 year old), but I don't know if any state would be stopped from lowering to 12 (the age of consent (with restrictions) in Mexico and Spain) - I assume the state's citizens would protest first. (If I understand U.S. laws correctly, states have a great deal of independence in most fields of law.)

An old campaign to raise the age of consent in New York from 10 years shows that the concept is relatively modern as well; and that they are there to protect girls from abuse (at least at the time). For that, they probably work, but again, it depends on what information they have received at a given age, and how "mature" they are. With the sexualization of childhood through MTV and "pornp" artists like Brintey Spears, perhaps they need even more protection than before...

Interpol's summaries of age laws in various countries has all the data. Highest I saw was Tunisia with 20.

[Calantus]

Ah, I knew I was missing something, just didn't know what. Confusion averted.

[geldonyetich]

Oh no, I'm not getting dragged into one of these conversations again.   Unless my desire to spam overpowers my common sense...

Y'know, it's kinda complicated, I've been taking Sociology as of late and this protracted childhood thing is a somewhat American invention.   There wasn't always a time between extreme youth and having to be in education until you were sufficiently trained to join a productive member of the workforce.   It's this time between being a child and a trained member able to support yourself that is considered a protracted youth, and sociologists like to point at American College Sorietys and whatnot with that in mind.   Sex with 18 year olds?  Heck, looked at in some light it's not responsible to have sex until you're in your late 20s or early 30s, because prior to that you weren't really prepared to raise a kid (in case of contraceptive failure or whatnot).

But still, 12 or 13 year olds?  Even if that was common practice 200 years ago, that turns my stomach a bit.   Really, I'd prefer they at least be mature enough to know what they're getting into.   And, if it was rape, that's right out.    I don't care what your culture says: Sex is supposed to be a two consenting rational being thing.  12 aient quite rational enough - I'm not sure if 18 is either - and this article doesn't sound like it was a matter of consent.

[Roac]

I can accept what you say, but I'm curious curious how you'd define social responsibility with regards to personal responsibility, which I feel has no problems with personal freedom.

I think that to some very nebulous extent, everyone has a debt to society; we are who we are because of the culture we grew up in.  Our parent's jobs, our welfare, our friends, etc were all products of society, and that creates an implied debt.  There's no law requiring repayment of course; individuals could entirely sequester themselves or sponge off the world, but it's difficult and not encouraged.  Repayment usually takes the form of being a good little citizen; going to work, paying taxes, not breaking the laws, etc.  

Many of the ideas wrapped up in that repayment are at odds with what an individual may want to do.  I don't think that social responsibility means individuals should work every waking moment; relieving stress (fun!) and spending time with family are essential too.  It does mean that wasting ones life is a bad thing, but it can come down to more specifics as well.  We know from research that the "traditional" family is best for children, and that step parents increase risks in children (there are piles of research papers on the subject from various universities and peer-review journals).  We know there are social consequences to divorced parents, dead beat dads, children had out of wedlock (or more correctly, such children whose parents remain apart), and so forth.

An emphasis on social responsibility would require a conservative viewpoint; sex only within marriage, divorce only in extreme situations, etc.  It would eliminate the elimination of tobacco as a public product, due to the high medical costs involved, which affect everyone (insurance costs get spread around).  However, these attitudes are at odds with personal freedom for many people.  Does this notion of responsibility mean the government should legislate responsibility, and outlaw sex outside marriage, tobacco, or divorce?

That's what I'm driving at when I mention this contest between personal freedom and social responsibility.  We know that certain activities generally (taken as a whole, not neccessarily one specific case) carry social costs.  I think however, that trying to come down too hard on that point would create a larger cost in terms of irate citizens.  People are not, and will not, operate like ants in a colony, each doing their duty for the good of all without thoughts of self.  Conservatives do have a point, but hardline conservatives would want to legislate morality in most/all cases, and that's just not feasible.  People tend to balk at Puritanical restraints, and this type of idealism isn't taking that into account, not to mention the straightjacket it places on our ability to grow.

[Paelos]

That's what I'm driving at when I mention this contest between personal freedom and social responsibility.  We know that certain activities generally (taken as a whole, not neccessarily one specific case) carry social costs.  I think however, that trying to come down too hard on that point would create a larger cost in terms of irate citizens.  People are not, and will not, operate like ants in a colony, each doing their duty for the good of all without thoughts of self.  Conservatives do have a point, but hardline conservatives would want to legislate morality in most/all cases, and that's just not feasible.  People tend to balk at Puritanical restraints, and this type of idealism isn't taking that into account, not to mention the straightjacket it places on our ability to grow.

It can work, but not here in a America. You'd need a hardline regime to get the greater good beaten into the heads of Americans. There is an active tradeoff going on between freedom and responsibility today. The more we have of the former, the less comes out of the latter. Americans today don't think outside of themselves very often. And before you get all huffy about people as a whole, think of cultures in Asia, the Middle East, and some parts of Europe that rely heavily on social good over the individual freedom. Not in an oppressive way either (ie. not a dictatorship). And no I don't think that's the goal for us, because those systems have obvious flaws as well, but they understand the point that unlimited freedom is flawed.

Of course this gets into my whole belief that our American system doesn't work. We tread the line sometimes of giving too much freedom to people who need boundaries to function in our society. We've taken some of the basic principles of our constitution and expended them so much they can encompass almost whatever our hearts desire.

[personman]

Of course this gets into my whole belief that our American system doesn't work. We tread the line sometimes of giving too much freedom to people who need boundaries to function in our society.

But that dynamic is why we're able to completely reinvent ourselves every two generations.

All tyrants start us off on the path of Greater Good.

[Roac]

Americans today don't think outside of themselves very often.

Nah, Americans can't claim ownership of the notion of greedyselfishbastards.  We just incorporated it.

Of course this gets into my whole belief that our American system doesn't work.

Mmm.  I think you'd need to get into a better definition of "work", though we don't have to do that here.  You may have a point in a broad sense, but at the same time, I think it's too easy to just shrug and say "it's broken".

[Paelos]

Yes that's kind of what I'm getting at, the American fear of the slippery slope and the ridiculous sense of entitlement over everything. The moment the government tries to regulate anything, people come out of the woodwork screaming like about personal freedoms, nazis, and inaliable rights. Smoking is being regulated as much as we can get away with but it would be better off eliminated. It has no positive benefits to society whatsoever, and it hurts other people than just those puffing away.

You try and take cigs away though, and people act like you're removing an arm. You can plug in almost any stupid example, just in case cigarettes doesn't flip your switch. The results are the same. Gas guzzling cars, assault weapons, open container laws, nutritional regulations, etc.

EDIT: In response to getting it to "work" our government has to stop coddling everybody. So many people have their own single issue group now railing away at something, and we eventually need to tell the majority of them to STFU. You want spanish printed everywhere cause you don't want to learn the language? STFU. You want to keep shooting out kids and expect the government to front the bill? STFU. You don't want to get off your ass because minimum wage jobs suck? STFU.