Unofficial punishment - Right or wrong?

I was reading this article last night, which was brought to my attention on Facebook; it got me thinking - Is it a good or a bad thing that inmates are taking these matters into their own hands?

In my opinion, there isn't a punishment strong enough for rapists/paedophiles. They should be castrated and be given much heavier sentences. I personally think it's amazing what they've done, and I hope he suffered hugely, because of the selfish behaviour he displayed while abusing that 13 year old girl.

I've heard of other cases similar to this and often love to read them, but what are the thoughts of Hexus? Should this be left to the justice system or are these inmates doing us a favour by discouraging such acts?

Well the sentence seemed very light in the first place, and although murder is murder you can't help think some people deserve it more than others.

If it was my daughter he'd done that to I'd be sending that pair a carton of ciggies each at the very least.

Having convicted criminals making moral judgements then being judge, jury and executioner on others cannot be right. i.e. it is a right they forfeited for being there.

Before someone thinks I'm particularly soft on them - personally I'd have short custodial sentence (relative to the violence of the crimes) plus compulsory chemical castration or death penalty.

Yes, the victim's crime was horrific and is rightly condemmed, but you cannot justify another crime on the basis that "they deserved it", it's just plain wrong and a complete failure in the prison's duty of care that this was allowed to happen and I hope that not only the perpertrators are justly punished, but the guards who allowed this to happen are also bought up on appropriate sanctions.

If you start justifying barbaric behaviour on those grounds, you may as well surrender the rule of law entirely, because you'll have lost all moral weight behind it in the first place and are moving back to "might makes right"

I'd far rather live in a country where occasionally, someone gets off lightly or entirely for a horrific crime, than live in one where everyone is forced into acceptable behaviour by fear of horrific sanctions.

As Lucio says - short answer is that trial and punishment is the sole responsibility of the criminal justice system after considering all the know facts which have been established in a court of law, not by a vigilante group informed by ill-informed untested comment on social media.

And this guy was found guilty by said system, as much as I'd like to act like I'm appalled, if I put myself in the shoes of a parent who's child was subject to scum like this then I don't see myself being so lenient.

I agree it's not for other offenders to dish out punishment but seeing as this particular case has already happened I'm struggling to find any sympathy.

It's not right at all. But no sympathy for the victim TBH.
Perhaps the public sympathy for convicted criminals might be a little better if the criminal justice system wasn't full of apologists for subhuman scum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoonigan

In my opinion, there isn't a punishment strong enough for rapists/paedophiles.

---

The problem is that it's a psychiatric disorder. A very serious one.

You can be a paedophile without acting out your thoughts and desires - it's a state of mind, like other psychiatric disorders.

The worst part of it is that it's treatable (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10...e-illness.html), but people are too scared to come forward and ask for help. The sex offenders register is often one of the first points of call, even in cases where no offense has been committed. You probably can't see your kids if you have them, and if the general public finds out....you're dealing with vigilantes at each turn, like the ones above. This is not what a civilised society needs - thugs taking out action on people with mental difficulties.

A real issue here is the perception of paedophillia, as a mental illness. No one wakes up in the morning as a paedophile and goes looking for children. It's as complex as any other mental disorder out there.

If it was Anorexia, the support would be there in an instant from friends and family. The same for being Bipolar. Yet many of these mental issues have very close links to each other.

Paedophilia needs to be accepted as a mental illness and treated before it reaches the point in a person where they will cause harm to someone. If that happens, then as horrendous as the crime is (I honestly think it's one of the single worst things a child / parents / family could go through), then people need to start waking up to the harsh, cold reality of that person being in a situation where they are unlikely to be able to stop themselves and a nonce bashing not being the solution. Much like someone suffering from depression having an irresistible urge to commit suicide, and often doing so.

We need to start treating the symptoms sooner, so society is picking up less of the aftermath of the tragic outcome when we don't.

In answer to the primary question, right or wrong, it's wrong. Understandable, but wrong.

I'm not exactly of the bleeding-heart 'liberal' orientation when it comes to crime and punishment, as repeated death sentence threads will amply attest. That's point 1. Point 2 is that, assuming he actually was guilty and it sure seems that way, then I have no sympathy for the 'victim'. Instead, I'd reserve sympathy for his victim(s), and also for the possibility that his untimely shuffling off this mortal coil just might have saved other young girls from assaults at his hands, when/if he got out of prison which, with a four year sentence/tariff, he presumably would have.

So, presuming his guilt was unequivocal and absolurely certain, then personally I don't care if he was castrated with a couple of bricks, then given a long drop on a short rope. But it MUST be done via due process ... which, clearly, it won't be. While I might find that regrettable, and the sentence a disgrace for his offence, we can't allow vigilante justice. That way lies anarchy.

So .... it's wrong. Unfortunately.

Yeah, it's wrong. The justice system is also wrong in places, messed up, but it's still the right way to do things.

Thought occurred to me today. A society's justice system might provide something of an insight to it's wider perspective and direction as regards the general treatment of its citizens. You may have heard the statement that one can judge a society by how it treats its weakest or most vulnerable members - or that person's character can be judged by how he or she treats those who cannot give them anything. In the same way, perhaps even more so, might we not consider how a society treats those it has an reason (or 'excuse') to treat differently or more 'poorly'?

Criminals are those in society who are considered worthy of some sort of punishment or, one might say, treatment that society wouldn't normally permit.

Might the 'freedom' that comes with the judicial permission for special treatment of an individual - or how we handle such individuals - give us an insight into how a society more deeply or truly views its citizens?

Societies which truly believe in and uphold certain values such as human rights or the value of human life can be expected to see that through in every aspect and area of its existence. Might not any cracks in the framework, or changes to it, be first or most easily viewed in how a society treats its criminals, as well as (if not more than) it's weak or vulnerable (but guiltless)?

I have to agree with Agent. Paedophiles don't deserve death, and it is definitely not down to some prisoners to decide if they do. It is a mental illness - and, yes, we should make it absolutely certain they cannot/will not act on their desires, but death is not the solution to that problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackBeePee

....we should make it absolutely certain they cannot/will not act on their desires....

---

And therein lies the problem...this guy certainly isn't going to do it again though ;)

As I mentioned, I'm a parent, and I'm certain a good chunk of other parents would disagree with me but if this guy did that to my kid, and you put me in a room with him then at the very least he'd be eating through a straw the rest of his life if not worse.

I just want to endorse what Lucio, peterb and Agent have wisely said.

I'm sorry. Rapists. Murderers etc should all be given the death penalty.

I don't care what anyone says, if they commit the crime and they are PROVEN guilty then lethal injection.

Even if you want to use the argument that it's a mental illness... One could argue that the rapist WAS fully aware of what he was doing and he chose to do it because he enjoyed doing it. But if caught he will plead the whole Mental Health issues etc.

I'm sorry but proven guilty, lethal injection. Maybe then those who genuinely suffer from it decide to speak up and get the help but until then the government needs to make a tougher stand on this barbaric act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macman

I'm sorry. Rapists. Murderers etc should all be given the death penalty.

I don't care what anyone says, if they commit the crime and they are PROVEN guilty then lethal injection.

---

There have been many cases where someone has been 'proven' guilty, only for this to be overturned. Many examples of miscarriages of justice can be found from almost any time period.

This is a problem, because you can't unkill someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macman

Even if you want to use the argument that it's a mental illness... One could argue that the rapist WAS fully aware of what he was doing and he chose to do it because he enjoyed doing it. But if caught he will plead the whole Mental Health issues etc.

---

Being fully aware does not mean you're not mentally ill. If someone does it because they 'enjoy' it, isn't that a pretty good example of a mental illness in its own right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macman

I'm sorry but proven guilty, lethal injection. Maybe then those who genuinely suffer from it decide to speak up and get the help but until then the government needs to make a tougher stand on this barbaric act.

---

Well, if you can give us a way of convicting people with 100% accuracy, then we can deal with irreversible consequences. Until then, it's a moot point.

how do you castrate a female rapist and paedophile?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent

Well, if you can give us a way of convicting people with 100% accuracy, then we can deal with irreversible consequences. Until then, it's a moot point.

---

In fairness, there can be such instances - cases where the individual was caught red-handed, in the act, for example. Off the top of my head the only instance of a potential capital crime I can think of is the Lee Rigby murder, but that's not a case of paedophilia, which is what we're discussing, and in the broader scheme of things, if we were talking about rape of children as a capital crime, I think there would have to be a distinction upheld between statutory rape (with a minor) and whatever the technical term is for aggressive/forced rape of the same. If in the future the age of consent gets lowered or raised then there would be all sorts of questions about those killed for something no longer a crime, or those who would then be eligible for the most serious of punishments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macman

Even if you want to use the argument that it's a mental illness... One could argue that the rapist WAS fully aware of what he was doing and he chose to do it because he enjoyed doing it. But if caught he will plead the whole Mental Health issues etc.

---

You seem to be saying, 'you could use the argument of mental illness.. but let's then go on to disregard that as a valid argument'.
Even taking your example of someone 'pleading Mental Health Issues' (ie pleading an illness where none exists*), your across-the-board proven guilty/capital sentence stance means that you are grouping those with/without mental conditions together and as such making no distinction anyway. If I interpret you correctly.

*with the caveat that determining mental condition is far from black & white as per Agent's point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sammyc

You seem to be saying, 'you could use the argument of mental illness.. but let's then go on to disregard that as a valid argument'.

---

Difficult one. You could argue that anyone who wants to have sex with children is ipso facto insane. From a biological viewpoint it makes no sense as there is no reason to do it. Same can be said of surfing.... Double problem of it being a massive grey area where they're probably a bit nuts but also a bit pervy, but entering an insanity plea can result in a much less harsh sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galant

In fairness, there can be such instances - cases where the individual was caught red-handed, in the act, for example.

---

Maybe if you're not relying on witnesses. If you are, the difference in stories you'll often get means there is some uncertainty.

Video 'proof' is also subject to tampering. Even home video editors now can make some absolutely stunning footage which can fool people.

I've no doubt that some cases are pretty clear cut, the Lee Rigby murder being a good example, due to the sheer number of witnesses and the situation. But I think in general, a lot of cases don't fall into that category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent

....

Video 'proof' is also subject to tampering. Even home video editors now can make some absolutely stunning footage which can fool people.

...

---

Fooling an ordinary member of the public, say a jury member, with a casual viewing or two, and fooling expert analysis of the integrity of video with access to equipment, are very different things, though. The former might be relatively easy, but the latter is distinctly not.

But ultimately, as with every death penalty thread, this issue comes down to two factors :-

- what do people believe is right, and/or justified IF guilt is absolutely certain, and

- seeing as it rarely is, when is "beyond reasonable doubt" established.

It's worth noting that that latter is ALWAYS for each and every individual jury member to decide for themselves, whatever the sentence may be. And it's quite possible you and I, for instance, could sit side by side on the same jury, hear the same evidence, and I end up beyond reasonable doubt and you don't, or vice versa.

At the end of the day, for lack of a better term, any jury verdict is both a judgement call (literally ;)), and something of a crap-shoot. Which is why we have 12 people on a jury and, at a minimum, a substantial majority verdict is required for conviction.

Two more ***** I have to pay my taxes to lock up for 30+ years for a senseless slaughter. Everyone in charge at that prison should be sacked for incompetence IMO, and lose whatever pension they've accrued. At the end of the day it's my tax revenue paying these useless ***** to fail to protect their charges. I work in the quasi-private sector and I'd lose my job in an instant if I screwed up that badly.

Sack the lot of them.

Prisons seem to be really overcrowded, and the bullying is a major problem. No one wants the criminal justice system to have to deal with a society in which people believe prisons to be bad places for their long term physical or psychological health (no matter what they may believe this in reference to or for).

I honestly just don't get this. Why aren't they disciplined boring dark somewhat damp hostels, like they should be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rave

Two more ***** I have to pay my taxes to lock up for 30+ years for a senseless slaughter. Everyone in charge at that prison should be sacked for incompetence IMO, and lose whatever pension they've accrued. At the end of the day it's my tax revenue paying these useless ***** to fail to protect their charges. I work in the quasi-private sector and I'd lose my job in an instant if I screwed up that badly.

Sack the lot of them.

---

Prisons are full of criminals. The ones stupid enough to get caught. Large groups of stupid violent blokes locked up together equals strong chance of violence. Locking them up in solitary 24/7 would fix the issue but I'm sure you won't accept that either.

This is shocking, what if they did this to an innocent man who was wrongly convicted? The crime was awful, the sentence he received was mediocre but it all depends on the circumstances of the case, which I know nothing of - what I do know is that people are wrongly convicted of crimes everyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

Prisons are full of criminals. The ones stupid enough to get caught. Large groups of stupid violent blokes locked up together equals strong chance of violence. Locking them up in solitary 24/7 would fix the issue but I'm sure you won't accept that either.

---

It's been proven and is widely believed that solitary confinement does more harm than good.

Although the mental illness aspect of paedophilia has been mentioned, for instance by Agent, it's been overlooked that there are many studies that have shown that if an individual is abused as a child then they themselves are at a very high chance of going on to abuse someone else themselves.

The murdered inmate relevant to this thread did, I read, first offend at the age of 15. I wonder what sort of upbringing he had in order for him to have formed such behaviour patterns so young in life - and consequently, how much was his further offending predictable or preventable.

As for all of us, my perspectives and proclivities could have been so different to what they are, had I received a different set of experiences in early life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeludedGuy

It's been proven and is widely believed that solitary confinement does more harm than good.

---

I doubt it has been proven in any real scientific sense, but I agree it isn't a desrable thing to do to people either. But it would stop them shanking each other.

Prison is a waste of time so I'd get rid of 90 percent of custodial sentences and impose other punishments, including death penalty.

This is the backlash of media interest in horrific crimes. I wonder if it will be more common now that high profile court cases are broadcast on TV. Is Pistorius safe in jail? His court case received a great deal of media attention and a lot of anger has been expressed over the verdict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

Although the mental illness aspect of paedophilia has been mentioned, for instance by Agent, it's been overlooked that there are many studies that have shown that if an individual is abused as a child then they themselves are at a very high chance of going on to abuse someone else themselves.

The murdered inmate relevant to this thread did, I read, first offend at the age of 15. I wonder what sort of upbringing he had in order for him to have formed such behaviour patterns so young in life - and consequently, how much was his further offending predictable or preventable.

As for all of us, my perspectives and proclivities could have been so different to what they are, had I received a different set of experiences in early life.

---

I also wonder just how strong tne causal link is, though? There's a lot of people that suffered horrific abuse as kids that didn't go on to become abusers themselves.

I've seen some work suggesting that certain criminal tendencies have physiological roots that can even be genetic. For instance, if the over-dominance or under-existance of certain neuro chemicals in the brain leads to susceptibility to certain types of criminal behaviour, like violence, or a lack of "normal" empathy, and if you did or did not inherit that particular brain mutation is the determinant. It may be that if you were abused as a child AND have that inherited abnormality, you become an abuser, but with either factor on it's own, you don't.

It may also well be that that abnormality isn't as simple as you do or you don't suffer, but rather a broad spectrum, like autism or dyslexia is a spectrum, and that quite where you are on that scale, combined with the degree to which you were abused, determines how likely you are to be an abuser.

And, of course, if being a paedophile isn't entirely an act of volition, then it adds an extra degree of moral complexity. Do we lock people up because of factors beyond their control, be it an abusive childhood or their genetic makeup? But if we don't lock up known paedophiles, what about a duty on society to protect their future innocent victims from the predations of those we knew were predatory, knew that couldn't help themselves, and could have locked up but didn't?

How do we explain to next year's victims that we could have prevented them becoming victims, and didn't because we were concerned more about the rights of the abuser, whatever the reason they're an abuser, than protecting kids from them?

Personally, I say err on the side of protecting innocent kids from those that have already proven themselves to be predators, regardless of why they are predators. If we can help "cure" predators, great, do so. If not, the kids come first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

It may also well be that that abnormality isn't as simple as you do or you don't suffer, but rather a broad spectrum, like autism or dyslexia is a spectrum, and that quite where you are on that scale, combined with the degree to which you were abused, determines how likely you are to be an abuser.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

How do we explain to next year's victims that we could have prevented them becoming victims, and didn't because we were concerned more about the rights of the abuser, whatever the reason they're an abuser, than protecting kids from them?

---

You are right to introduce the complexity of 'abnormal' behaviour, the aspects of predisposition and the spectrum distribution of various mental conditions. These are complex issues.

Overall, I feel that society should be brave enough to seek understanding and base the treatment of the dangerous ones upon that understanding. I do, though, acknowledge that our understanding of these things is by no means complete.

It's also not about rights of the abuser trumping those of the victim - that could never be just or justified. It is about understanding the abuser so that he (mainly, but sometimes she), is known, controlled and treated as much as is necessary so that the vulnerable are always protected. That is the responsible approach.

Also, as previously stated in this thread, it is the rule of law and not of the mob, that underpins the sanity of our society. It's easy to bray, far more difficult to understand.

Lots of fine empathic words can be said, but do you lock them up or let them out? Or do what i would do which is chemically castrate and electronically tag them? Understanding and sympathy and fine words fluff don't make a jot of difference if an unincarcerated adult is attacking a child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

....

It's also not about rights of the abuser trumping those of the victim - that could never be just or justified. It is about understanding the abuser so that he (mainly, but sometimes she), is known, controlled and treated as much as is necessary so that the vulnerable are always protected. That is the responsible approach.

Also, as previously stated in this thread, it is the rule of law and not of the mob, that underpins the sanity of our society. It's easy to bray, far more difficult to understand.

---

Umm.

What I was getting at was that IF we accept the premise that abusers abuse because they were abused as kids themselves, then in a legal sense, their guilt is questionable. The actus reas exist, but the mens rea? Not if such behaviour is involuntary, and due to factors beyond their control, be it genetic makeup, childhood abuse, or both.

However, if that premise is true, then in the absence of an effective treatment known to work, do such individuals need to be detained because their abusing is involuntary, and if they do it, innocent kids will become victims?

It is, therefore, very much about the rights of those that have been caught abusing, versus the rights of prospective victims not to be sacrificed on the altar of abuser's rights. After all, if their behaviour is involuntary, even if because they were abused as kids themselves, then if released they will re-offend precisely because it's involuntary behaviour and they can't control it.

So, if their behaviour is involuntary, they ought to be confined, albeit in a secure hospital, because they're ill and a danger to innocent kids if not confined.

If their behaviour is not involuntary, then they need to be confined in prison, because of their disgusting offences, and because they're a danger to innocent kids if not confined.

Either way, protect the kids, and lock these people up unless we're SURE they're not a danger to kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

What I was getting at was that IF we accept the premise that abusers abuse because they were abused as kids themselves, then in a legal sense, their guilt is questionable. The actus reas exist, but the mens rea? Not if such behaviour is involuntary, and due to factors beyond their control, be it genetic makeup, childhood abuse, or both.

However, if that premise is true, then in the absence of an effective treatment known to work, do such individuals need to be detained because their abusing is involuntary, and if they do it, innocent kids will become victims?

---

I'm sorry I didn't spot that in your previous post.

I think the premise true for some abusers - but not all.

If you recall, the Paedophile Information Exchange that was around in the 70s and 80s seemed to be led by people who quite honestly believed that consensual adult sexual relationships with children were acceptable. It was never, to my knowledge, claimed that anyone held that view because they felt they had been abused as children themselves - although some had been and claimed that it had not harmed them. Rather, it was a respectable intellectualised position put forwards by respectable, intellectual people.

We live in different times now, although our innate ethical relativism still lives on, and these sort of views are rightly condemned and taken to be totally unacceptable. We have also learned far more about paediatric psychological and neurological development and understand just how damaging such relationships actually are.

Then we have the debate as to what to do with those who could abuse, either because they are damaged by abuse or are just strange. I was arguing that the former need to be given treatment very early on, as soon as any inkling of that sort of behaviour manifests, and then monitored as closely as possible - for instance any child that has been the subject of abuse should be very carefully handled to minimise the chances of them becoming offenders and consistently followed up thereafter. If they do offend, though, they certainly need to be excluded from society, but seen as sick rather than bad, which is why secure hospitalisation and treatment would be appropriate.

Those that just think it's okay to have sex with kids, who don't accept that they're abusing adult/children relationships for their own pleasure and causing almost permanent damage to the child, I think they should be locked up until sufficient work has been undertaken on them (and I'm not qualified to say what that might be) for them to understand the error of their ways and adopt different ways of living their lives so they are safe. This is likely to take a very long time. (I recently met some of these people in the medical wing of a prison I visited in the line of my work - very polite old men who wouldn't have raised any suspicion if you chatted with them over a pint in the local.)

As for locking people up because they might so something, that's a perhaps a bit too dystopian - if a government had such a law in place, justified by paedophiles, they'd soon get the thought police rounding up those who looked like they might be thinking the wrong thoughts !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

....

As for locking people up because they might so something, that's a perhaps a bit too dystopian - if a government had such a law in place, justified by paedophiles, they'd soon get the thought police rounding up those who looked like they might be thinking the wrong thoughts !

---

There's a difference between thought police rounding up someone they believe might be going to commit a crime, and the nature and application of the sentence given to somebody already convicted of having committed one.

In the latter case, the expectation of the convicted person being a danger to society is already, and long has been, an essential factor.

Anyone convicted of murder in the UK gets life. Anyone. No exceptions. But .... only a few are on a whole life tariff. The rest get set a tariff, by the judge, before which (which to revision on appeal) they are not eligible for parole. But when they are rligible gor parole, one of the factors that determine if they get it or not is a (supposedly) professional assessment of whether or not they pose an on-going risk to society. anyone with a life sentence has no automatic right to parole, and if they get it, they are released on licence. For the rest of their lives, if they breach that licence, they can be returned immediately to jail to serve their existing life sentence with no need for further trials, convictions, etc. That life sentence hangs over them until the day they die.

And whole 'life' is mandatory for murder if's available as a maximum for a considerable number of other offences. As, for that matter, are commitals to secure hospitals for those judged dangerous, but not criminally liable by virtue of lack of mental capacity, like "insanity".

Being a paranoid, delusionsl psychopath might not get you locked up, but being one 'convicted' of murder will. And, that mental state might get you commited rather than imprisoned, until such time as you can convince doctors it's safe to release you, which may be never.

If, therefore, a paedophile is unable to control themselves, and is convicted, then it is certainly possible to hold them securely, indefinitely, regardless of whether their offending is caused by abuse they suffered as a child, or genetic predisposition, or both or neither. Whether they act out of volition or compulsion, once convicted, the principle gor detaining them until they are no longer deemed a risk to others is well established, and indeed, pretty ancient.

So again, my view is if they're proved themselves unsafe by abusing kids, put other kids safety first and don't release them to victimise and ruin the lives of yet more. Put innocent kids tight to be protected from predators above that of convicted predators. IMHO.

Quite how it's done, personally, I don't much care. Locked up, chemical castration, intense therapy (provided we know it works) or a long drop on a short rope, I don't care. Just ensure kids are protected from these .... people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

....

If you recall, the Paedophile Information Exchange that was around in the 70s and 80s seemed to be led by people who quite honestly believed that consensual adult sexual relationships with children were acceptable.

....

Those that just think it's okay to have sex with kids, who don't accept that they're abusing adult/children relationships for their own pleasure and causing almost permanent damage to the child, I think they should be locked up until sufficient work has been undertaken on them (and I'm not qualified to say what that might be) for them to understand the error of their ways and adopt different ways of living their lives so they are safe. ...

---

I very vaguely remember PIE from the 70s/80s, though I didn't pay much attention at the time. I certainly noted more recent revelations, missing dossiers, etc. It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of that.

As for "adult" having "consenting" sex with a "child", my only reservation with that is that both adult and child are rather arbitrary lines. And, lines that not only vary from country to country, but within this country, have varied over time.

For instance, the age of heterosexual consent and homosexual consent being different, and certainly the latter changing in relatively recent times .... as indeed did homosexyal activity being legal even with consenting adults. Society changes it's mind over time.

But, child and adult. A boy of 16 and his girlfriend, a girl of 15, who consents but turns 16 in 10 minutes time, is rather different from a 45 year old paedophile abducting and raping an 11 year old child ... boy or girl. In the first case, the girl, being under age cannot legally consent, but it's worlds apart from the second case. I'd suggest, on a superficial look at least, that the first 'offender' is very unlikely to be a risk to society but the second most certainly is.

But the age thing is yet another spectrum. Legally, we're all kids one minute and adults the next. But in terms of the maturity and dapacity to understand what you're consenting to, some mature much earluer than others. Some are probably capable of consenting before it's legal. After all, we don't magically gain wisdom or maturity and the clock ticks past age of consent. Others may still not really be mature even when legally an adult.

About the only thing in favour of our current definitions of child and adult is that it's about the only way a law can work, to draw an arbitrary line.