Criminalising teen girls for initiating sex?
We’re a country that accepts a defense of ”Don’t look at me, it’s not my fault, the child seduced me to have sex with her” on Pg 2 of its national newspapers.
“In an age when more teenagers below the legal age of 16 for consensual sex are having sex – sometimes with the under-aged girl initiating the act – are we indulging the girls by absolving them of responsibility for their actions?
Counsellors say that in cases where it is clear the girl is a willing party or even initiated the sex, they should bear part of the responsibility.
Some 310 girls under 16 were caught last year for engaging in consensual sex- a 44 per cent increase from 216 in 2007. In the first half of this year alone, the police recorded 37 cases of statutory rape involving minors below 14 who had consensual sex, up from 21 in the same period last year.
Mrs Chong Cheh Hoon, senior vice-president of Focus On The Family*, said: “Research has shown that for any juvenile crimes or sexual promiscuous behaviour, the chance of re-offence is higher when there is no or minimum therapeutic or intervening actions.” “
http://www.todayonline.com/Comment/EDC091012-0000020/Damsels-in-distress—or-are-they
http://www.todayonline.com/Print/Comment/EDC091012-0000020/Damsels-in-distress—or-are-they (print version)
*Focus On The Family is a US-based fundamentalist group which promotes homophobia and abstinence-only education
Why is prosecuting the child for having consensual the stupidest proposal ever?
I had this dialogue on my Facebook page which i reproduce here:
FRIEND:
OH! yeah, i get what u mean… tho sometimes I wonder if the child is at fault too… i recall hearing of a schoolmate in sec sch whose gf back then demanded alimony from her prev ex bf (she was like.. i dunno 15 or 16 back then?) we suspected they’d had sex n she was milking him for wat it’s worth on threat of reporting it to the cops or sth… n this was like.. more than 10 yrs ago…
MATHIA:
But the whole purpose of the law making it illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor is based on the premise that the child does not have the capacity to consent. These people are not arguing to have the age limit lowered eg to 14 or 12 etc. They are arguing to prosecute the child. To prosecute someone is to presume that the individual has the capacity to consent/decide. Which totally contradicts the original law. Which is totally stupid, because you victimise the girl twice.
What’s being prosecuted now is simply, sex.
FRIEND:
i dunno , cos if the kid is initiating sex… i’m really not quite sure what to make of her. heck! when i was tt age the only thing i was thinkin of was when my fav cartoon will be aired.. not bfs n sex!
Although I must admit adults having sex with kids is totally unacceptable. I know I’m contradicting myself somewhat.. but i really can’t wrap my mind around the whole idea of a young teenage girl initiating sex with an adult.. like… what the heck?
MATHIA :
For an act to be justly labelled a crime, there must be someone harmed by that act. (Which is why euthanasia, suicide laws are so controversial). When a child initiates sex with an adult and gets to have sex, who is harmed? Is the adult? If I as a 30 yrs old initiates sex with a fellow 30 yrs old, and that person consents, is anyone harmed, and is there a crime? No. Because the law recognises that a 30 yr old has the capacity to consent and so there is no crime in consensual sex. Similarly, if a child initiates sex with an adult, the adult has capacity to consent and so is not harmed, but has to be reponsble for his/her decision. In fact under “Sexual grooming of minor under 16 Penal Code 376E.” , the INTENTION of obtaining sex from a minor is a criminal act.
On the other hand, when the child initiates and has sex with an adult, is the child harmed? That depends on whether this child has the capacity to consent. If we deem a 15 yr old incapable, then the child is harmed, and the adult is solely responsible and punishable. That’s the basis of statutory rape. If we deem a 15 yr old capable of consent, then it is law that we must change ie. by lowering the age of consent. We cannot punish the 15 yr old for a law we disagree with.
It simply makes no sense to punish a 15 yr old child for enforcing a law we have set.
I do agree that society should be opened and concerned enough to debate what we should set as the age of consent. I don’t believe that anyone would prosecute a 5yr old or an 8 yr old for initiating sex with an adult. So I don’t believe that anyone would want to do away with stat rape laws totally. We then need to decide where to draw the line. Can a 10 yr old consent? Can a 12 yr old consent? A 14yr old? A 15 yr old? A 17 yr old?
Currently the law recognises 2 lines. Sex with a girl/boy under 14yrs gets the rapist 8 – 20yrs in jail + 12 or more strokes. Sex with a girl/boy 15 and 16yrs gets the rapist up to 10yrs in jail. If we do not think the law is fair, then we need to give reason & campaign for its review.
We also need to decide at what age can a person be capable of being legally culpable under this law. If we say that a 16 yr old does not have capacity to consent, a 16 yr old should not be charged for the same law, male or female
The law also recognises this. If the “rapist” was below 21 yrs old, ignorance of age of the “victim” is a valid defense, but not if the rapist was above 21 yrs old.
Now if the adult actually PAYS the child for sex, then the age of consent is no longer 16yrs, but 18yrs, because commercial sex with a minor 18yrs and below carries a sentence of 2yrs + fine or both.
Reference: Singapore Penal Code 375, 376, 377D
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/html/homepage.html
if anyone reading finds that i’ve interpreted any aspect of the law wrongly, I’ll be happy to be corrected.
Quoting the relevant selections of the above Penal code reference:
Sexual offences
Rape
375. —(1) Any man who penetrates the vagina of a woman with his penis —(b) with or without her consent, when she is under 14 years of age,
shall be guilty of an offence.
[51/2007]
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a man who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
[51/2007]
Sexual assault by penetration
376. —(1) Any man (A) who —(a) penetrates, with A’s penis, the anus or mouth of another person (B); or
(b) causes another man (B) to penetrate, with B’s penis, the anus or mouth of A,
shall be guilty of an offence if B did not consent to the penetration.
[51/2007]
(2) Any person (A) who —
(a) sexually penetrates, with a part of A’s body (other than A’s penis) or anything else, the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of another person (B);
(b) causes a man (B) to penetrate, with B’s penis, the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of another person (C); or
(c) causes another person (B), to sexually penetrate, with a part of B’s body (other than B’s penis) or anything else, the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of any person including A or B,
shall be guilty of an offence if B did not consent to the penetration.
[51/2007]
(3) Subject to subsection (4), a person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
[51/2007]
(4) Whoever —
(b) commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) against a person (B) who is under 14 years of age,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 8 years and not more than 20 years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 12 strokes.
[51/2007]
Sexual penetration of minor under 16
376A. —(1) Any person (A) who —(a) penetrates, with A’s penis, the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of a person under 16 years of age (B);
(b) sexually penetrates, with a part of A’s body (other than A’s penis) or anything else, the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of a person under 16 years of age (B);
(c) causes a man under 16 years of age (B) to penetrate, with B’s penis, the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of another person including A; or
(d) causes a person under 16 years of age (B) to sexually penetrate, with a part of B’s body (other than B’s penis) or anything else, the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of any person including A or B,
with or without B’s consent, shall be guilty of an offence.
[51/2007]
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both.
[51/2007]
(3) Whoever commits an offence under this section against a person (B) who is under 14 years of age shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
[51/2007]
(4) No person shall be guilty of an offence under this section for an act of penetration against his or her spouse with the consent of that spouse.
[51/2007]
Commercial sex with minor under 18
376B. —(1) Any person who obtains for consideration the sexual services of a person, who is under 18 years of age, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or with fine, or with both.[51/2007]
(2) Any person who communicates with another person for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person who is under 18 years of age, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
Commercial sex with minor under 18 outside Singapore
376C. —(1) Any person, being a citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore, who does, outside Singapore, any act that would, if done in Singapore, constitute an offence under section 376B, shall be guilty of an offence.[51/2007]
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to the same punishment to which he would have been liable had he been convicted of an offence under section 376B.
[51/2007]
[NZ CA 1961, s. 144A]
Tour outside Singapore for commercial sex with minor under 18
376D. —(1) Any person who —(a) makes or organises any travel arrangements for or on behalf of any other person with the intention of facilitating the commission by that other person of an offence under section 376C, whether or not such an offence is actually committed by that other person;
(b) transports any other person to a place outside Singapore with the intention of facilitating the commission by that other person of an offence under section 376C, whether or not such an offence is actually committed by that other person; or
(c) prints, publishes or distributes any information that is intended to promote conduct that would constitute an offence under section 376C, or to assist any other person to engage in such conduct,
shall be guilty of an offence.
[51/2007]
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), the publication of information means publication of information by any means, whether by written, electronic, or other form of communication.
[51/2007]
(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both.
Sexual grooming of minor under 16
376E. —(1) Any person of or above the age of 21 years (A) shall be guilty of an offence if having met or communicated with another person (B) on 2 or more previous occasions —(a) A intentionally meets B or travels with the intention of meeting B; and
(b) at the time of the acts referred to in paragraph (a) —
(i) A intends to do anything to or in respect of B, during or after the meeting, which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence;
(ii) B is under 16 years of age; and
(iii) A does not reasonably believe that B is of or above the age of 16 years.
[51/2007]
(2) In subsection (1), “relevant offence” means an offence under —
(a) section 354, 354A, 375, 376, 376A, 376B, 376F, 376G or 377A;
(b) section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap. 38); or
(c) section 140(1) of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353).
[51/2007]
(3) For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether the 2 or more previous occasions of A having met or communicated with B referred to in subsection (1) took place in or outside Singapore.
[51/2007]
(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.
[51/2007]
[UK SOA 2003, s. 15]
Procurement of sexual activity with person with mental disability
376F. —(1) Any person (A) shall be guilty of an offence if —[51/2007]
[UK SOA 2003, ss. 78, 79; WC 1997 Ed., s. 12(3)]
Mistake as to age
377D. —(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and notwithstanding anything in section 79, a reasonable mistake as to the age of a person shall not be a defence to any charge of an offence under section 376A(2), 376B or 376C.[51/2007]
(2) In the case of a person who at the time of the alleged offence was under 21 years of age, the presence of a reasonable mistaken belief that the minor, who is of the opposite sex, was of or above —
(a) the age of 16 years, shall be a valid defence to a charge of an offence under section 376A(2); or
(b) the age of 18 years, shall be a valid defence to a charge of an offence under section 376B or 376C.
[51/2007]
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the defence under that subsection shall no longer be available if at the time of the offence, the person charged with that offence has previously been charged in court for an offence under section 376A, 376B, 376C or 376E, or section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap. 38) or section 140(1)(i) of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353).
[51/2007]
[WC 1997 Ed., s. 140(4) and (5)]
Like this:
30 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
From my FB:
Jolene Tan (http://www.glass-castle.org/) writes:
The entire basis for prosecuting underaged sex is statutory rape; if you charge the underage person you are effectively prosecuting someone because someone else raped them. If one takes the view that the underage person is “culpable” for the situation then the assumption that the underage person cannot consent to sex – which is the entire conceptual basis for prosecuting *anyone* in the situation (adult or child) – disappears. This article is bonkers.
I think it’s because people continue to think of rape as a species of sex gone wrong, or some kind of measure of ‘perversion’ on the part of the rapist or of the quality of their soul, instead of what it really is: a violation of the victim’s bodily integrity. With statutory rape this can be especially hard for some people to grasp because they think if a child initiates something sexual then he/she MUST be perverted and precocious etc. and therefore the notion of non-consent and exploitation gets lost.
I wrote recently (link open to all) about the perversion of the word “Lolita”, which was written very much as a novel about exploitation and the way we ignore the suffering of others in the name of our own private pleasure. The renaming of the child Dolores Haze as “Lolita” was in fact a symbol of how the book’s narrator Humbert Humbert denied her humanity and identity.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=143749308250… Read More
Ironically this name “Lolita” has become a popular stand-in for the idea that some children can ethically be the target of adult sexual advances. I’ve always thought the way this story about cruelty and our blindness to suffering has been twisted in common understanding to mean “TEENAGE SLUTS!!!” is very revealing of how rape victims (of both genders, let’s be clear) are seen.
An endless debate……
“On the other hand, when the child initiates and has sex with an adult, is the child harmed? That depends on whether this child has the capacity to consent. If we deem a 15 yr old incapable, then the child is harmed, and the adult is solely responsible and punishable. That’s the basis of statutory rape. If we deem a 15 yr old capable of consent, then it is law that we must change ie. by lowering the age of consent. We cannot punish the 15 yr old for a law we disagree with.”
1) How do you deem at what age an individual develop the capacity to consent?
2) If the population has a normal distribution with regards to the development of the capacity to consent, whether it is lowering the age of consent or punishing the child, the law will always be inadequate.
3) The politics of the current situation is such that the population either views all forms of underage sex to be undesirable and/or believes that the issue of underage sex affects only an insignificant part of the population.
Hence, no matter how bonkers it is and you can protest all you want, the possibility of “punishing the child” is very real.
Wow, the article really triggered some strong reactions… I sense a feeling of fear – the fear that ideals are being crushed and the population allows it. In a way, this is democracy, frightening isn’t it?
[...] Daily Discourse – The Gigamole Diaries: Singaporeans and the “moving goalposts” – The Temasek Review: Why “No.1” Singapore fails to get No.1 in highest global human achievements – Yawning Bread: Another teenager caught, set to hang – Times They Are A-Changin’: Super Grassroots! – The Grand Moofti Speaks: Singapore’s Underworld – Turning Sharks into Nemos – Tattooed Banker: When was the last time you visited a wet market? – Mathia Lee: Criminalising teen girls for initiating sex? [...]
My 2 cents’ thoughts.
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2009/10/criminalizing-teen-girls-for-initiating.html
I think it is one thing to UNDERSTAND, it is another thing altogether to CONDONE
Just because we UNDERSTAND why/how something happens, doesn’t mean we have to CONDONE it. Just because we DON”T UNDERSTAND why/how something happens, doesn’t mean we have to CONDEMN it.
We might feel we understand what led these children to initiate sex, and how an adult might have felt entrapped, but we don’t have to condone it. With understanding, we can address the issue appropriately.
Likewise, with the other issues eg. how a person can be attracted to another person of the same sex, we might not be able to understand the attraction, but it doesn’t mean we have to condemn it.
CM wrote:
“1) How do you deem at what age an individual develop the capacity to consent?
2) If the population has a normal distribution with regards to the development of the capacity to consent, whether it is lowering the age of consent or punishing the child, the law will always be inadequate.”
I’ll like to hear the rationale for the following contradictions :
21 years old age limit for R(21) movies
21 yrs old age limit for voting
16 yr old age limit for killing someone or being killed in war (NS age limit)
(you can’t vote for the govt you want, even tho’ the govt who comes to power has the authority to send you to war to die)
16 yr old age limit for age of consent
( i can’t understand how people think that we should not lower the R(21) movie age limit, should not let our 16 year olds learn about sex in sch, do not want our 16 year olds having sex, but shoud lower the 16 yr old age of consent)
14 yr old age limit for being given to marriage legally
Explain this to me, someone, please!
Let’s assume a normal distribution in human development (e.g. capacity to consent).
Let’s assume that 80% of the population develop the capacity to consent at age 16.
If the range of age for the whole population to develop the capacity to consent ranges from 12 to 20…
In order to protect/take-into-consideration the minority that develops more slowly, should we set the age limit at 20?
Teen girls initiating sex… Are they majority of the girl population? Or the minority?
If the law, in order to blanket-protect the minority (i.e. people who develop slower), sets an age limit that you deem is too old (e.g. 21), you complain.
If the law sets an age limit that in your opinion is most suitable (e.g. 16), but leaves the minority (i.e. people who develop slower) to become victims, will you complain?
I have already given the explanation… “the law will always be inadequate”.
Yes, I agree. “I think it is one thing to UNDERSTAND, it is another thing altogether to CONDONE.”
But you left out something, it is another thing altogether to put it into feasible action.
Yes CM, I do recognise and agree with you re the difficulties on setting an age limit.
I think we should also remember that a sexuality education program for both boys and girls that goes beyond biology, that also covers the emotional and value aspects of sexuality , that also imparts skills to discern and to say NO, will help build people’s capacity to consent.
In the long run, it also helps build people (men and women) who would be less (reduction, not elimination) vulnerable to abuse.
I wonder why you would want to specifically state that sexuality education is being so fantastic as to help build people’s capacity to consent.
It seems that you are complaining, and not happy (hopefully not bitter) with the state of the current sexuality education in Singapore schools.
No, building people’s capacity to consent cannot be done with a short program (few days?) such as sexuality education.
Since you like ideals so much, the ideal is for parents to spend quality time and quality activities with their children. This will truly build people’s capacity to consent. You don’t seem to mention this very much now, don’t you?
Yes CM, I do recognise and agree with you re the difficulties on setting an age limit.
I think we should also remember that a sexuality education program for both boys and girls that goes beyond biology, that also covers the emotional and value aspects of sexuality , that also imparts skills to discern and to say NO, will help build people’s capacity to consent.
In the long run, it also helps build people (men and women) who would be less (reduction, not elimination) vulnerable to abuse.
P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!
CM, you’re thinking aboout AWARE’s CSE program specifically , while I was not
I was refering to sex ed in general. Which hence also includes your ideal of parents teaching their kids.
I share the same ideals with you, of having parents educate their child. However, I think that for those children without the good fortune of having such ideal, responsible parents, then the education system needs to fill that gap, or else the child will never be educated.
I find it very strange that conservative parents seem to criticise my support for sexuality education when they are saying parents ought to teach the kids. I also find it strange, because I’ve actually got my mom to sit in several interviews I gave, and my mom is the most conservative of christian parents one could ever find. And she okayed what I said. which is amazing.
Probably just means my writing skills suck. Whichi I can fully accept
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/19053-singapore-teacher-gets-10-months-for-sex-with-student
This was a related case, but the other way around.
Do we jail the boy for costing the teacher her career?
A reader’s comment via email :
Interesting stuff on your blog. I was thinking about this last evening. It occurred to me that a teenager is by definition at their most vulnerable just before they reach the age where they can consent. Teenagers will always be curious about their sexuality. When they reach the age of consent they are then able to make a mature decision about what sexuality is and how they want to express that. Before then they are naturally intrigued by sex but (by definition) don’t have the capacity to understand the decision to have sex. These men exploited this child’s vulnerability when she was, perhaps, at her most vulnerable.
Some points I’d like to make, as a teenager just shy of the age of consent:
1) FotF should stay out of issues like this. I’m fed up of their veneer of secularity. It makes me feel paranoid. Yes, they gave sex ed talks at my school once. I still haven’t gotten over my feelings of rage and outrage at the denunciation of homosexuality in those lectures. Particularly as there are a sizeable amount of LGBTQ people my age, whom I know, and who heard that vitriol for the first time, while halfway to coming out.
2) I don’t think the girl should at all be penalised if it was an exploitative relationship with a much older man. No, duh. Evidently a person is at fault for taking advantage of relative immaturity.
3) When there is a closer age difference – when the parties involved are two teenagers, with maybe an age difference of 2 years – I feel there should be an exception from the law, since it was consensual and non-exploitative. (Unless it was non-consensual, in which case we still have rape laws. Except for married women, of course.) There has already been precedent for this exemption in overseas law…
Just some thoughts.
Thank you so much for sharing Beka!!! So happy to hear the voice from the population we’re discussing!
“I was referring to sex ed in general. Which hence also includes your ideal of parents teaching their kids.”
“……then the education system needs to fill that gap……”
I’m simply giving my point as an observer.
MOE has stated that there is sex ed in schools. And now you can even give feedback to them to improve on their program further. If sex ed is “universal” in Singapore schools, then why do you even need to mention about how sex ed in the first place. Of course that is a different matter if you hold the view that MOE’s program is inadequate. And if you do hold that view, eventually we know where it leads to.
Or perhaps MOE’s program is non-existent to you, despite the public announcements?
—————————————————————–
“I share the same ideals with you, of having parents educate their child.”
Well, I’m quite doubtful of this.
Assuming you share the same ideals, this usually/normally translate to understanding the various issues involved as to why we are far from the ideal. However, it seems you do not understand what parents face.
Being a parent, I continually worry about how to guide my children at different stages in their life. Now, is there a national program on child education? Nope.
Now, specifically for sex ed, is there a national program to help parents by providing materials and advice? Nope.
So, even if parents are willing, they need to find time to get the necessary resources on top of the time that they spend to work and activities with their children.
Well, one might argue, material and resources are freely available, it is no excuse. But is unbiased material easily accessible? How about I take material from FotF and indoctrinate every young child I meet? Surely you will complain.
At this point in time, it is an unknown whether having a nation wide actively promoted program/material for parents/married-couples will be effective. Zero statistics. And nobody is doing anything about it.
You have been active in support sex ed for teenagers, which is a good thing.
But the ideal of having parents educate their child? Distant.
The notion of ‘legal capacity to consent’ is in itself vacuous; it really depends on the policy objectives being promoted in a particular context. As regards statutory rape, the lack of ‘capacity to consent’ really means that one party lacks sufficient emotional/sexual maturity to be able to look after his or her own interests when choosing to have sex. The law is thus justified in intervening for the benefit of the underage party. (Of course, the law uses age as an indicium of maturity, erring on the side of clarity and protection of the young.)
It’s doubtful that the law can, after prosecuting the offender for exploiting an underage person’s lack of maturity, turn around and prosecute the minor for an act arising from precisely that lack of maturity. It would also be bad policy, along the lines of prosecuting teenagers engaging in ‘sext-ing’ for possession and distribution of child pornography; criminal law (even if enforced through juvenile detention) is too blunt a tool to respond to the complex social problem of underage sex.
At best, the sexual precocity of the victim, and whether he/she initiated the sex, would count as factors in mitigation (although courts have expressly rejected this kind of reasoning with respect to underage sex).
In any case, I’m not sure prosecuting the underage party was what the TODAY article was suggesting when it quoted counsellors as saying the underage party should “bear part of the responsibility”. IMO, this does not refer to legal responsibility; instead, when the underage party is undergoing psychotherapy or counselling as regards sexual behaviour, a necessary first step is accepting some personal responsibility for his or her actions. This seems pretty uncontroversial.
CM:
- MOE’s programme is largely biological and many aspects are optional,which teachers opt not to teach . THis is ground feedback and the main reason why various parties, incl MOE recognise the need for 3rd parties to provide services to fill the gaps
- CM, get your facts right before making accusations
One of the grouses that Thio’s camp made during the whole saga was our intended plans to develope a parents & teacher’s support programme for precisely this reason.
So don’t blame me if its not in place. Go blame the people who put a stop to it. Go blame the parties who are still able but are doing nothing about it. Go blame yourself for blasting me on my blog and doing nothing about it yourself
Thanks la nausee
Re the interpretation of the TODAY article
Yep I take your point about the angle of the article itself. I do acknowlege the TODAY journalist may be coming from the angle to suggest. I suppose my blog post then addresses the prevalent view, which i know exists, that the girls ought to bear legal responsibility, rather than the actual TODAY article itself in its entirety.
And yes, I fully agree with your reading that it would be bad policy. And yes, also fully agree with you that psychotherapy or counselling would be the way to go — provided this “psychotherapy or couselling” is not a euphemism for punishment, as it is increasingly being used as in schools these days. It needs to genuinely address the underlying causes and motivations behind the teens behavior & address that, with an intention to help, rather than punish the teen. These sort of “psychotherapy or counselling” then has to come from the angle that such behavior is undesirable because it hurts the teenager him/herself, rather than it being undesirable because of some religious belief/ private morality.
Wow, “…get your facts right…”, interesting. I wonder which facts were wrong.
“One of the grouses that Thio’s camp made during the whole saga was our intended plans to develop a parents & teacher’s support programme for precisely this reason.”
Well, Thio’s camp is no longer around, right? Are they so powerful that AWARE’s intended plans cannot progress?
In any case, the programme will still be an AWARE programme. It’s not going to be a national programme.
You speak of ideals and I stated my observations, that is simply it.
Why the big reaction?
“Are they so powerful that AWARE’s intended plans cannot progress”
“It’s not going to be a national programme.”
I wouldn’t use the word “power”
But i’ll just note that it’s interesting how the managment of religious expression has become a national priority because of the impact it can have on national programmes, policy and social cohesion.
But that’s off topic.
Although I find it interesting how, the only counsellor the TODAY could qoute to call it an “offense” was the Focus on the Family counsellor. None of the other people called it an offense. And frankly, it’s only with this particular qoute i’ve an issue with, and not all the other qoutes the article used.
Mrs Chong Cheh Hoon, senior vice-president of Focus On The Family, said: “Research has shown that for any juvenile crimes or sexual promiscuous behaviour, the chance of re-offence is higher when there is no or minimum therapeutic or intervening actions.”
And while I wouldn’t go so far as to say the secular press should not qoute people representing religiously-affiliated institutions/orgs, i think it is only appropriate and ethical that the Journalist makes it clear the qouted inst./org. is religious, and what their religious slant is.
Supposing a 5 year old child throws a nasty tantrum, and taunts his domestic maid to hit him. He knows that adults are forbidden to hit children in his household. The maid hits him. The 5 year old then demands that the maid do his homework, or else he will tell his parents that she him when they return from work.
When the parents return, they see bruises on the 5 yr old. The 5 yr old then tells the parents the maid did it, and from the bruises, and because she was alone with him that day.
The maid’s defense is that the child was extremely infuriating (truth) , and that the child asked to be hit (truth).
The child knew that throwing the tantrum was wrong, and knew that getting the maid to hit him was wrong.
Would you buy the maid’s defense and hold her less responsible because the 5 yr old taunted her? Or are the words of the 5 yr old irrelavant?
While the 5 yr old’s behavior needs to be addressed, would it be rational to punish the 5 yr old by hitting him, or to even hold him as responsible as the adult?
Likewise, can a 15-yr old have full knowledge of the law, and yet not be held accountable?
In order to nail it down as a “crime”, you will need evidence. This is a point-to-point comment, may be off topic, maybe you should use another example.
In reality, people do face such child-maid problems. If our thinking is constrained, we probably spend the whole day debating the issue.
In reality, people do install CCTVs at home to monitor both maid and child.
Prior to CCTVs installation, it is important to create a neutral ground/situation to avoid both maid and child feeling there is injustice.
If there is evidence from the CCTVs, both maid and child will be punished. The severity of the punishment for both will vary depending on how badly the maid hits the child. Note that punishment can come in various forms.
The child has to learn that the maid hitting him is wrong AND taunting the maid and scheming is also wrong. If it takes a few bruises to learn, then so be it. Would you rather the child grow up taunting gangsters? Or become a scheming crime lord?
——————————————————————-
“Likewise, can a 15-yr old have full knowledge of the law, and yet not be held accountable?”
Is there a typo error?
Isn’t this what some people are advocating? To punish those teen girls for initiating sex and using it for blackmail, and to punish the student for blackmailing and using death threats.
They (i.e. those scheming blackmailers) have sufficient knowledge of the law, make amendments to the law, punish them.
As I’ve mentioned, laws are always inadequate. By not making amendments to the law, we get one set of injustice. By making amendments, we get a different set of injustice.
Re the maid, CM
you’re just talking about evidence. That’s a seperate matter. What we’re talking about is when evidence is already in place.
Yes, I agree, the parents ought to teach the child he has erred in his behavior.
But the maid can be charged in court for child abuse
The 5 yr old’s taunting is irrelavant.
The 5 yr old cannot be charged in court for abetting child abuse, for taunting, or for blackmail (getting the maid to do his work or else he will tell his parents)
The maid committed an offense, the 5 yr old did not — his was just lousy behavior
Likewise, the point i’ve been trying to make about the 15 yr old
The adult committed an offense, he can be charged in court
The 15 yr old has lousy behavior, the parents, counsellors etc need to address. But the 15 yr old cannot be said to have committed an offense that can be charged in court, even juvenile court.
By what measures/definition do you use to say that the 5 year old and the 15 year old has lousy behavior? If you use current legal definitions ONLY, then the debate is truly endless.
Due to the severe nature of the law, society will tend to be lenient to minors.
Therefore, society will not create a law to punish the 5 year old. Society does not condone the child’s behaviour, but is simply being lenient.
If the 5 year old is my kid, I would make sure he/she gets adequate punishment to make sure he/she learn the lesson, whether or not the maid gets charged in court.
Due to the inadequacy of the law, I as a parent then take necessary action to educate and ensure the child does not become a menace to society in the future.
“But the 15 yr old cannot be said to have committed an offense that can be charged in court, even juvenile court.”
This simply boils down to definition. If a new law defines this as an offense, then the 15 year old can be charged in court. But again, the current situation happens because of leniency of society and the inadequacy of the law.
Consider this, if the law is so definitive and adequate, why do we need judges?
Why don’t we simply feed information into a computer with a fixed algorithm and voila, the sentencing gets meted out.
If the population feels very strongly that the 15 year old does not deserve leniency, then sooner or later the law will be amended.
Population perception, feelings of injustices, that’s what will cause the law to be amended.
Conservatives say teaching sex education in the public schools will promote promiscuity. With our education system? If we promote promiscuity the same way we promote math or science, they’ve got nothing to worry about. ~Beverly Mickins
[...] Sharks into Nemos – Tattooed Banker: When was the last time you visited a wet market? – Mathia Lee: Criminalising teen girls for initiating sex? – Mathia Lee: Singapore’s Age limits – Only “objective” and “factual” [...]
I just wanna point out something:
In many Asian countries, kids below the age of 16 are allowed to get married with parents consent.
What it means is that at the age of 16, you can get parents’ consent to fuck, AFTER marriage.
But if you fuck BEFORE marriage, even with parents’ consent, the guy can still be charged with statutory rape.
I think it is ridiculous when we try to enact laws that deals with morals. If we want to protect children, make sure there is no other ifs or buts, if not LOWER the age of consent to the puberty age!!!
Trev
Parents, warn your children, teens and young adults!! What you may think is normal underage and developmental consensual sexual exploration and learning, which historically was left to parents to correct and teach, is currently grounds for very serious felony sex offender convictions, registration as a sex offender for life as young as 14, and forced sex offender “treatment”!! And these cases are relentlessly prosecuted despite insane judicial outcomes, ruined lives of innocent boys, teens and young men, and ruined families of these innocent boys/teens/men.
Even the DA in this case stated that the punishment was harsh for consensual teenage sex.
I am not condoning sexual promiscuity, and I want our children protected from violent and sexually dangerous persons. But current and pending sex offender legislation and laws must be changed so that they can only be used to prosecute violent and sexually dangerous persons.
Readers, you may find this difficult to believe, I did at first, but there are kids as young as 10 on the sex offender registry for “playing doctor” no violence involved. Kids as young as 12 for pinching another kid on the butt just joking around, and a long list of teens and young men for “consensual sexual activity” as a result of girls who lied about their age and sought out sexual activity. And men for public urination on the golf course; how many men will this one put on the list.
Again, I am not condoning sexual promiscuity, but what was once ‘petting’ and normal sexual exploration between consenting underage teens is now grounds for “life time registration as a sex offender” as young as 14 both boys and girls. And Government sanctioned Sex Offender “Treatment” Programs, including for juveniles as young as 12, and including cases of consensual sexual activity among peers, are barbaric and abusive!! These programs include the use of:
Plethysmographs – a metalized ring is strapped around a “male” juvenile’s genitals (there is no such devise for females) and they are forced to listen to/watch pornography including deviant sexual activity such as violent rape! This barbaric and abusive device and recordings are designed to measure any signs of arousal and the juvenile is then forced to try and masturbate afterwards.
Masturbatory Satiation – juvenile males as young as 12 are forced to masturbate over and over and over while listening to/viewing pornographic images/recordings, including deviant sexual activity such as violent rape.
Arousal Reconditioning – Originally developed in the early to mid-1900s to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals. Attempts to eliminate sexual feelings by pairing them with boredom, pain, or unpleasantness. In effect, assumes that sexuality can be changed through “punishment” such as electric shock therapy.
The current legislation, although very well intended, has seriously failed the true victims of violent sexual assault crimes and their families! And, it has resulted in what I believe were unintended consequences for potentially >95% of all youth and young adults who statistically could be convicted as sex offenders.
Please, join in the growing effort to immediately bring an end to this insanity before an entire generation is lost and registered as sex offenders.
Legislators, please begin immediate changes to legislation to stop this insanity!
Thank you Slaute for this information
May I ask,
1. Which country’s situation are you referring to?
2. Would you please provide the references for the legislation you have mentioned (eg. Article no. etc)? The urls would be useful as well
3. Would you please provide the references (eg. links to newspaper reports, or at least the newspaper & date they were reported, or police reports etc) of the cases you mentioned, especially “Kids as young as 12 for pinching another kid on the butt just joking around” etc ?
Thank you.