story
Changing the facts
It's really annoying me now
John-Paul Sartre
- Thread starter Serene
- Start date
It's really annoying me now
Serene
Slightly disgruntled
Ming
I shot a man in Reno...
My favourite. The Myth of Sisyphus helped me through a bad time. I got to him through The Cure (the band)
.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Interest piqued about this paedo letter, so I googled a little. No guarantee this covers everything, but...
1) Some of the arguments put forward in the letter are indefensible. If we can give 13 year-old girls the pill, surely they're fair game (it is insinuated)? What business has the law of going beyond the issue of consent? The letter was drafted by a paedophile (although the signatories did not know that at the time). Makes you think about the value of having "intellectuals", and sort of glad that we don't anymore, in the same way.
2) The letter doesn't actually call for the abolition of the age of consent or the legalisation of sex between adults and children.
3) The law in France at the time was genuinely problematic, because it dealt with sex with minors without the concepts of mitigation and aggravation that you would expect. It seems to have made no difference in terms of sentencing whether the victim had consented, whether the defendant knew the age of the victim, or what the age of the defendant was. Sentences were between five and ten years.
4) Defendants were presumed to be serious criminals and denied bail for however long the investigation took. Two of the three defendants in the specific case were on remand for 38 months.
5) A number of the signatories subsequently clarified that they were not supportive of the legalisation of sex with minors. Although it has to be said that it's pretty shoddy if you have to clarify that.
6) Michel Foucault declined to sign the letter, although he later signed another letter decrying the unequal age of consent and skipping the pro-nonse stuff.
1) Some of the arguments put forward in the letter are indefensible. If we can give 13 year-old girls the pill, surely they're fair game (it is insinuated)? What business has the law of going beyond the issue of consent? The letter was drafted by a paedophile (although the signatories did not know that at the time). Makes you think about the value of having "intellectuals", and sort of glad that we don't anymore, in the same way.
2) The letter doesn't actually call for the abolition of the age of consent or the legalisation of sex between adults and children.
3) The law in France at the time was genuinely problematic, because it dealt with sex with minors without the concepts of mitigation and aggravation that you would expect. It seems to have made no difference in terms of sentencing whether the victim had consented, whether the defendant knew the age of the victim, or what the age of the defendant was. Sentences were between five and ten years.
4) Defendants were presumed to be serious criminals and denied bail for however long the investigation took. Two of the three defendants in the specific case were on remand for 38 months.
5) A number of the signatories subsequently clarified that they were not supportive of the legalisation of sex with minors. Although it has to be said that it's pretty shoddy if you have to clarify that.
6) Michel Foucault declined to sign the letter, although he later signed another letter decrying the unequal age of consent and skipping the pro-nonse stuff.
PTK
Paul Kegan
Thank you for that. That is interesting.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I don't really know. It was just an info dump and I'm not an expert on French legal proceedings.
But I guess there are things that can determine a sentence other than aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Previous offending, admission of guilt, special pleading, time served for example.
Similar threads
