I recently watched a show on MSNBC called "To Catch A Predator";
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12842511/
where the news crew lures adult men into thinking they are going to have consenting sex with minors. For more information read the article.
Anyways, I don't really agree with the shows unorthodox methods to lure these men on national TV in the first place, humiliate them, and then arrest them. One might say that "they deserve it" but is this really the case? In any case I'm okay if a certain news group wants to promote what they think is right and even expose them. It is there freedom of speech. What I disdain is the arrest than soon comes after. This leads me to the point of this thread. Should government criminalize any consenting behavior, between minors or not?
These men are called predators but is this a correct title? To me the word "predator", sexual or not, refers to force. In these cases there is no force. Both individuals (the minor and the adult) are consenting to have sex with each other. There is no force and the minor could have backed off when he or she felt like it. Therefore where is the abuse? Where is the victim? Most would reply "the child" because supposedly a child this old cannot make such decisions. Well I agree to a certain extent, but the people that are supposed to regulate a child are their parents, not the state. A parent should be the one who prevents their children from seeing people who they consider bad people by any means necessary (except abuse). Whether their parents don't want their kids to see an adult who wants to have sex with them, to real sexual predators, to just normal people who they just dislike, ect. this is the parent's responsibility, not the states. These types of laws not only threaten liberty but they also make parents irresponsible. It makes the parents lazy and too reliant on the government to be the parent. It is no wonder why parents are so irresponsible these days.
If we make laws against minors voluntarily engaging in sex with adults, why don't we just criminalize any type of consenting behavior between an adult and a child? Why only sex? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that a certain segment of society believes voluntary sex between a minor and an adult is immoral. But that is their opinion. Sex to me is not a big enough taboo to have special laws against it. Some parents may disagree with the laws and believe a minor of a certain age can handle having sex. In this case the parent should have the power to permit their minor to have sex but under the current system they do not. And this is not right.
Why can't the government just stay out of human relationships unless there is force? I can totally understand if these men raped the minor, in this case criminal action needs to be taken. But if it is just a voluntary act, it should be the parents duty to regulate the voluntary act regardless of what the voluntary act is (sexual or not).
That is my opinion on the matter. What do you think?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12842511/
where the news crew lures adult men into thinking they are going to have consenting sex with minors. For more information read the article.
Anyways, I don't really agree with the shows unorthodox methods to lure these men on national TV in the first place, humiliate them, and then arrest them. One might say that "they deserve it" but is this really the case? In any case I'm okay if a certain news group wants to promote what they think is right and even expose them. It is there freedom of speech. What I disdain is the arrest than soon comes after. This leads me to the point of this thread. Should government criminalize any consenting behavior, between minors or not?
These men are called predators but is this a correct title? To me the word "predator", sexual or not, refers to force. In these cases there is no force. Both individuals (the minor and the adult) are consenting to have sex with each other. There is no force and the minor could have backed off when he or she felt like it. Therefore where is the abuse? Where is the victim? Most would reply "the child" because supposedly a child this old cannot make such decisions. Well I agree to a certain extent, but the people that are supposed to regulate a child are their parents, not the state. A parent should be the one who prevents their children from seeing people who they consider bad people by any means necessary (except abuse). Whether their parents don't want their kids to see an adult who wants to have sex with them, to real sexual predators, to just normal people who they just dislike, ect. this is the parent's responsibility, not the states. These types of laws not only threaten liberty but they also make parents irresponsible. It makes the parents lazy and too reliant on the government to be the parent. It is no wonder why parents are so irresponsible these days.
If we make laws against minors voluntarily engaging in sex with adults, why don't we just criminalize any type of consenting behavior between an adult and a child? Why only sex? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that a certain segment of society believes voluntary sex between a minor and an adult is immoral. But that is their opinion. Sex to me is not a big enough taboo to have special laws against it. Some parents may disagree with the laws and believe a minor of a certain age can handle having sex. In this case the parent should have the power to permit their minor to have sex but under the current system they do not. And this is not right.
Why can't the government just stay out of human relationships unless there is force? I can totally understand if these men raped the minor, in this case criminal action needs to be taken. But if it is just a voluntary act, it should be the parents duty to regulate the voluntary act regardless of what the voluntary act is (sexual or not).
That is my opinion on the matter. What do you think?