Criminal law as symbolic tool

Hi all,

I found this old article (2004) on sexual offence legislation in the UK. Very interesting. I won't say much about it, as it speaks for itself, but would be interested to hear opinions.

Why would they have enacted this law? Was it a vote-buying exercise? I don't think I understand the purpose.
I doubt teenagers review the legislation before leaning in for a grope. What is a 'symbolic' law expected to achieve?

It's a response to public hysteria, just as the Criminal Justice Bill was a reaction to rave culture, etc. The difference here being that legislation is enacted, in effect, to cater for all eventualities and then allow the Crown Prosecution Service to use common sense rather than prosecution guidelines to decide who to prosecute. That's dangerous ground in legal terms. It effectively gives carte blanche to authorities to punish anything that is considered unwholesome by social standards rather than purely legal ones. The problem with that being that social standards are fickle and easily swayed by tabloid newspapers, which pander to the tastes of the intellectually challenged. However, it goes a step further in the case of hysteria, because hysteria affects anyone who doesn't think about something and just accepts it on the level of raw emotion, reacting in a knee-jerk style. The law then mirrors not only the views of intellectually challenged tabloid-fodder but a hysterical majority, and that's what witch-hunts are about.

Left-wing moralistic feminism at its finest.

"Let's make everything illegal AND ACT UPON IT IF WE SO CHOSE".

But hey. Great for building a wholesome respect for The Law, in that it can go screw itself and I'll decide my own ethics thank you very much Mr. Pig Officer.

EDIT: Please don't get mad, I'm not saying feminism is inherently bad, only the people who practice it.

Alevi wrote:Left-wing moralistic feminism at its finest.

What do you mean by "Left-wing"? Maybe you use the word differently to me, but I would have pegged it as conservatism rather than liberalism.

Why "feminism"? This law does not seem to differentiate between genders, or help either male or female causes.

Are you just trying to be provocative?

Wow! What can one say? That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve read in a while. How can anyone be expected to have respect for the law if they conjour bizarre and – as is said – ‘symbolic’ laws like that?

So, we teach kids the mechanics of sexual intercourse when they’re in primary school, when they’re 10/11, in an environment in which in all other respects you're learning things that adults/teachers/parents want to promote in you, and then accuse them of sex abuse when they go and try it out themselves? Talk about confusing messages!

Platypus wrote:What do you mean by "Left-wing"?

I should have said 'lefties'. Yes it has a different meaning where I come from. Here, it means "people who care and would like everybody else to care to just like they do".

Platypus wrote:Why "feminism"? This law does not seem to differentiate between genders, or help either male or female causes.

Because regulating sexual behaviour is what feminists do second best. First being creating inequality between genders.

I'm not trying to be provocative; it just comes naturally.

So, we teach kids the mechanics of sexual intercourse when they’re in primary school, when they’re 10/11, in an environment in which in all other respects you're learning things that adults/teachers/parents want to promote in you, and then accuse them of sex abuse when they go and try it out themselves? Talk about confusing messages!

Try it out for themselves? Ok....so abusing my little brother wasn't abuse, it was trying him out?

dan1966 wrote:Try it out for themselves? Ok....so abusing my little brother wasn't abuse, it was trying him out?

If you were abusing your little brother, then upon carefull consideration, that does sound like it is likely to have been abuse, yes.

On the other hand, if you were both under the age of consent, then it follows that the legal system does not consider you to be responsible for your choices and actions.
In which case you could not, by definition, have been doing anything wrong.
That whole "age of consent" legal construct works both ways, you see.

On the other hand, if you were both under the age of consent, then it follows that the legal system does not consider you to be responsible for your choices and actions.
In which case you could not, by definition, have been doing anything wrong.
That whole "age of consent" legal construct works both ways, you see.

Sorry...what a crock. Then again perhaps those in my family who knew what I was doing should be charged with duplicity.