Tough question about sex, age, and the law

[Scaramouche]

LESBIAN pornographer Rebecca Jane Clarke will remain a convicted pedophile for the rest of her life after the country's highest court refused to erase her criminal history.

The High Court today refused Clarke's application for special leave to appeal her conviction for making six pornographic films with two 14-year-old girls.

The decision means the 23-year-old, from Goulburn in NSW, will likely never achieve her dream of working as a counsellor for disadvantaged children.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 01,00.html

Is she a pedophile? Was she wrong to do what she did? Or are our laws just wrong?

[Bear]

Laws exist for a reason, to protect those people who cannot protect themselves. Even though I could drag this into a long winded debate about sex and how if your body is old enough to be capable of sex when you hit puberty and all that other stuff, the fact is, she knowingly made a sexual explicit film of two underage girls. Ones bad enough, but she made 6 films. Now, while I've known some underage girls in the past who've looked much older then they are... for instance back in highschool there was a girl in my year who had a D cup at 13... the fact still remains that the law currently says that it is illegal to engage in sexual acts with a minor, in most countries this is anyone under the age of 16. She's an older woman who has willingly and with full knowledge of her actions made these sexual movies with two underage girls. What reason would anyone knowingly break the law like she has, who wishes to work with young children, unless they were a paedophile?

The law probably needs some work, it was only a few hundred years ago that girls were expected to be married and have children by the time they were 16. But the laws were put in to protect the innocence of people who were not mature enough to know what they were doing and those who were forced into those actions by people much older preying upon them.

Again teh fact stands. She knowingly broke the law, she knowingly exploited underage girls. Personal feelings of if its wrong or right don't really come into a situation like this when someone with full knowledge of the law willingly breaks them. Her conviction should stand.

[Arantor]

In the eyes of the law, yes, she is. The usual definition is to 'interfere' with someone under the legal age of consent (16/18 depending on where you live)

The fact that they told her they were 17 but were only 14 is actually pretty irrelevant. Laws usually make little provision for "they told me they were over the age". If it's true that they lied about her age and she was genuinely unaware of it then while legally she is a pedophile, morally she might not be so much.

At 14 you know the difference between right and wrong. You can make informed decisions about what you do at that age, and for more serious crimes some countries will try you as an adult for them. And you should know at 14 that lying about your age is wrong. The question of exploitation is not one I am going to get into.

Interesting point - a lot of the shops here in England are now starting to age-check anyone who looks under 21, even though the legal age of cigarettes and alcohol is 18. It's safer for them that way since the shop is responsible (although now they can charge people who are under 18 from trying to buy things)

If they look too young, they probably are, unless they can prove otherwise.

[Bear]

See... I think that the age check of 21 is a good thing, I know many times back when I was 16, I could bluff my way into nightclubs by saying I didn't have any photo ID, so now having the 21 check is better as if they'd had it then I defiantely wouldn't have drunk as much and I'm pretty sure alot of my friends wouldn't have started smoking either.

The other thing is, even if the girls claimed they were 17, she had a responsibility to check that and make sure that they were of age. Her not carrying out the correct checks is also an abuse of the law.

[midgetshrimp]

The other thing is, even if the girls claimed they were 17, she had a responsibility to check that and make sure that they were of age. Her not carrying out the correct checks is also an abuse of the law.

This is the part I agree with. She has a responsibility to make sure that those she "works" with, she can actually legally "work" with. So that's on her.

Now, the two kids... My little sister is 14, and you're damn right she has the sense to know what she should and shouldn't be doing. Those two kids are stupid, and in their stupidity, aided in pretty much the end of that woman's life. A convicted pedophile will never be able to live that title down. Ever.

Fault in this matter isn't a he said/she said matter. The girls in question should know better. But the woman should also have the sense to do a little background work. This whole case is about three peoples' stupidity ruining each others' lives. I'm not too sure I can sympathize with any of them.

[Tenjen]

where do i find these movies?

head slammed by photocopier lid*

Its immoral what they did. But the law cant let this pass. Its quite clear cut. Though she isnt a pedophile, her actions have passed her under law as one. A horrible mistake due to carelessness. She lost her ability to contribute to this world as she could have.

[Bear]

The fact is she still made movie of what she thought were borderline minority girls. Even with her own stupidity of not checking their real ages, she still knowingly filmed 17 year old girls doing sexual acts... hardly the sort of moral person you'd want working with vunerable young people who could be of the same age.

Different tangent but same principle... you'd not let Hugh Hefner teach a highschool class.

[midgetshrimp]

The fact is she still made movie of what she thought were borderline minority girls. Even with her own stupidity of not checking their real ages, she still knowingly filmed 17 year old girls doing sexual acts... hardly the sort of moral person you'd want working with vunerable young people who could be of the same age.

Different tangent but same principle... you'd not let Hugh Hefner teach a highschool class.

I would. That's a funny old dude, with style. I'd either have him be my Health teacher, or someone in the English/Journalism/Writing department. Or perhaps a multimedia class.

Besides, what he does is legal, done with full access to the knowledge of his "ample"oyees information, and he does it with as much class and respect you can manage in that business. Now Larry Flint, I wouldn't let him near my town, let lone my high school (which, incidentally, is suffering from a herpes outbreak) or my house. That man is a pig. But Heff is a cool guy. I mean, has anyone seen the Playboy Mansion edition of Cribs? That place is awesome. They have a zoo! With MONKEYS!!! :mrgreen:

Yes. I watched the show for the zoo. Call me what you will, but monkeys are cool. The scantily clad buxom dames were just an added bonus.

[Bear]

Okay.. so Heff is cool and the mansion is awesome... but he was the first name that came to mind in that you'd not let a pornographer teach a highschool class, and you'd not let this woman who's made pornographic movies of young girls work with underage ones either, regardless of the legalities of the matter.

[midgetshrimp]

Actually, I thought the legalities were the point. Considering it's a legal issue.

[Bear]

They are, but I was trying to demonstrate that despite that and her actions etc, shes still not the sort of person you would want working in the area she wants too.

[Aren]

Oh, phew. When I read the title, I thought this was going to be serious and thought-provoking instead of cut-and-dry.

If those two fourteen-year-olds had made the film, started distributing it, and got arrested for peddling child porn, that would be thought-provoking.

This? Some dumb person who didn't bother to do her homework got slapped with a criminal record for filming two girls who were barely into puberty having sex. Not really much that's controversial about that. It really doesn't matter what the minors did or didn't do.

Also, when mentioning minority/majority, please do remember that your definition is irrelevant - only the definition in the laws of the country in question is important.

[Scaramouche]

I won't copy and paste it all in here, but here are some related thoughts:
http://adamcwebber.livejournal.com/48848.html
http://adamcwebber.livejournal.com/96758.html

[Scaramouche]

As for me, I see laws and red-tape as generally less important than most other things in the universe. As long as both people are physically and mentally ready for it, I say they go for it.

Here's a little story about one of my ancestors. She was one of (I think) five kids. Her mother remarried, and the new man of the house didn't want to support kids who were old enough to make their own way in the world. She was 16. So she was booted out. She had some savings, and thought she'd head to New Zealand, since the British government was supporting new settlers in making homesand such there. So she got on a sailing ship and headed for NZ. However, on the trip she got to know a 36 year old sailor. They fell in love. When the ship stopped in Sydney, the two disembarked there instead of going to NZ. The ship sank between AU and NZ, so they would have drowned had they continued on. Instead they stayed in AU, got married, had kids.

So I'm the result of what would today be called pedophilia. Most of us are, really.

[Aren]

I won't copy and paste it all in here, but here are some related thoughts:
http://adamcwebber.livejournal.com/48848.html
http://adamcwebber.livejournal.com/96758.html

Read 'em, don't care for the majority of what was written, but I agree with the message behind it.