Gaming News, Cthulhu, Sex Crimes

[tcpip]

Recently read from the beginning to the current issue; The Order of the Stick, one of the funniest pieces of work from gamer culture. Roleplaying reviews this week included RuneQuest (3rd ed) and a very old Traveller module, Chamax and The Horde. Played some Traveller: The New Era on Tuesday and Dungeon! Dragonlords Dreamland scenerio went very well except for a very strange visitor.

Last night attended the arthouse film gathering in Collingwood with the usual suspects (Brendan, 2600AU crew, Paul from Polyester). Gorged ourselves at "The New Raffles" (opposite The Tote) and then watched three H.P. Lovecraft inspired films, including "The Call of Cthulhu", a 2005 film in a 1920s style, the very cheesy From Beyond and Dagon. On a related note, fishermen in New Zealand have caught a half-tonne squid. Ry'leh is nearby you know...I-ai! I-ai! Cthulhu, Ftan'g!

The war against youth marches on; a 13 year old in Italy gets pregnant to her 15 year old boyfriend. Her parents and the courts force her to have an abortion (link in Italian). A couple (one 16 the other 17) exchange sexual images of themselves to each other. They are charged and convicted of child pornography (from erudito. In good ol Denver, a 13 year old girl has been charged as both offender and victim for having sex with her 12 year old boyfriend.

Comments

[cluebyfour.livejournal.com]

a 13 year old girl has been charged as both offender and victim for have sex with her 12 year old boyfriend.

Actually, although the article you linked to comes from the Denver Post, the incident in question occurred in Utah.

But yeah, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that someone can be both a victim and perpetrator of the same crime.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

from the Denver Post, the incident in question occurred in Utah.

Ahh, quite correct. My bad.

But yeah, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that someone can be both a victim and perpetrator of the same crime.

Something has just sprung to mind; these article suggest that the US applies criminal convictions to minors, yes?

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

Those last two stories come from Florida, one of the most corruptly and incompetently run states in the US and Utah, one of the most heavily Bush-voting states in the US. No big surprise.

The Italian one is more surprising (given Catholicism) and more interesting. Should a 13 year old be allowed to have a child? If so, who pays?

[cluebyfour.livejournal.com]

these article suggest that the US applies criminal convictions to minors, yes?

Yes, although typically they're tried under a separate juvenile code, with different sentencing guidelines. And those records aren't usually made public. Of course, in some cases juveniles can be tried as adults, usually for violent crimes committed by older teens. Thankfully, it's no longer permissible to impose the death penalty for capital crimes committed as a juvenile.

And each state has, I believe, a cutoff age at which a minor is considered too young to understand that he or she has committed a crime and can't be charged.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I find that very strange.

On one hand the law is stating that these are people with adult cognition who can stand for criminal trial.

On the other, they are not giving the legal rights of adults.

No wonder legal and moral confusion reigns.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Should a 13 year old be allowed to have a child?

Well have it, yes, I think she should be allowed to (especially given her rather strong views on the matter).

Keep it depends on her cognitive ability.

If so, who pays?

Even in the worse case scenario I really don't think a single mothers penion would be that much of a problem on the budget. The Italians could save the money from withdrawing from NATO for starters...

[cluebyfour.livejournal.com]

Actually, that's not what the law is saying, which is why there is a separate code for juveniles in the first place. (Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "criminal convictions".) A better term, I guess, is delinquency. Committing a crime as a juvenile is not the same as committing the same crime as an adult. The juvenile code is geared more towards diversion than incarceration.

There are exceptions, as I mentioned; juveniles can be tried as adults if certain conditions are met.

The Utah law is a quirk, though. Note that there's nothing illegal about 16 and 17 year-olds having sex with each other. And 14 and 15 year olds having sex in their own age group is a misdemeanor. Obviously the law was intended to make it a felony for adults to have sex with 12 and 13-year olds. And I'm also pretty sure that in Utah, this was aimed at stopping polygamists from taking child brides.

The prosecutor is entirely to blame here. He's following the letter of the law but clearly not its spirit. These two kids should not be charged with a crime.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

The fact that you don't see it as a problem on the budget isn't the point. The Italians could save money other ways, but they may not choose to just because you think it's a good idea. I think you'll find that most taxpayers would not want to pay for it. If the government doesn't plan to pay and the parents don't want the child, that leads to few good outcomes for the child, were it to be born. Adoption is, of course, a decent option, but the whole issue of whether you can compel someone to adopt out a child is another difficult one.

[angel80.livejournal.com]

'worst case' please

You can be too narrowly rational on some points. Personally I think that no 13 year old should be allowed to destroy her life prospects at such an age - cognitive ability or not. She certainly lacks enough experience to be a halfway decent mother, except in a more tribal society in which child mothers would not be expected to handle the major burden by themselves. Which is why grandparents must be allowed to have a say in the matter.

(I'm talking about the Italian case, not the stupid Florida and Utah criminal codes.)

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

You can be too narrowly rational on some points.

;-)

Personally I think that no 13 year old should be allowed to destroy her life prospects at such an age - cognitive ability or not.

Cognitive ability is the basic requirement; obvious the concrete questions of financing, social circumstances and so forth are requisite. Whilst it is true that teenaged parents usually face insurmountable difficulties, I hardly think that justifies compulsory abortion either; which is quite literally sending her insane.

There are other options; such as letting her give birth to the child but it remaining primarily in foster or other care until she has the ability to take up the parenting role.

This is an unusual case of course, usually the issue is access to choose an abortion. However the attitudes motivating the judge and parents in this particular case seem to be those of forty-plus years ago.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I think you'll find that most taxpayers would not want to pay for it.

Most taxpayers don't want to pay for children whose parents can't look after them?!?!

What, close down the orphanages or something?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Actually, that's not what the law is saying, which is why there is a separate code for juveniles in the first place.

Oh OK then.. I just thought things were even more weird in the US than my general impression is.

[iosef.livejournal.com]

Stil cathcing up on OOTS, I'm only up to 300. Maybe another 50 tonight.

In a related note: In the US a 15 year old is also being charged as Perpetrator/victim in a "Make and or distribute child pornography" for sending her boyfriend nudes of herself. Application has been made to try her as an Adult!

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? There is a vast difference between how most people view an action that is totally foreseeable and preventable and one which is not.

Welfare systems are designed as a safety net for those who have unavoidable misfortune, not for those who feel like making bad choices and inflicting the financial result of that on the rest of the community. Nobody's saying the safety net should be closed down, just that people shouldn't be allowed to voluntarily use it as an alternative to making sensible life choices.

[scarletazalea.livejournal.com]

I know nothing about gaming and little more about HP Lovecraft, but I do know about the increasing infringement of youth rights, though I didn't know those particular incidences. It is sad to me that we criminalize normal youthful expression of sexuality. (I'm catching up on my livejournal reading inbetween testing Physician Assistant students on their cardio exam skills).

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I do know about the increasing infringement of youth rights

*nods* At the point in time when they really need their own space it is increasingly in denial.

I wonder how the system is going to cope with the decreasing age of sexual maturity?

Although as a physician you would have more information on whether this is still the case; I have a sneaking suspicion that the chronological decline has been arrested in first-world countries since the late-70s due to "fast food" culture.

It is sad to me that we criminalize normal youthful expression of sexuality.

As caseopaya commented, soon there will be a ban on playing "doctor's and nurse's".

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Stil cathcing up on OOTS, I'm only up to 300. Maybe another 50 tonight.

Apart from all the in-jokes and witticisms, it actually has a very clever story and background as well...

Application has been made to try her as an Adult!

If I was speaking for the defense, I would let the application go through and when it goes to trial say: "According to the prosecution, she's an adult, therefore she's allowed to do this".

Oh, that would make their brains break....

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I'm still not sure where you stand on this. In an Australian context, are you saying the Parenting Payment should be abolished? And if not, under what circumstances should it remain? Are you saying that abortion should be compulsory if the parents cannot show sufficient financial backing to bring up a child? If not, what is your stance?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I know nothing about gaming and little more about HP Lovecraft

Get yourself a copy of the "Call of Cthulhu" roleplaying game - any edition will do - you want regret it, it really is one of the best.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure where your uncertainty arises. You're asking a question about abolishing a form of social security safety net immediately after I said "nobody's saying the safety net should be closed down". This simply forces me to repeat my last sentence. Apart from increasing the word count in your LJ, I don't see any purpose.

Anyhow, PP goes beyond just a form of social security. The government wants to encourage people to make babies, so it's a form of social engineering too, which takes it into another realm.

As to the second question, that's an interesting one. Ideally, I think it's a good idea. Minimising opportunities for people to intentionally inflict their own financial mismanagement upon the rest of the community is a good idea. Realistically, it's not going to happen, especially with the current religious wankers in power.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Apart from increasing the word count in your LJ, I don't see any purpose.

Apart from the fact I'm trying to ascertain what sort of conditional limitations you're suggesting.

Minimising opportunities for people to intentionally inflict their own financial mismanagement upon the rest of the community is a good idea.

True, but there are degrees. One can only predict in a generalised sense what future financial ability is going to be; further one has to compare the proposal of compulsory abortions with the desire for adoption.

Thus I do not think it is a good idea to force a person to have an abortion based on perceptions of their capacity to raise a child.

Realistically, it's not going to happen, especially with the current religious wankers in power.

One does not have to be a "religious wanker" to respect the right of a person to control their own body.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

That's an emotive sidestep manoeuvre. The assertion that religious wankers will not promote abortion and will therefore not implement a system which forces such says nothing about the opinions of those who are not religious wankers.

The "right of a person to control their own body" is an over-simplification and mis-characterisation of the issue. I believe we should have the right of absolute control over our own destinies and our own bodies so long, as with all rights, we do not infringe on the rights of others.

The results of the right to do anything you want to your own body might cause great cost to the community. At that point, we have three choices:
A) Allow such behaviour and allow the person access to communal resources no matter what.
B) Allow such behaviour and deny the person communal resources to deal with the results.
C) Try to prevent or alter the situation.

Going with A sets the system up to be rorted. (eg. Underage girls having babies to get handouts from the government.) B is unworkable in this particular area, since the victim is the child, not the one who caused the situation. Note that if we are talking about bringing up children, C still contains a number of options, including forced adoption.

Part of having rights is taking responsibility for ones actions, not just sitting back and doing whatever the hell you please and making other people pay for it.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

The US cases are at once better and also worse than a general infringement of youth rights. On the one hand, convicting a few kids doesn't have any effect on the vast majority. Like laws against various adult sexual practices, they will be successfully ignored by millions of people.

The sinister side is in how such laws will be applied. To be prosecuted requires a specific set of circumstances, the important one being that someone who has access to the evidence, probably someone very close to the participants, has to report them to the police. Such laws are basically a device for some evil bastard with a grudge to turn a(n ex-)friend or family member into a criminal.

[iosef.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately they still win. The Ginrich act means that even an adult (Or a fictional/CGI character) portrayed as a minor makes the offense. So she can be charged as intellectually/emotionally and adult but with an underage corpus.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Going with A sets the system up to be rorted. (eg. Underage girls having babies to get handouts from the government

Seriously, do you think this is a potential problem?