Kevintran72 (PRO)Children, they're the amalgamation of honest, truth and purity. They bring light to this world. If such individuals exist, why should they ever be tried for acts of sexual misconduct?
Children are curious little things, they want to know the outcomes of events and the consequences, chiefly positive and beneficial, of their actions. They experiment with their actions through trial and error, to see if something works. If a child were to perform sexual misconduct, who are they to know the consequences? Would it be fair for a child of 7 years to be classified as a sex offender when they physically cannot comprehend the serious consequences of such actions? Their lives with their reputation would be tarnished for the rest of their existence, never being able to repair such wounds that have been inflicted at such a young age.
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-12-15 10:03:31
| Speak RoundReynold Jupudi (CON)Legally speaking, a child is anyone under the age of 18. It is incorrect and dangerous to assume that a 16 or 17 year-old cannot commit a sex crime. It is pure folly to assume that children are “innocent” in this day and age. In the United States, children as young as nine are convicted of sexual assault. According to the Department of Justice, one out of eight sex offenders were children under the age of 12. Simply stating that children can’t commit these crimes is giving underage predators the opputunity to commit crime without fear of punishment. We live in an era of science and innovation. It has been proven that most children are not the innocent lads parents think they are. They have the conscious of right and wrong and if they commit a sex crime, they should be punished accordingly.
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-12-15 10:20:21
| Speak RoundKevintran72 (PRO)If what you have said is true, then what is to become of the remaining 7 out of 8 minors? Are they to be assumed sex offenders for sexual crimes they did not commit? Children are unique and each have their distinctive individual traits. To say that children aren't innocent would be a generalisation. As children develop, their sense of morality and list of scruples develop accordingly. However, due to the unique nature of children, they develop at different rates and therefore, children may not begin to grasp the concepts of sexuality until the early years of adolescence, where they're educated on genitalia. You cannot simply generalise children as potential sex offenders as that would be similar to generalising men as potential rapists.
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-12-15 11:03:14
| Speak RoundReynold Jupudi (CON)I don’t believe you understood the statistic. 1 out of 8 youth sex offences are committed by children under 12 with the other 7 out of 8 being committed by children over the age of 12. You also claim children are unique and have distinctive traits and that somehow makes them innocent? I’m not getting the connection here. To say that all children aren’t innocent is not a generalisation. It is a fact. You believe that children should NEVER be classified as sex offenders simply because they’re children. That is a generalisation. You did not address the fact that children includes everyone under the age of 18. What makes a 17 year-old rapist innocent and an 18 year-old rapist guilty? Yes, children who are too young (toddlers) cannot be convicted but you seem to suggest ALL children are incapable of committing a sexual crime.
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-12-15 11:48:09
| Speak Round
No worries. Posted 2017-12-15 10:20:41
Sorry for taking so long, I'm unfamiliar with this websitePosted 2017-12-15 10:04:05