The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Age of Consent as an Example of "Dynamic" Lawsin Politics

LoganL549

Debate the concept of Romeo and Juliet-based laws.

Consider that, within a country, states and provinces often have varying laws on ages of consent, much like how (in The United States, for example) state-wide legislations work to legalize things such as marijuana, and occurs thusly on a state-to-state basis. (i.e., as of 2017, Mississippi laws say age of consent is 16, whereas in California age of consent is 18)

Consider if age of consent should be higher or lower, taking into account society, culture, as well as biological and anatomical differences in maturity, in times past in which laws were established, compared to present. Consider the average potential for intellectual, emotional, physical, socioeconomic maturity and experience (& et cetera) to be gained by our new generations which may affect your general answer.

Consider statutes and their effects, and if revision could be necessary to better enforce the law.

Why, largely, aren't these laws consistent throughout a country? Should they be consistent, or should it be up to each state?

Would difficulties be posed if such a potentially big change occurred as a shift towards consistency? If so, on a large scale, small scale, or both?

Think of jurisdiction and how criminals could use it to their advantage, and how citizens may feel limited by however the laws work in the state/province they reside in. On another hand, consider how the laws changing in each individual state/province may indicate a healthy adjustment more useful to one particular region than another, or indicate a change that was decided upon with too much leeway (if the laws should've been stricter, essentially, and were changed to be less limiting to otherwise potential criminals).

Are the laws in place essentially fine as they are, or do you feel as if changes could be made, although with some difficulty in regards to how to approach and find solutions?

Max_Air29

No, the United States needs to increase the untidy between states. Without Unity, the states could easily break out of the Countey which would decrease the size of the whole United States.

agsr

@Max_Air29,I also agree that there needs to be consistency among states for issues like this.  Otherwise we have an overly complex judicial system.  18 sounds like a good universal standard.

MayCaesar

Laws, in general, are a function of the societal consensus. When a country consists of multiple territories populated by multiple societies, then this consensus is likely to differ between the territories (states). The differences can easily affect even the most fundamental laws, the foundations of the law. And while some federal control is probably needed in order to make sure that these foundations are similar and all states function within the same general legal framework, trying to unify all laws would lead to a lot of tensions and disarray - hence why the Founding Fathers designed the federal government to be weak and to have its domains of influence significantly limited. Lincoln's administration expanded the power the federal government has, but it is still relatively low, compared to most developed democracies.

Decentralization is a wonderful political concept; it makes the system very flexible, allows for cultural differences between territories to be taken into account when formulating the legal framework of the country, and - what is more important, in my opinion - provides people with freedom of choice. For example, if in my state the age of consent is 16, and I want my children to live in the place where it is 18, then I can move to a different state - it is much harder to do on the scope of separate countries, as moving between them usually involves unpleasant immigration procedures, as well as difficult cultural transitions. The drawback is that my child can go to a different state when they are 16, have sex with someone there and then return to the state - having violated nothing. So decentralized legal systems are more exploitable - but I think it is a positive trade-off, and the exploitability is more than offset by the benefits of freedom of choice.

However, some things simply have to be guaranteed. If the US is a member of the UN, then it should abide by the UN rules with regards to human rights - and if one of the states wants to, for example, restore slavery as a legal economical relationship, then the federal government should take the idea down. In my opinion, the role of the federal government should be solely to uphold human rights and liberties, and everything else should be transferred over to the states.