(tried posting this on another form-but I kept getting an error notification and then my web-page kicked me out. Could be my internet--most likely as I am 100% certain a deamon inhabits it-- or I unintentionally posted 5 repeated posts.) Either way- it relates...
________________________
On to the controversial topic:
________________________
Should teenagers be considered as having the same intellectual capacity as adults? Whom are we
kidding? ﾂ"
Kidding,ﾂ" an ironic word given this topic. We certainly are not
ﾂ"kiddingﾂ" our youth, not if we are treating them as adults. And we are not
ﾂ"kiddingﾂ" ourselves, since there is nothing funny about subjecting teenagers to the death penalty or causing them to accept full financial and civil responsibility for the consequences of ﾂ"consensualﾂ" sex, that in many jurisdictions, we label statutory rape.
The fact is, I find many assumptions to be flawed -- Consent laws are not just about sex. Nor is there a national consensus that exists concerning adolescent capacity to consent to sex. The laws gives differing legal significance to adolescent ﾂ"consentﾂ" to teen-adult sex depending upon a variety of factors.
The arguments presented can be summarized as: Is consent being able to make a rational choice...being aware of all the consequences? How is it that a 15-year-old cannot make a rational choice, but yet a 25-year-old is automatically assumed to be able to? Are the age of consent laws are biased and do not take into account the individual's ability to make choices, and assumes that anyone under the legal age is incapable of making a rational decision?
As adults we are
ﾂ'supposedly' charged with looking through a lens made wider by experience and anticipate consequences that often show themselves only after the passage of time. It then is no surprise when some women & men, years later are able to reflect and recognize the subtle and explicit consequences that they were unable to consider when they were much younger. In this sense, sometimes this leads one to understand that aspects of their own history, sometimes traumatic, had caused them to have been less ''consenting" than they imagined.
To speak of ''consent" under these circumstances is at best naive.
When I went back to study in the UK there was a controversial man named Tom Martin, who considers himself a leading UK Men's Right Activist. This bloke had the audacity to imply that
TEN-year-old children who were trafficked into the sex industry and engaged in prostitution
ﾂ"were not really victims, but economic actors making an economic choiceﾂ". He continued that the legal principle of no arbitrary minimum age for consent requires whether lawful sex had taken place was to establish if the child or young person ﾂ'understands the meaning of consent'. In another comment, Martin suggests that ten-year-olds who have been the victims of what some people insist on calling ﾂ"real rapeﾂ" would be offended by anyone thinking that ten-year-old prostitutes suffer from rape – when, after all, the child prostitutes have
ﾂ"agreedﾂ" to it. However, Martin doesn't actually think ten-year-olds should be prostitutes. On-the-contrary- rather he
is deluded enough to think(s) they should wait a few years, until they're at least 14.
__________________________________________________
The best way to understand this discussion is in the context of the scientific field and to specifically consider the area of neuroscience. Neuroscience has made great strides over the past decades in revealing that remarkable changes occur in the brain during the second decade of life. Contrary to long held ideas that the brain--the most complicated 3 lb mass of matter in the known inverse--was mostly grown-up by the end of childhood, it is now clear that adolescence is a time of profound brain growth and change. In fact, the brain of an early adolescent in comparison to that of a late adolescent differs measurably in anatomy, biochemistry and physiology.
Why does this matter? It matters because impulse control, planning and decision-making are largely frontal cortex functions that are still maturing during adolescence.
Why does this relate to the ﾂ"consent of ageﾂ" debate? It relates BECAUSE- the large and compelling body of scientific research on the neurological development of teens confirms that long held, common sense view that:
teenagers are not the same as adults in a variety of key areas such as the ability to make sound judgments when confronted by complex impulses, and the ability to plan effectively.
Indeed teens can be full of promise, mature for their age (and perhaps even gone through sexual maturity more quickly then their peers) and able to make remarkable spurts in intellectual development and learning.
NONETHELESS- neurologically speaking, they are NOT adults. They are, as we say in the proper sense, a work in progress and do not reach neurological maturity until their early 20s (both applies to men and female-no exceptions).
In sum or to repeat again- (I think Americans call it ﾂ"to sound like a ﾂ"broken-recordﾂ"??) during adolescents, a teen is developing and is unable to accurately understand impulse control, planning for the future, appreciating cause and effect, and decision making.
These are important skills that rely on numerous interconnecting cognitive components that emerge as the brain develops during adolescents.
__________________________________________________________
STUDIES:
__________________________________________________________
In 1999, Neuropsychologist Dr. Deborah Yurgelun-Todd studied the responses of adults and children (in theie early teens years and late), to the pictures of faces exhibiting emotions, including fear. In response to the fear face, adults correctly identified the emotion. Teens answered correctly only about fifty percent of the time, identifying the emotion as shock, surprise, or anger. Teens also used different parts of their brains to evaluate the face and process their own emotions during the test. While adult responses came from the frontal cortex, teen responses originated in the amygdale. *
Consequently, this research shows that teens' use of the amygdale produced reactions rather than rational thought. It can be concluded that immature teen brains produce impulsive and even ﾂ"risk-taking behavior.ﾂ"
Yurgelun-Todd study suggests that perhaps decision-making in teenagers is not what we thought . . . . Just because they're physically mature, they may not appreciate the consequences or weigh information the same way as adults do.
________________________________________
Finally, this is why I find it ridiculous when people assume that if teenagers LOOK physically mature they then should BE more emotionally and mentally mature.
A person cannot help his or her immaturity. Immaturity is a natural stage of teen development. We do not condemn the mentally challenged for their failure to comprehend. Similarly, we should not blame the immature for their failure to act maturely.
For these reasons, I argue against any countries judicial evaluation of the teen's ﾂ"consentﾂ" to lower the age, which may invite further abuse and trauma. In fact, I argue for some countries (such as Japan and even Korea) to reconsider raising the consent age.
__________________________________________________________________
RELATE THIS TO JAPAN[/B] (because otherwise this whole discussion doesn't make sense to post on a Japanese Reference website):
__________________________________________________________________
As a Japanese citizen, there are many things that I am proud of (such as our low crime rate) but I am horrified at my government's inability to address our crisis of sexual exploitation and abuse of minors. Japanese law allows for consent at age 12, but this only applies to metro Tokyo. Japan's federal laws put sexual consent at 13 years old under the Japanese national criminal law code. However, all municipalities and prefectures have their own particular laws such as Tokyo's ﾂ"Youth Protection Lawﾂ" which prohibit adults from having sex with youths who are under 17 years old or 18.
This incomprehensible gap of the legal ﾂ"consent of ageﾂ" has lead to much confusion. For example, it means that窶ｰ窶｡ﾂ鞘?｢ﾅ津ｰﾂ催 (ﾂ"compensated datingﾂ" where high-school aged girls are paid be older men to ﾂ"dateﾂ" or otherwise render sexual service) can be or cannot be charged with statutory rape (in that it depends on jurisdiction). And since this Asia, lets consider Korea, in which the age of consent is different for men and women. A book entitled Gyoyanginul Ouihan Saegyaesa (교양인을 위한 세계사), or World History for Civilized People by Kim Yun-tae: states that in Korea the age of consent is 18 for men, and 16 for women.
Let me make a point by saying that the idea of an age of legal consent is almost certainly modern. Japanese rewrote many of the legal codes based on European, primarily Germanic law.
Regardless, empirical Japanese studies of childhood sexual abuse are rare. The few studies that do exist are mostly case studies involving low numbers of respondents. These are usually highly subjective, mostly legal or psychiatric in orientation and cannot be generalized to the Japanese population. In Japan this topic is often avoided as unpleasant; consequently, it is not discussed in conversation and not investigated in research.
However, I believe this subject is a compelling social problem that merits the attention of social scientists.
While Japan's sexual abuse may be roughly lower, compared with the USA and even Germany, Japan nonetheless as a significant distortion of social perceptions by victims of sexual abuse, and even victims of exhibitionism.
End of post
___________________________________________________
Resources:
----Not sure of others Japanese comprehension, but if you can read Japanese then refer to a mainstream scandal involving AKB48, Minami Takahashi 44 year old mother. The mother, divorced was arrested and fined 500,000 yen for having relations several times with a 15 year-old boy.---
AKB48ﾂ坂?壺?ｹ'窶堙昶?堙遺?堙昶?堙娯?｢ﾃｪﾂ親窶堋ｪﾂ、15ﾂ催篠渉ｭ窶扼窶堙??ｺﾂ行窶覇窶ｹ^窶堙??佚溪?｢ﾃ Iﾂ「窶昶?披?堙ｧ窶堙ｪ窶堙?絶?昶?ｰﾃｱ窶堙｢窶堙≫?堋ｽ
7窶愿ｺﾂ、9窶愿ｺ窶堙俄?敖ｭ窶昶?樞?能窶凖ｨ窶堙個「ﾂ週ﾅ?ﾂｧ窶｢ﾂｶﾂ春 2ﾅ椎ｽ16窶愿ｺﾂ坂??ﾂ」窶堋ｪﾂ「AKB48窶堙個坂?壺?ｹ'窶堙昶?堙遺?堙昶?堙娯?｢ﾃｪﾂ親窶堋ｪﾋ?ｺﾂ行窶覇窶ｹ^窶堙 窶佚溪?｢ﾃ淞」窶堙遺?堙ｩﾆ湛ﾆ誰ﾂーﾆ致窶堙ｰ窶｢ﾃｱ窶堋ｶ窶堙ｩ窶堋ｱ窶堙??堋ｪ窶敖ｻ窶督ｾﾂ、ﾆ値ﾆ鍛ﾆ暖ﾂ湘｣窶堙??堙坂?堋ｷ窶堙??堙俄?佚･窶堋ｫ窶堙依彙窶佚ｨ 窶堙ｰ窶堙ｦ窶堙ｱ窶堙??堋｢窶堙ｩﾂ。
窶慊ｯ窶ｹLﾅｽ窶凪?堙??堙債、窶冢ﾅ陳ｳ窶堙個渉ｭ窶扼ﾆ丹ﾆ停?ｹﾂーﾆ致窶堙?ﾂ人窶堋ｩ窶堙ｧ窶｢ﾂｷ窶堋｢窶堋ｽﾋ彙窶堙??堋ｵ窶堙?、ﾂ坂?壺?ｹ'窶堙昶?堙遺?堙昶?堙娯?｢ﾃｪﾂ親窶堋ｪﾂ、ﾆ停?榿停?愴鱈ﾂーﾂ渉ｭ窶扼A窶堙??ﾃ滅淡窶堙ｰﾅｽﾂ昶?堙≫?堋ｽﾅ弛ﾋ?懌?堙俄?堙や?堋｢窶堙?湘堋催冷?堋ｪ窶凖披?堙ｧ窶堙ｪ窶堙??堋｢窶堙ｩ Bﾂ坂?壺?ｹ'窶堙昶?堙遺?堙昶?堙娯?｢ﾃｪﾂ親窶堙債、ﾅ竹窶拿ﾅ?E窶愿ｼ窶堙ｨ窶堋ｵ窶堋ｽ窶督ｺ窶堙ｰﾂ鞘?｢窶堋ｯ窶堙??ｰﾅｾ窶ｰ窶｡窶堋ｷ窶堙ｩﾋ?ｪ窶｢ﾃｻﾂ、窶伉ｧﾅｽq窶堙ｰ窶廴ﾋ?､窶堋ｷ 窶堙ｩﾋ?ｪ窶禿岩?堙?窶堋?窶堙ｨﾂ、ﾂ坂?壺?ｹ'窶堙昶?堙遺?堙昶?堙娯?凖ｭ窶堙?親窶堋ｵ窶堋ｩ窶堙≫?堋ｽﾂ渉ｭ窶扼A窶堙債、窶凖ｭ窶堙??堙固?ﾃ滅淡窶堙ｰﾂ鞘?壺?堙俄?｢ﾃｪﾂ親窶堙問?昶?披?堙≫?堋ｽ窶堙 ﾂｳ窶堙ｪﾂ、窶｢ﾃｪﾂ親窶堙坂?伉ｧﾅｽq窶ｰﾃね?､窶堋ｳ窶堙娯?堋?窶堙懌?堙ｨ窶堙俄?冉窶堙ｩ窶堋ｱ窶堙??堋ｪ窶堙??堋ｫ窶堋ｸﾂ、ﾂ絶?昶?ｰﾃｱ窶堙俄?從窶堙≫?堙?渉ｭ窶扼A窶堙??ﾃ滅淡窶堙ｰﾅｽﾂ昶?堙≫?堋ｽ ﾃ??堋｢窶堋､ﾂ。
窶堋ｻ窶堙娯?禿ｮﾂ静ｦﾂ、ﾋ?ｪ窶｢窶敞陳?断ﾆ達ﾆ但窶堋ｪ窶愬停?ｹﾅｾ窶徭ﾂ静つ渉ｭ窶扼ﾅ停?吮?牢ﾋ?ｧﾂ青ｬﾂ湘ｰ窶氾｡ﾋ?｡ 窶敖ｽ窶覇窶ｹ^窶堙俄?堙ｦ窶堙ｨ窶｢ﾃｪﾂ親窶堋ｪ窶佚溪?｢ﾃ溪?堋ｳ窶堙ｪ窶堋ｽ窶堙??｢ﾃｱ窶堋ｶ窶堋ｽﾂ。
窶慊ｯ窶｢ﾃｱ窶慊ｹ窶堙??堙債「AKB48ﾆ陳?停?愴弛ﾂー窶堙娯?｢ﾃｪﾂ」窶堙??堋ｵ窶堙??堋ｨ窶堙ｨﾂ、ﾂ坂?壺?ｹ'窶｢ﾃｪ窶堙娯?督ｼ窶楼窶堋ｱ窶堋ｻ窶堙遺?堋｢窶堙?窶堙娯?堙個、ﾂ週ﾅ?ﾂｧ 窶｢ﾂｶﾂ春窶堙娯?｢ﾃｱ窶堋ｩ窶堙ｧ窶慊ｯﾋ?ｪﾂ人窶｢ﾂｨ窶堙??堋?窶堙ｩ窶ｰﾃや?拿ﾂ青ｫ窶堙坂?ｹﾃ俄?堙溪?堙?坂?壺?堋ｭﾂ、窶堋ｷ窶堙??堙俄?板ｪﾅｽﾂｮ窶ｹN窶亙窶堋ｳ 窶堙ｪﾂ、50窶毒凪?ｰ~窶堙娯?敖ｱ窶ｹﾃ?ﾅ炭窶堋ｪﾅ?m窶凖ｨ窶堋ｵ窶堙??堋｢窶堙ｩ窶堙ｦ窶堋､窶堋ｾ窶堋ｪﾂ、ﾆ値ﾆ鍛ﾆ暖ﾅ断ﾅｽﾂｦ窶敕や?堙坂?ｰﾅ?ﾂ湘｣ﾂ湘ｳ窶佚披?堙可。 ﾂ「AKB48窶堙??堙債坂?壺?ｹ'窶堙昶?堙遺?堙昶?堙娯?堋ｱ窶堙??堙??堋?窶堙ｩﾂ」ﾂ。ﾂ秋ﾅ陳ｳﾂ康窶堙俄?堋ｱ窶堋､ ﾂｾ窶堙ｭ窶堋ｵ窶堙淞、ﾆ丹ﾆ停?ｹﾂーﾆ致窶牢窶佚娯?堙ｰﾅｽﾃｦ窶堙ｨ窶堙懌?堙??堙溪?堙ｩ窶敕楪鞘?披?堙個静凪?戮ﾅ?'窶堙娯?ｹﾂｭ窶堋ｳ窶堙ｰﾂ考窶堋ｦ窶堙ｩ窶堙?、ﾂ債｡ﾅ津｣窶堙固?ﾋ??慊ｮ窶堙俄?佚･窶堋ｫ窶堙遺?ｰe 窶ｹﾂｿ窶堙ｰ窶ｹy窶堙壺?堋ｷ窶堋ｱ窶堙??堙坂?｢Kﾅｽﾅ?窶堋ｩﾂ。
AKB48ﾂｹﾃ｢ﾂｶﾂｶﾂ､ﾃ淞､ﾃ環､ﾃ淞､ﾃ偲甘ｬﾂｿﾃ?づ｡ﾃ甘｡ﾂ｡ﾂ｢ﾂ･ﾃ債･ﾃδ･ﾃ按､ﾃ渉ｱﾃｪﾂｾﾃ･ﾂｾﾃｵﾃづ鳴､ﾃ?ﾂ･ﾃ按･ﾃ板･ﾃδ･ﾂｯﾂ･ﾃ仰･ﾃ･ﾂ｡ﾂｼﾂ･ﾂｹ) - ﾂｹﾃｱﾃ?｢ - livedoor ﾂ･ﾃ仰･ﾃ･ﾂ｡ﾂｼﾂ･ﾂｹ
Peer-review journals:
*www.icn.ucl.ac.uk/sblakemore/SJ_papers/BlaCho_jcpp_06.pdf
*National Center for Biotechnology Information › Journal List › NIHPA Author Manuscripts
Other sources cited:
*CHILD ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY 195, 198 (1999); Interview: Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, supra note 53 (Dr. Preuss commented here that adults presumably use both the amygdala and the frontal cortex. He explained that the ﾂ"amygdala is activated in studies of adult emotion recognition, especially fear.ﾂ").
*Brief for the Petitioner, Roper v. Simmons, U.S. (2004) No. 03-633, 2004 WL 903158, at *33-34 (ﾂ"There is certainly a point at which age is an appropriate proxy
for determining whether imposing capital punishment on an individual makes sense, even without legislation. In the common law, it was age seven. . . . . Under the consensus recognized in Thompson and Stanford, it is sixteen.ﾂ")[/LEFT]
