I believe prosecution must be in placed instead of just uttering, “The problem is, do we send the boy to jail? What good would that do?’” Quote from A-G Water Woon.

Like or Dislike: 0  3

Some thoughts from an adjudicator’s perspective on the comments above:

1. Anonymous and Michael both are on the right track with their arguments. We should understand firstly what the goals of prosecution are (in terms of the justice system), secondly when prosecution should and should not be used (as a principle), and finally evaluate whether the issue of teenage consensual sex fits into that category or not. So well done to both of them for identifying the most important issue of the debate.

2. However, where Michael and Shutha (in comment #8) both went slightly astray was in asserting that prosecution must lead to jail time. As I explained above (#3 and #9), the punishment meted out can include something as “light” as counseling. The debaters should thus not confuse the criminality of the offense (which is the real debate we need to have for this topic) with the issue of what punishment should be meted out (which is not the real debate here). In fact, agreeing that the youths “must” get counseling could be construed as a slight concession to the proposition case. A better approach would be to argue that prosecution by the court system is not the right way to ensure that these youth receive counseling because (1) appearing in court can be traumatic for a young boy and girl, and (2) the educational institutions and parents are better placed to provide good counseling for the couple, as opposed to the state-provided counseling service – thus, state prosecution is not a good solution.

3. Arguing the radical opposition perspective that teenage consensual sex should be decriminalised (and thus “unprosecutable”) is very difficult to defend, so I would recommend that junior debaters avoid such “drastic” cases.

Hope everybody learned a little bit from that short debate!

Like or Dislike: 3  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0

The question of what punishment to impose (prison versus counselling) is different from the question of whether or not we should prosecute in the first place. I would argue that we should keep the law as it is today, prosecute the teenagers, but impose a sentence that (1) is not permanent on their records, and (2) ensures that they receive the proper guidance and counselling, rather than locking them behind bars.

So why should we keep the law as it is? Society creates some laws to protect minors from themselves, by limiting what they can and cannot do – we currently prohibit youth from drinking and smoking, among other things. Adults are allowed to make the decision to smoke/drink because society feels that they are mature enough to take responsibility for their decisions, but youth are not yet mature enough to do the same. Using the same logic, we should ensure that laws exist to prevent teenagers from making decisions about sex (which may have a long-term impact via STDs or unwanted pregnancies) until they are informed and mature enough to deal with the consequences. Teenagers need to be reminded that it is against the law to have sex, even if they are in love. While intelligent debaters may be smart enough to know the consequences, not all teenagers may be mature or informed enough – and thus this law (and enforcing the law via prosecution) is still critical.
Hence, we should not decriminalise the offence, and should prosecute teenagers – but we don’t have to send them to jail, as I already stated.

Like or Dislike: 2  0

Like or Dislike: 2  0

Fellow debaters, what do you think? Should we start rounding up and prosecuting every teen who has had consensual (but underage) sex?

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 3  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0