1

Person A does Act B to Person C. The law says this is a crime.

If Person C is a minor, Act B is no longer a crime.

What are the arguments for and against this kind of legal / social arrangement?

I instinctively feel the law should be giving more protection, not less, to children than adults, but we find this not so in practice.

UPDATE

OK, so people want examples:

A

If Adult A strikes Adult B with the open hand, this is the crime of assault. Adult A can be arrested.

If Adult A strikes Child C with the open hand, this is not assault. Adult A would not be arrested.

B

If Adult A ties down Adult B by the arms and legs, naked and spread-eagled, and uses sharp implements to cut off a part of his penis, that is sexual assault and battery causing grievous bodily harm.

Id Adult A ties down Child B by the arms and legs, naked and spread-eagled, and uses sharp implements to cut off a part of his penis, with no medical benefit, this is considered OK.

Stewart
  • 225
  • 1
  • 7
  • I am not familiar with the legal system. What examples are you referring to? This is just to help put this in context. Welcome to this SE! – Frank Hubeny Nov 24 '18 at 11:53
  • Hello, I can't think of a case where Act B done by Adult A to Adult C is not a crime (all else equal) if done by Adult A to Child C. If I kill someone intentionally, this is a crime : and it is a crime regardless of whether the human being I kill is an adult or a child. I may have missed your point. I echo Frank Hubeny : an example would help. – Geoffrey Thomas Nov 24 '18 at 12:14
  • This question should be put on hold until the author can provide an example of what country/legal system they are talking about. This type of situation is **not** present in western legal systems and (regardless about whether it is correct for this to be the case or an example of imperalism) most countries in the world have modeled their legal systems off of a western template. After googling this topic I could not find examples of countries that do this. In fact, most of the time when dealing with, for example, sexual or violent crimes, the exact opposite is true. – Not_Here Nov 24 '18 at 13:53
  • @Stewart. Under UK law both examples in A would count as assault. In B the same action could fall under different descriptions. In the adult to adult case there is sexual assault and battery causing grievous bodily harm and that is the end of the matter. No other description is relevant. ... – Geoffrey Thomas Nov 24 '18 at 17:31
  • @Stewart. ... In the adult to child case, by contrast, another description is relevant since the action is one of circumcision, an act of cultural tradition not done with any intention to harm the child (on the contrary) whatever the brief pain caused. I take no view on circumcision but B is not intentionally cruel in the adult to child case in the same way and sense in which you describe the adult to adult case. – Geoffrey Thomas Nov 24 '18 at 17:32
  • So first, A is [battery, not assault](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault_and_battery). Second, both of your examples are not talking about the specific *crimes*, they're talking about specific actions. You are giving a very un-nuanced view of how crimes and legal definitions work. As Geoffrey pointed out, there is a litany of extraneous factors that are happening in your examples. If your case A happened and the adult hitting the child was not the parent of the adult, that person absolutely could be charged with battery. And Geoffrey correctly and thoroughly addressed case B. – Not_Here Nov 24 '18 at 18:00
  • 1
    There are many examples where the criminal law responds differently when the victim, or the object of some action, is a child instead of an adult. The response can also vary with the age of the child. Did you have a specific example in mind? – Mark Andrews Nov 25 '18 at 05:46
  • You should specify the jurisdiction of you examples. I can think of many countries where your examples would not hold. Also I can't think of anyplace where an adult striking a child wouldn't be assault, unless the adult is the parent of that child or their trusted proxy. – christo183 Nov 26 '18 at 13:10

1 Answers1

1

No.

As much we as humans hate to admit it, we could not agree on basic universal laws. Even most simple of them all, "Thou shalt not kill", is suspended during the war. Militaries, even most advanced ones, often kill civilians including children as "collateral damage" and this is not considered as a war crime.

In reality, laws are set of rules created by ruling group in certain society to suit their needs and interests. Power to create laws often does not correspond with popular sentiment (for example homosexual marriage laws in US) and power to enforce laws is usually physical (no police - no laws) .

Decision to give children equal or better protection under the law depends on those who rule in that society. Usually, in a countries with low birth rate and higher standards of living, children are cherished and pampered, sometimes even spoiled. Therefore, harm done to child is usually punished harder then harm done to adult. But in countries with high birth rate and low living standards children are viewed as junior members of society with least respect. Therefore, harming a child is sometimes socially accepted, and that same child would continue the practice when it grows up.

Philosophically (and mathematically perhaps) we could argue which strategy (child pampering, child abusing or something in the middle) is ultimately better, but that goes out of the scope of this question.

rs.29
  • 1,166
  • 4
  • 9
  • What I understand from your answer, is that it is 100% cultural, and nothing to do with philosophy of law or philosophy of morality. – Stewart Nov 24 '18 at 09:27
  • 1
    @Stewart Laws are not based on ethics, and moral philosophy is rather ambiguous discipline - it does not give straight answers like this is right and this is wrong. It could only debate consequences of certain actions. – rs.29 Nov 24 '18 at 14:07