Nov 23, 2009
I REFER to Mr Alvin Chen's letter last Monday, 'Give courts more sentencing discretion'. This was in response to Mr Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy's letter, 'Decriminalise consensual underage sex' (Nov 13).
Allowing 'consent' to trump what society perceives as morally bad behaviour is to undermine society's right to enforce its moral determinations. This was an issue that Lord Patrick Devlin addressed his mind to in his essay, The Enforcement Of Morals.
Lord Devlin stated that a shared morality is what keeps a society together. The law is used to prevent the loosening of this moral 'cement'. Thus, as a matter of presumption, the fact that a law exists that criminalises consensual sex between minors indicates that the word is already out on the moral judgment of such behaviour.
Mr Chen's argument that the state should be paternalistic in situations where consent might be given by minors who do not have sufficient maturity is also not without problems. First, using a 'sufficiently mature' consent approach to determine whether certain acts should be legislated is a slippery slope that could see us spiralling towards decriminalising even euthanasia or incest.
Second, Mr Chen's proposal of reform at the level of sentencing, and not at the level of legislation, presupposes that such an action is wrong to begin with. However, if Mr Chen is willing to accept it is not morally wrong for mature minors to engage in consensual sex, why should even punishment be meted out?
Alternatively, if one can show that as a matter of statistical probability, sexual activity at this age results in an aversion to deepening the commitment of a relationship via the institution of marriage, or that it affects an individual's psyche in the perception of the value of commitment, then in so far as the institution of marriage or the value of commitment is regarded as a moral good that society embraces, one could also find oneself somewhat persuaded that the law should remain.
Marcus Foo
[Agree with the gist of the letter. But Marcus makes a wrong assumption: that laws reflect morality. Adultery is morally unacceptable to most. But it is not criminalised. Prostitution is also not acceptable to most. But it is not criminalised. Gambling - to many also not acceptable, legal.
What "consenting" children do sexually is not morally acceptable. The question is whether criminalising these acts is the best solution? Sending them through the courts and giving the courts little discretionary powers to deal with minors - is this the best way to deal with the problem? The answer is not simply decriminalise or criminalise. A first step would be to give the courts more leeway and discretion.]
I REFER to Mr Alvin Chen's letter last Monday, 'Give courts more sentencing discretion'. This was in response to Mr Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy's letter, 'Decriminalise consensual underage sex' (Nov 13).
Allowing 'consent' to trump what society perceives as morally bad behaviour is to undermine society's right to enforce its moral determinations. This was an issue that Lord Patrick Devlin addressed his mind to in his essay, The Enforcement Of Morals.
Lord Devlin stated that a shared morality is what keeps a society together. The law is used to prevent the loosening of this moral 'cement'. Thus, as a matter of presumption, the fact that a law exists that criminalises consensual sex between minors indicates that the word is already out on the moral judgment of such behaviour.
Mr Chen's argument that the state should be paternalistic in situations where consent might be given by minors who do not have sufficient maturity is also not without problems. First, using a 'sufficiently mature' consent approach to determine whether certain acts should be legislated is a slippery slope that could see us spiralling towards decriminalising even euthanasia or incest.
Second, Mr Chen's proposal of reform at the level of sentencing, and not at the level of legislation, presupposes that such an action is wrong to begin with. However, if Mr Chen is willing to accept it is not morally wrong for mature minors to engage in consensual sex, why should even punishment be meted out?
Alternatively, if one can show that as a matter of statistical probability, sexual activity at this age results in an aversion to deepening the commitment of a relationship via the institution of marriage, or that it affects an individual's psyche in the perception of the value of commitment, then in so far as the institution of marriage or the value of commitment is regarded as a moral good that society embraces, one could also find oneself somewhat persuaded that the law should remain.
Marcus Foo
[Agree with the gist of the letter. But Marcus makes a wrong assumption: that laws reflect morality. Adultery is morally unacceptable to most. But it is not criminalised. Prostitution is also not acceptable to most. But it is not criminalised. Gambling - to many also not acceptable, legal.
What "consenting" children do sexually is not morally acceptable. The question is whether criminalising these acts is the best solution? Sending them through the courts and giving the courts little discretionary powers to deal with minors - is this the best way to deal with the problem? The answer is not simply decriminalise or criminalise. A first step would be to give the courts more leeway and discretion.]
