Many laws, and the enforcement of other laws, are entirely missing the point of their creation, or circumstances surrounding them.
Recently, a fifteen year old girl was charged with the 'possession and distribution of child pornography' as well as the sexual abuse of children. The pictures she 'possessed' that got her in trouble? Those of herself.
Most states (all?) in the United States now prohibit sale of alcholic beverages to, or the purchase of said beverages by, persons under the age of 21.
People are not allowed to vote in federal elections until they reach a certain age (18?). Why? What do these three things have in common?
Many laws, especially in the US, are designed to protect people 'because they don't know better' and don't have the capability of knowing better. Children are not born with the experience or reasoning ability of an adult, and this makes some sense. We do not assume that a child would understand that actions have reprecussions. We assume that children would not have the mental capacity to make an informed decision when voting. We assume that they do not have the wherewithal to consume alcohol responsibly, without being a danger to themselves or others. We do not presume that they have the ability to, upon their own free will, pose nude or in sexual situations without understanding the reprecussions of doing so. We feel the need to step in to prevent them from being abused by others or themselves.
When a fourty-year-old man is taking pictures of an adolecsent, it makes sense that we step in and see to it that the child is protected. But when a fifteen year old is charged with possesion of pictures of herself, is there nothing wrong with this scenario? Is it illegal for the child to look at herself in the mirror as well?
We presume that a nineteen year old, or even a twenty-year old is not capable of deciding for itself an appropriate amount of alcohol to consume, so we legislate that they may not consume any. Why then, after we step in to protect them, do we then charge them with a crime because they are only acting as we expect? If the reason we tell them they cannot do something is because we do not think them capable of making their own decisions, why do we arrest them when they act this way? Instead, should we not be protecting them--helping to educate them?
If it was not their decision to do something, should they be punished? Of course not, doing so gains nothing. They have nothing to learn, no behavior to be modified if they did nothing wrong. It strikes me as odd that we state that these people are unable to make their own decisions, and then punish them under the premise that it was their choice.
We need to take a look at laws, the reasons behind them, and how they are enforced. We need to put an end to our schizophrenia.
--