Talk:Age of consent in North America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

United States

There is a glaring inaccuracy that should be corrected.

Here is the entirety of Section 2423, with my own comments. and I've bolded the pertinent parts.. Transportation of Minors:

(a) Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity. - A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years.

This provision deals with transportation of an under 18 person.

(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct. - A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

This provision deals with travel to have sex with an under 18 person.

(f) Definition. - As used in this section, the term "illicit sexual conduct" means (1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age.

This actually defines "illicit sexual conduct". Now, my previous discussion before this edit had the Chapter 109A reference directly put into Subsection (b). It would seem that all the US PROTECT Act was put in a new words "illicit sexual conduct", then seperated the definition out into it's own subsection. The only thing really new to this section is that now it's illegal to travel to another state or country to engage in commercial sexual acts with an under 18 person. This is really pretty much a moot point in the US due to prostitution being entirely illegal except in one or two counties in Nevada (and neither of those counties allow any sort of prostitution of under 18's). Again, prostitution is not within the scope of "Age of Consent" either way.

In no case is there anything in there about "avoiding the age of consent statute of a state", nor anything in there about parental permission at all.

2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as it's bright line standard for interstate and foriegn commerce for "illicit sexual conduct" as far as non-commercial sexual conduct goes. Basically, the entirety of Chapter 109A has to do with sexual abuses of people in general in federal territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, federal prisons). Rather than recreate new statute, Congress basically took 109A by reference and extended it beyond the "federal territories" provision and applied it to interstate and foreign commerce and travel. With US PROTECT, all they really did was shuffle some words around and create a few new subsections. Congress, once again, shows it's ability to pass a bill that allows them to say something, but in reality, does little to nothing.

Section 2423 adopts Chapter 109A's standards as far as travel intent. Since we're dealing with matters of "personal consentual sexual activity" (note I didn't say legal consentual sexual activity), rather than rape and involuntary sexual abuse, the only section in chapter 109A has to do with the general issue of Age of Consent is section 2243(a)

Section 2243(a) (a) Of a Minor. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who - (1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and (2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisonednot more than 15 years, or both.

As a hypothetical example, Oregon and Washington. Oregon has an age of consent of 18 for sexual activity (with a close in age exception). Washington has an age of consent of 16 for the exact same thing. 25 year old lives in Idaho and meets a 17 year old online who lives in Portland, Oregon. They decide to get together and the 25 year old from Idaho gets a motel in Vancouver, WA, where the minor can take TriMet and C-Tran bus service up there. He does travel interstate from Idaho to Washington with the intention of engaging in sexual activity with the 17 year old.

As far as the federal law is concerned, did he violate federal law? The answer is no. Now, Idaho Law and Oregon Law may say something different. Idaho may make it illegal to communicate online to a minor in the manner that he did. The same may be the case with Oregon. But the discussion is over Federal law here, not state laws, and they should be addressed in a similar manner that I did with Washington State.

There's nothing in these statutes about parental permission. As for transporting minors in Section 2423(a), I am not sure as to the effects here. They are talking about "criminal sexual activity", or "prostitution". The question here also is somewhat applicable to my Oregonian and Idahoan in Washington situation, except if the 25 year old picked up said 17 year old in Oregon. Now, his intention was to engage in sexual activity in Washington, not criminal sexual activity in Oregon. Is he legal as far as 2423(a) is concerned?

I say yes. I'd done some cursory searching through legal sources, and I can't find any sort of similar situation of "evasion of age of consent" in any of the cases that I've found. Unless someone has access to Westlaw or a similar database that can do some searching, I'm at a loss to prove my thoughts correct on 2423(a), though I believe my thinking on 2423(b)and (f) is completely correct.

-Gray Coyote

I'm glad you cleared that up somewhat (and possibly opened other cans of worms ;). The intent of my previous edit was to start the process of turning this dot point hell page into prose. So I wasn't doing any actual major fact checking, but something about the PROTECT part didn't sit right with me, that's why I added the {citeneeded} tag. In the hope that someone would come along and sort it out. There were several articles I found via google that were no help (all too old) and then there was the strange little addition to the very end of PROTECT Act of 2003 under all the external links and so on stateing that it had been over ruled. So /confusion/ --Monotonehell 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Congress apparently intended the situation to be quite confusing, a lot of it has to do with political cover, and being able to claim "I did this" when in reality it did little to nothing. All it really did is extend extraterritoriality to current laws that effect federal possessions. I also believe communications should also be just as covered as sexual activity in of itself.Gray Coyote 02:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Unless this article is only about age of consent for sex, the Canada section is wrong. Informed consent etc varies by province. Also per WP:MoS, the headers should not be wikilinked. Ardenn 17:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes the article is only about the AoC for sex. It is a subpage of Age of consent. Could you please expand what you mean by your statement regarding the Canada section being wrong? That paragraph isn't the best prose and I haven't been totaly happy with it. But it does cite legislation. If you have further insight to the legal situation in Canada by all means update the section. :)

You've also removed the request for the format of entries, this wasn't put in lightly. The page was presented this way after a lot of problems with people adding unverified (and often wrong) information. The normal templates were tried as well as talk page suggestions and HTML comments but nothing worked as well as the explicit instruction box.

I can see what you intended and you're entitled to be bold. But you possibly are not familiar with the history of the Age of consent pages and the troubles they have seen. I'm going to reinstate the orange box (yes it's a tad non-wp) as it has worked wonders on the other pages, like Age of consent in Australia and Oceania and Age of consent in Europe. Eventually the boxes will be removed when the format of the articles is more clear.

I've edited the titles as you suggested and will change that formatting on the other pages eventually. You're quite right that they shouldn't be linked. What REALLY needs help however is the main page Age of consent it needs a lot more references and so on. --Monotonehell 13:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the page so it is properly named. Ardenn 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The part about Canada isn't wrong if it's just about sex, but the article needed to be re-named to reflect that it's just about sex. There are many age of consent issues, like medical informed consent. Ardenn 16:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a common term! you can create new article concerning 'issues' if you have to say smth. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 07:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What's been going on? It looks as if Ardenn has moved the pages to a new name, then removed the links to the main article and then nominated them for deletetion? Why? --Monotonehell 08:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just for deletion. For speedy (!) deletion. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 09:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was told on this talk page the article is just about sex, so hence it is not appropriately named. Ardenn 15:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

IT IS COMMON TERM. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The main article indicates the series (for lack of a better word) is more than just about age of consent for sex. The name is wrong because there is also age of consent to join the military, to give informed consent, etc. Ardenn 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've already noted. you can create new article e.g. Age of consent to join the military. This article stays as it is. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess we'll just see about that. Ardenn 16:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard the term "Age of Consent" used to refer to anything but sex when used without qualifiers. Additionally, searching for just "age of consent" and pressing GO on Wikipedia brings you directly to the page that directly addresses informed consent on sexual matters, of which "Ages of consent in North America" is one of several continent-themed subpages.

Last I looked, both this page AND Age of Consent also included a link to a disambig. So I see no reason to mess with it at all. Runa27 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - We spent a lot of time working through the whole disambig route to the subpages and the structure of these pages, only to have these editors go off on all kinds of illogical tangents. --Monotonehell 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Age/Ages

This should be at ages. While yes, "age of consent" is a common name, this is a list of ages of consent around North America, not just one term. Having it at ages of consent in North America doesn't even violate WP:NC(CN), as it still USES the common term, just makes it correct. If there was one age of consent in North America, then that would be where the article was, but there are many! Nobody would use age of consent in North America when it clearly refers to more than one age, and so "ages" is clearly more common. --Rory096 06:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL This argument could go on for ages with semantics and normative statements. :) The page is in fact a list of Laws regarding the Age of consent (for sex? lol) in many jurisdictions. So which word to pluralise?

Ages of consent

Age of consents

Age of consent laws

There's been a lot of page moves going on recently, I'm not against a civil discusion regarding a name change. As long as once a consenus is reached, all 7 pages in this group have a consistent and logical page structure. Perhaps we should move this entire debate to the main page and address all the concerns people have instead of all these edit wars? --Monotonehell 10:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion copied to Talk:Age of consent ----

I moved it again. The singular form is obviously not correct—"age of consents" is also grammatically incorrect. "Age of consent laws" also makes sense. Ages of consent is what I chose for the present. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WHY did you move it again? Is it not obvious that there's been an edit war going on here and things need to be discussed? This is not the ONLY page in this group of articles, If one is moved they all need to be moved, then all the links need to be updated. If you have a POV regarding this please DISCUSS it at Talk:Age of consent. --Monotonehell 06:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The article's focus is on the variance between the Ages that can consent to particular acts. The variable that differs from article to article is not what is consented to, but the difference in ages from state to state. Thus, the proper term for this article is "Ages of consent". BorgHunter is correct. Daniel Davis 12:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but, it could also be said that this article is about the legal principle of "age of consent" as it is applied in North America. The signular in that case would be fine. And as it stands right now the corresponding article for every other region is using the singular. --joeOnSunset 05:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Grammatically ages may be correct but clearly the more standard usage is "age of consent" among popular culture and the law. Joe is correct, Age of Consent is a legal principle and it is discussed on this page as that principle applies to North American. A more appropriate title would seem to be "Age of Consent Laws in North America". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.186.52 (talk • contribs) .

Personaly I would prefer "Age of consent North America" as it was when I first created this page. As they are all sub pages of the main article. But since then there's been several people moving the page as they see fit. But the funny thing is it's only this page that they move. All the other continents (as far as I remember) have only been moved by myself to make them the same format as this one.

I've moved all the pages to the same format as the current name of this page, after reading everyone's comments (there weren't many) and noticeing that avert.org name their table "Worldwide ages of consent".

I dont think there's a right or wrong answer to this question. --Monotonehell 07:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Colorado

I added this citing the proper statutes, if you do not agree please tell me why. Weltall42 12:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So the AoC in Colorado is effectively 17? If so, let's say so. --Monotonehell 05:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No There isn't an age of consent exactly, as the statute says if one party is under 14 then it's legal if the other is within 4 years of age, and if they are 15 or older then it's legal if they are within 10 years of age. Two 10 year olds are technically legal.Weltall42 10:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The question is, at what age is it that a person can make their own consent to any other person regardless of either's age, under the law. That's the actual age of consent. It may be that there are close in age exemptions and they should be mentioned also.

I think the key phase here is "but less than seventeen years of age" in the second point. Which makes the unfetted age of consent in Colorado 17, with a close in age exemption of 4 years for those under 15 and 10 for those between 15 and 16 inclusive. What do you think?

Also I just noticed 18-3-405.3 which talks about 18 for positions of trust. --Monotonehell 10:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit continued confusion. I read 18-3-402(e) and it seems to imply that if one party is 16 and the other party is less than 10 years older that it is not a violation. Of course, the part where it says 15 would seemingly be trumped by the Federal law which sets the minimum at 16. So, depending on where you stand in the sand, that is where the line is drawn. All 4 should be listed, AoC for Under 15, AoC for 15 - 17, AoC for 17+, AoC for Positions of Trust. And IMHO (and some kind of footnote regarding the fact that even if it doesn't violate state law for a 15-year-old to have sex with someone who is 19+ it would seemingly violate Federal Law, {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.186.52 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not aware of a federal law that trumps state law (within that state's borders) only laws that refer to extraterritorality and transportation across state boundries.

How about the following?:

---

The age of consent in Colorado is 17. However there exist close in age exemptions; for those under the age of 15 their partner may be within 4 years of their age {18-3-402(d)}; and for those at least 15 years of age and less than 17 their partner may be within 10 years of their age {18-3-402(e)}. It is important to note that there also exists an age of consent of 18 for those in positions of trust or authority (teacher, guardian, etc) {18-3-405.3}. Colorado revised statutes website

---

How does that sound? --Monotonehell 08:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing dispute

As far as I can see the dispute here has been resolved. If not please talk about it here. --Monotonehell 07:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Prose v dot points

I've been converting the non-encyclopedic dot points to prose as I find the time. But it would be good if new entries are not presented in dot points. Also if any one else feels like checking facts and copy editing sections into prose that would be good for the project. --Monotonehell 20:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Change in Canada

Similar changes in the law in other Anglo-saxon majority countries has had little effect on Pimps and drug dealers or Priests who exploit young people.Interestingly the USA and Britain who have very similar cultural backgrounds tend to have a higher teenage pregnancy rate than European countries that have lower ages of consent.The only likely effect of this Bill ,for example,will be to stop responsible 25 year old accountants having sexual relations with young people .It will not stop those who already exploit young people,since they are already in breach of the law in many cases eg Pimps,18 year old criminals who care very little for unplanned pregnancies or the transmission of diseases.Increasing the age of consent tends to increase the devision between responsible adults and the young and limits the choice for the young and leaves room for exploiters to step in .One has to question the motivation for such a bill;has it been introduced to statisfy personnal religous views .Has it been introduced by overweight middle-aged men because they fear more attractive ethnic groups having sex ,when they themselves are to grotesque to be found attractive by young people.(The UK tightened their laws in the the 1950's,just before the influx of Blacks and Asians into the country).Of course this bill will not stop wealthy Canadians from going abroad in order to breach the new law and hence it is aimed at the poor.Canadians be Scared be very Scared,you will end up as USA ,high child murder rates ,largest consumer of porn. --The previous unsigned opinion was soapboxed by: |213.48.46.141|22:46, 4 July 2006

Sorry, Wikipedia isn't the forum to express opinions. Even if I personally like the idea of critical thought and open debate. BTW: What are "pips"? --Monotonehell 08:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see this is something you feel strongly about, but I reiterate, Wikipedia is not the place for people to rant about their beliefs no matter what side of the debate they stand. If this were any other forum I would join in. But alas this is an encyclopedia. Verifyable facts only please. --Monotonehell 02:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Canadian age of consent.

Quoting the article:

Finally, there is an exemption in cases where the partners are within two years of age of each other (Section 150.1(2)) or where the person who would be charged is under 14 (Section 150.1(3)). Section 159 of the Criminal Code sets the age of consent for anal intercourse at 18 years, with an exception if the two partners are married. This makes it the age of consent for gay men at 18. Also, Section 153(2) mandates an age of consent of 18 years in cases where the other partner is in a "position of trust or authority".

I'm not sure I understand this, is this saying that gay male teens can't have sex at all? Or does it mean that they (no one, actually) simply can't have anal intercourse until they are 18. Because, there are other ways of having sex than anal. 156.34.211.160 22:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes the wording's a little clumsy. The Age of consent is considered to be where an individual is free to consent to any form of sexual activity with another individual. In places like Canada and Queensland, Australia where there are special rules for anal sex it's hard to say the AoC is X when there's a curtailing of a certain activity until Y. --Monotonehell 03:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

History

There should be a history section included in this and other related articles. How has it changed over time? What have been the trends? What were the laws in colonial America and the times in between? I realize some of this info may be hard to find, but it would be good to add. --Kalmia 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you know any, feel free to add it (remember to cite sources). Take the example of Ages of consent in Europe of a good way to do it. The only problem is we have to be very concise as these pages are often larger than recommended. There's a lot of individual states to cover. --Monotonehell 01:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Iowa law

I am marking this article for NPOV due to the rant-like comments about Iowa's laws. The fact that there are two links over to an article at http://www.omaha-neb.com/iowa.htm seems to look like the editor had some kind of axe to grind about this law.71.177.5.219 08:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This has come up before and if I remember the previous response was to remove it completely. - Do my revisions meet your expectations? --Monotonehell 08:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Other countries?

THere is no information at all here on countries in North America other than Canada and the U.S. There are a great many such countries, though it can be easy to miss them on a map. See North America. I can't find any other list that might include them, such as Ages of Consent in Central America, so I'm adding a few headers in to marks where (some of) the missing information ought to go. Fill it in, please, if you know the answers.

yeah, what about mexico, for example. Not so small —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.35.12.219 (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

The reason they are missing is because someone hasn't done the research and added them as yet. Wikipedia isn't magic - it relies on the additions of everyone who wants to contribute. So instead of complaining how about contributing? --Monotonehell 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sections that need work

I've been trying to keep up with the maintenance of this page but I'd like others to help. The problem is that editors keep adding sections in dot point form where they should be written in encyclopedic prose as per WP:MoS. With the bad examples still in the artice, more editors keep adding to the problem.

You can help, I've moved all the offending sections to here. If you wish to you can do the following;

1. Pick a section, Strike out the part you've icked with <strike> </strike> to show that you're working on the section

2. Verify the information in it, check the references are valid and the interpretation is correct.

3. Repair any inaccuracies, add valid references to and possibly quotes of, official legislation where you can

4. Rewrite the section in prose, using the correct academic language and format. There should only be one age bolded, the unfettered age of consent. Any close in age exemptions or other variations should be discussed directly after. Look to the entries for Arizona and Colorado for the general format. Remember to add the references inline with each section, not as a ref template at the bottom of the article.

5. Add your revision, in alphabetical order to the appropriate place on the article.

The offending sections follow. Thanks for your help. --Monotonehell 20:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Washington

• 18 - Applies under three different sets of circumstances, enumerated in RCW 9A.44.096. Foster parents with their foster children; school teachers and school administration employees over their students; The third set of circumstances require all of the following situations occur in tandem: The older person is 60 months or more older than the 16 or 17 year old, the person is in a significant relationship as defined, and such older person abuses the relationship to have sexual contact.
• 16 - Under all other circumstances.
• Several have reported that the immoral communication with a minor statute exists and places the age of consent at 18 due to the inability to "communicate" to 16- and 17-year-olds about sexual activity. These reports have been alarming in nature, however they are completely anecdotal, and perhaps even urban legend. The Washington Court of Appeals, Division 1 decided in the case of State v. Danforth, 56 Wn. App. 133, 782 P.2d 1091 (1989) that such communication has to be for the purposes of committing an illegal act under RCW Chapter 9.68A. Danforth's conviction was overturned by that ruling. However, the Washington Supreme Court in the case of State v. McNallie, 120 Wn.2d 925, 846 P.2d 1358 (1993) overturned the scope of the Danforth ruling (though not the result; Danforth would have still had his conviction overturned under the McNallie standard), applying the communication statute to encompass all sexual misconduct with a minor, not just those under RCW Chapter 9.68A, which deal mostly with illegal child pornography and prostitution. Due to these cases, it is clear that communications with 16- and 17-year-olds just for general sexual activity is legal, as long as such conduct discussed is not about illegal conduct or would be illegal in real life (such as the teacher/student circumstance, the foster parent/foster child circumstance, the significant relationship abuse circumstance, or asking for illegal pictures or attempting to bring such younger persons into prostitution).

Wyoming

• 18 - Per Wyoming statute 14-3-105 et sq as interpreted by the Wyoming Supreme Court in State v. Pierson and State v. Moore. Since consent of a 16 or 17 year old (which was thought to be the age of consent for a different set of offenses) to non-commercial or non-threatening sexual activity is not an absolute defense to be charged under 14-3-105, and subject to "societal standards" and parental objection, this effectively makes Wyoming's age of consent to be 18.

Restoration of deleted content

Monotonehell makes a good case for improving the format and style of the above entries. However, stylistic differences, in and of themselves are generally insufficient to warrant removal of the underlying information. I'll be working as I'm able to improve the entries in this article, but, until an improved version is ready, if the information itself is accurate, it should stay in the article. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk, "The prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding". Incongruity with the MoS is not in & of itself a policy violation, as the MoS is not policy. I suggest improving the content instead. --Ssbohio 03:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Maryland

Maryland has a semi-complex system but the age of consent is 14. There are specific rules, but the map is wrong... its 14. --Mike 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We haven't seen any information about Maryland as yet, the map needs revising there's a lot of mistakes on it now. If you have any information about the law in Maryland that you can cite then please add it to the article. (see the orange box above for the kind of information required) --Monotonehell 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't that hard to dig up the legislation for Maryland. The AOC there is 16. But there are some messy exceptions. Roughly, those under 21 can consort with 14 and 15 year olds, and those under 14 can consort with anyone less than 4 years their senior. --Monotonehell 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

I am a criminal defense attorney practicing in Pennslyavnia. I corrected the misleading statement under the Pensnylvania section which stated that the age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16. Someone deleted my content and replaced it with the incorrect information which I had removed.

It is important to know that an adult in Pennsylvania absolutely cannot have sex with a person under the age of 18, without possibly facing criminal prosecution. I have defended defendants as young as 18 and 19 who had consensual sex with 16 and 17 year old girls. Because these girls were less than 18 years of age and the boys were over 18, the boys were charged with corruption of minors.

Corruption of minors is a serious offense, which can lead to jail time and prevent one from ever having an occupation which involves interaction with children. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vonratt (talk • contribs) 22:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

--Vonratt 22:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As an attorney, you'd be familiar with citing the law. See the orange box at the top of this page for details. Any edits without supporting, verifiable citations will be removed. As stated in the Reversion "RV Completely unreferenced edit. This all may very well be true but there was not ONE citation to thw law in the edit. Please feel free to re-add this information once you can include references." You have reverted the edit but have still not provided any references, in fact you removed the one reference that existed. I don't wish to discourage you from making good edits to Wikipedia, but please understand there are rules regarding verification of material. --Monotonehell 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

New Jersey?

For New Jersey's subsection of this article, the links provided actually link to a New Hampshire court, not a New Jersey one. If anyone could locate the actual New Jersey court system spot for this law, it would increase the validity of the article. --Lag10 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, well spotted. I actually made that bumble. when I edited NH's entry I confused it with the non existent NJ entry, which I should have removed (It had no references or text). We still need refs and text for NJ, if anyone has that knowledge. --Monotonehell 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Central America

I was looking at this seven continent model, and I have a doubt about Central America - where should information on Central America be added?

I mean, Central America is small but have a lot of countries. In the 7-continent map, it appears in light green together with North America. It seems that the page on North America is not appropriate for the countries of Central America.

There is a source in Switzerland who provides links for criminal legislation of six Central American countries, plus three more in the Caribbean – a total of 9 countries, all in Spanish http://www.unifr.ch/derechopenal/ley.htm (Université de Fribourg)

Central America – Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama; Caribbean – Cuba, Haiti, Puerto Rico

Maybe it should deserve a new page, like “AoC in Central America and Caribbean”? Paulo Andrade, 19 February 2007, 12:36 GMT

All up I think there'd be about 20 countries in North and Central America, although with the US having several states you're right that there will be quite a lot of sections listed here. I think for the moment we can keep adding them here as per the 7 continent model. The page is only 31KB long so far and can still grow quite a bit before we have to worry about it becoming too large. If we start making exceptions from the 7 continent model we've adopted it might get confusing. Go ahead and add them here if you want Paulo (in alphabetical country order, please) --Monotonehell 12:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Glaring Errors

It looks like 71.192.156.200 went through and changed the numbers for Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, & Missouri to numbers that contradict themselves in the paragraphs. Probably some inane attempt at vandalism.--wilkyisdashiznit 10:42, 15 April 2007

I recently undid this. If you see someting like this in the future you may wish to fix it yourself. Hit the history button at the top of the article, select the vandal's edit and the edit before that and click 'compare selected versions'. On the next page you'll see the differences between the revisions and next to the vandal's edit you'll see n 'undo' button, follow the instructions from there and if possible the system will revert the problem. Thanks for letting us know anyway! :) --Monotonehell 09:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Corruption of minors

The "glitch" in the PA section is not a glitch, but merely an aspect of corruption of minors law. Two minors can do things together without being convicted of "corruption of minors," but an adult doing the same thing with a minor corrupts that minor. Why this counts as a "glitch" is beyond me. Stop reverting it. 72.144.139.167 18:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The anon editor(s) above has twice removed the following section:

The corruption of minors statute creates a strange glitch in Pennsylvania law, as illustrated by the following hypothetical situation. A girl and boy in the same grade could be dating and legally having sex with each other throughout their 4 years of high school. In their senior year, the girl turns 18 in April, while the boy will not turn 18 until June. From April to June, if the boy and girl have sex, as they have previously done throughout high school, the girl is now committing the offense of corruption of a minor, because she is 18 years old and her boyfriend is only 17.

With the reason initially "this is no "glitch" at all" and secondly "this is not a glitch, it's an aspect of corruption of minors. Two minors can do things that an adult and minor can't - not a "glitch" and unworthy of special comment"

My concern is that it is worthy of a mention as two individuals can act "legally" until one of them turns 18 and the other does not, at which point they are technically breaking the law. That certainly sounds like something worth pointing out. Perhaps the only concern the IP has is the wording, specifically the word "glitch". Id like to see some discussion on this, as far as I'm concerned the reason given in the edit summary for its removal is in fact a very compelling reason for its inclusion. --Monotonehell 09:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania alcoholic beverage law (the AB law with which I am most familiar) has a "corruption of minors glitch" which is much more interesting and much more correctly termed a "glitch," as the author of the section here termed it. One is a minor in PA until the age of 18, except with regard to alcohol, when one is a minor until 21. A 19-year-old could give his 20-year-old friend alcohol and be guilty of corruption of minors - because one is an adult (over 17) giving a minor (technically, a person under 21 is a minor for alcohol!) alcohol, one is corrupting the morals of someone older than oneself. This is a glitch. An 18-year-old corrupting the morals of a 17-year-old does not strike me as counterintuitive or glitchy at all. It only appears glitchy if one does not understand that some minors engage in conduct which is corruptive of their morals (at least as far as corruption of morals law is concerned) even without being induced by an adult. I am not "seeing" the real glitch that is worthy of comment. 72.144.114.116 06:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is your problem with the word "glitch" or the inclusion of this fact completely? Because the example cited is very pertinent to discussion of this law. Two 17 year old people engaged in a legal sexual relationship suddenly find themselves in an illegal situation between their 18th birthdays. That's a situation that most other jurisdictions have a close in age provision to avoid this situation, either as a defence or an exception. --Monotonehell 10:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a close-in-age exception. So, what you what to do here is to point out a case where the exception does not apply, but rather the rule. That's abject nonsense. An exception is notable; when something follows the rule and expectations exactly, that is not notable. 72.144.68.227 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A caveat of this kind is quite notable. It was added by a (self confessed) legal practitioner in that jurisdiction who apparently defends young people caught by this unexpected application of the law. It's notable on three counts, one that people are apparently regularly charged on this offence, two that many other jurisdictions have close in age exceptions that recognise this, and three that's it's simply interesting. I can see your dogged logic, but in such a discussion we need to present a comprehensive overview (excuse the oxymoron). We have similar caveats in other Ages of consent in... articles in this series. --Monotonehell 11:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you actually cite a Pennsylvania Supreme Court or Appellate court case on this subject? [[User talk:Gray Coyote]Gray Coyote]] 05:23 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Incompleteness

Why is the age of consent given for about a dozen random states in the USA, but not all states? Is the article just not complete? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.85.225 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Information is added to Wikipedia by anyone who wants to. But there are rules. Information added must be verified and attributable to a reliable source. So the holes you see are caused by information that hasn't been added yet. It's not just the US that has missing entries, check out some of the other Ages of consent in... articles.

If you would like to help and can do the research - go for it! --Monotonehell 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Utah on the list. Does anyone know the Utah law and have a verifiable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpru (talk • contribs) 07:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Age 18

This article says that some states in the USA have ages of consent lower than 18. But it should point out that this only with parental consent, otherwise the age of consent is always at least 18 in the USA, sometimes higher. --76.214.152.7 19:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any references to back up this interesting statement that goes against all the information we have here already? --Monotonehell 22:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur; please cite your incorrect view of the law. What you say is manifestly at odds with a large amount of information that is publically available. Cite or get out. 68.32.238.94 23:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't move Hawaii to Ages of consent in Australia and Oceania

I think Hawaii should be kept on this page rather than moved to the Oceania page as it is now, for several reasons. First, while Hawaii may be geographically located in the Oceania region (though I don't see any mention of that on either the Hawaii article nor the Hawaiian islands article), it is a U.S. state, and is politically considered to be part of the North American continent (see lead paragraph of its article). Second, this article is about legal issues and political boundaries, and therefore, it makes sense to place localities based on their political ties rather than geographical location. Finally, it just doesn't make sense for all entries related to age of consent in U.S. states in the North America article, except for Hawaii sitting all by itself in the Australia/Oceanica article. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "Ages of consent" are grouped by continent as many articles are too, like List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, where the United States, the United Kingdom and France are mentioned in no less than 3 continents. Beside the fact that Hawaii is geographically located in Oceania, also the American Samoa, Wake island and some other US possessions can be included in Ages of consent in Australia and Oceania. JC 10:10, 9 December 2007 (PST)

links to laws for arkansas

the links to the laws for arkansas are coming back bad and need to be fixed. i hope this is where i would put this because i dont really know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.101.14 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)