"Well, although the court should punish people by judging as if a fair judge would do, practically speaking, the judges are simply human beings, and they may have bad impression on the teacher because of the difference in age, ......the reasons)"
For such a serious criminal case, we may have jury (the public). Law is design BY the people for the people, ofcourse they know about this.
"When compared to older students, those aged 11 would have less chance to know about sex. That's why I believe that schools should ... ...If so, it seems to me that it is also well possible for the girl to get her information about sex by her own means also."
It does not matter whether the older ones gets the informaion or not, once they are given the chance, it is THEIR responsibility to grasp the information. For the 11 years old, she is not even given the chance.
It is like predestian who insist on crossing the road on a red light. They will deserve all the consequences. Whereas if it is only a little children below 9 year old crossing, their guardian will e responsible (negligence).
"Of course, it is a case very different from rape. But it maybe arguable ...... are likely to be based on some good relationship before one party "乙水" another."
If a social worker lures a mentally disable woman into sex, is that not rape? What about someone who drugged a woman into sex in her disoriented state? The girl is only 11, the parent can be charge for child negligence if she is left alone at home.
"Also, I think it would be unfair to compare those of 11 years old with those baby. In fact, we would usually judge people's rationality by their behaviours (after all, we can't just "view" their mental states). ... I think that she does have the ability to make rational choices."
Quite the reverse, without parents, she will be even more dependent as she will have no one to learn the life lesson from. Who will be more mature? A person who live in a loving family, or a person that live alone in the wild?
Do we need scientific report to support the obvious? (I have read before about it)
If having sex with the teacher (who has a wife and child) is rational, what is not? I see 11 year old doing silly things all the time. Yes, they no longer do many things that causes immediate danger, but their foresight is still very short. I suppose you note that we ALREADY places many place off limit for 11 year old to make it impossible for them to be silly. Currently (in Canada at least), it is a crime to leave an 11 year old at home alone.
" The girls may have not sufficient income to raise the child, but the teacher should have (it doesn't necessary for both parents to have job to raise a children). In addition, there should be some social subsidy if she accidentially gets a baby. Otherwise, should those low income people's right to have baby be deprived?"
Sorry, if a person income cannot support a baby, they should not have a baby. Planning to get welfare for your baby is just irresponsible. It is irresponsible to force the society to pick up the tab for irresponsible individual behaviour.
Will the teacher pay for it? the teacher has a wife and child. It is what is so irrational about the girl. Did she has the life experience to judge WHO can be trusted and who cannot? The teacher is PLACED in a place of trust, not by his merit, but by the guardians. Should he be any stranger on the street, the chance of the girl trusting the bull will probably drop.
"I agree with you that "Two wrongs do not make a right", but those irresponsible older ladies would mean that ages should not be the underlying difference for people to judge for the rightness in cases."
Not really. We must understand the differemce in the underlying causes. For the older ladies, it is because of their owned INFORMED choice. For the 11 year old, she is not properly informed.
"The law (or at least, the judgement) would not be necessary reflect the social norms. Otherwise, how come so many people have dispute on legal judgements? For example, the cases of 中大學生報 and the bible leads to some dispute, right?"
The bible issue is not a legal fight. The agency is a government agency backed by the law, but the ruling is not. (You notice there is no judges in the case since the beginning)
The dispute is not whether we should have such an agency or not (which is law), but how the details on agency should operate (which is not exactly law, but government administration).
[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-1-20 12:01 編輯 ] |