Definition, please

[Pabmusic]

Flux is the name of the game, I agree Pabs

Sometimes I think too much, Ams.

[scottycelt]

Implies to whom? Abduction can certainly have a willing 'victim' because that isn't in the clear definition of abduction.

And surely there is no grading system at all as to the age of majority (as distinct from the age of consent). It is 18 in the UK, isn't it?


The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as it is conceptualized (and recognized or declared) in law. It is the chronological moment when minors cease to legally be considered children and assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over and for them.

My reference to age-grading (under the legal age) was in direct response to your own particular question regarding a 12-year old as if this age had any more relevance in law than, say, a 14-year old?

An under-age girl voluntarily running off with an older man is undoubtedly a criminal offence on the part of the latter but it s hardly 'kidnap' as the word 'abduction' has always implied to some of us.

However, I certainly won't be losing much sleep over the legal definition. As long as we all understand what each other is talking about that is all that really matters!

[french frank]

My reference to age-grading (under the legal age) was in direct response to your own particular question regarding a 12-year old as if this age had any more relevance in law than, say, a 14-year old?

Your reasoning is imprecise. What is 'the legal age' to which you refer? The age of criminal responsibility? The age of consent? The age of majority? These may be altered from time to time, but at any given moment they are defined by law. I merely mentioned 12 to test whether you felt that 12 would be considered a child, or what point you (as distinct from the law) considered childhood to end.

it s hardly 'kidnap' as the word 'abduction' has always implied to some of us.

The fact that 'some of us' have misunderstood the legal implications of the word 'abduction' is not a reason for the word not to be used accurately in a news story. If not abduction, and not kidnapping, what term would be acceptable to you? As I would understand it, the 'abduction' does not relate to the removal of the 'victim' solely, but her removal from her legal guardians.

[MrGongGong]

An under-age girl voluntarily running off with an older man is undoubtedly a criminal offence on the part of the latter but it s hardly 'kidnap' as the word 'abduction' has always implied to some of us.

!

Is that the "some of us" who seem to believe that "marriage" is only between consenting adults of the opposite sex ?

[vinteuil]

I would certainly hate for things to get to the state they are in parts of the USA, with offences such as 'statutory rape'. If I understand this correctly, the idea is that an underage person cannot consent to sex (even if they do say 'yes', they haven't the legal capacity) and so the offence is without consent - namely, rape. In Californa, for instance, the age of consent is 18 and sex under that age can amount to statutory rape. This, I believe, is what Roman Polanski got into trouble over.

... hmmm. If wiki is to believed it was a bit more serious than that :

In March 1977, film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with a number of offenses against Samantha Gailey, a 13-year-old girl – rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. At his arraignment Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges, but later accepted a plea bargain whose terms included dismissal of five of the initial charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse.

[jean]

Is that the "some of us" who seem to believe that "marriage" is only between consenting adults of the opposite sex?

Or of opposite sexes, even.

[MrGongGong]

Or of opposite sexes, even.

ooops

[vinteuil]

Is that the "some of us" who seem to believe that "marriage" is only between consenting adults of the opposite sex ?

Or of opposite sexes, even.

... surely Mr Gongs's formulation is acceptable? After all, one might say "consenting adults of the same sex", the underlying understood structure being "adults [each one being] of the same sex" - so, similarly "consenting adults of the opposite sex", with an understood "adults [each one being] of the opposite sex"?

[jean]

It's the the that is the problem, as it implies only one sex.

[Serial_Apologist]

It's the the that is the problem, as it implies only one sex.

Well, one sexual orientation - heterosexual.

[scottycelt]

Your reasoning is imprecise. What is 'the legal age' to which you refer? The age of criminal responsibility? The age of consent? The age of majority? These may be altered from time to time, but at any given moment they are defined by law. I merely mentioned 12 to test whether you felt that 12 would be considered a child, or what point you (as distinct from the law) considered childhood to end.

The fact that 'some of us' have misunderstood the legal implications of the word 'abduction' is not a reason for the word not to be used accurately in a news story. If not abduction, and not kidnapping, what term would be acceptable to you? As I would understand it, the 'abduction' does not relate to the removal of the 'victim' solely, but her removal from her legal guardians.

Who has misunderstood the legal implications of the word 'abduction'? Nobody here as far as I can interpret. I certainly have very little influence or concern when it comes to determining where childhood should end in English Law, or anywhere else for that matter. I accept the law as it is whether I think it's an ass or the Bee's Knees.

The only issue here is whether, in the cases previously mentioned, 'abduction' is an accurate description in the sense that most people might understand it. I very much suspect it isn't. 'Unlawful Behaviour With A Minor' might appear 'to some' a rather more accurate description though a bit of a mouthful, admittedly.

Still, even I can easily live with any eccentrically-worded legal definition, and it's not really a matter that I particularly wish to go to forum war over ...

[vinteuil]

It's the the that is the problem, as it implies only one sex.

... I don't see that. I read "the opposite" as implying "each to the other", viz two sexes.

[french frank]

Who has misunderstood the legal implications of the word 'abduction'? Nobody here as far as I can interpret.

According to you, 'most people' have misunderstood the legal implications since they don't regard it (again according to you) as an 'accurate description'. It is the legal description. Cf the Jeremy Forrest trial: he is charged with child-abduction, whether or not that seems an 'accurate description' to you or not. You'd better contact the judge if you think he's been charged with the wrong offence

The only issue here is whether, in the cases previously mentioned, 'abduction' is an accurate description in the sense that most people might understand it. I very much suspect it isn't.

But you've just said you think no one has 'misunderstood the legal implications of the word 'abduction'. In which case there is no 'issue'.

[scottycelt]

According to you, 'most people' have misunderstood the legal implications since they don't regard it (again according to you) as an 'accurate description'. It is the legal description. Cf the Jeremy Forrest trial: he is charged with child-abduction, whether or not that seems an 'accurate description' to you or not. You'd better contact the judge if you think he's been charged with the wrong offence

But you've just said you think no one has 'misunderstood the legal implications of the word 'abduction'. In which case there is no 'issue'.

On the contrary I never suggested 'most people have misunderstood the legal implications'. How arrogant and stupid of me if I had done! In fact you then contradict that claim in your final sentence where you quote me correctly. Believe me, I have absolutely no need or desire to contact any judge and give him/her a right good "wigging" ...

However the legal wording may well (indeed already has!) raise some eyebrows as the cases mentioned are possibly not everyone's idea of 'abduction'.

I therefore think that the OP's request for some clarification as to legal wording was quite understandable. We (at least some of us!) may not think the legal word used is particularly accurate but we are all certainly forced to accept it.

So all of us need worry no longer, ff!

[french frank]

I suppose the puzzlement was over the word 'child' rather than 'abduction' since the latter is clear. Speaking of no case in particular, if one thinks that a girl of 15 is an adult, and is therefore held, legally, to be capable of taking her own decisions in willingly going away with an older chap, then one is wrong: she is a minor. Should a judge feel that she was responsible for egging the poor fellow on, of course, he might overlook the fact that the chap happened to be well aware that she was, in the eyes of the law, a child and that he was abducting her from her legal guardians. Who knows what a judge might decide in any given circumstances and direct a jury accordingly? But the crime in any case is not abduction: it is child-abduction. And a minor is a 'child'.

A news story reporting a court case or trial has to include certain information and use correct terms, regardless of whether a member of the general public might misinterpret or misunderstand.