Unified Federal Territories Sex Crimes Bill

[MasterJedi]

Unified Federal Territories Sex Crimes Bill


Section 1: Applicability
This law shall only apply in the District of Columbia and in federal territories that do not form part of any Region.

Section 2: Rape
1. Rape shall be defined as the unlawful penetration (however slight):
(a) of the mouth by the penis, or
(b) of the anus or the vagina by the penis or any object held or manipulated by another person.
2. To be found guilty it must be proved that at the time of the act the actor knows that the victim does not consent, or is reckless as to whether the victim does or does not consent to it.  Any person found guilty of rape may liable to a term of life imprisonment.

Section 3: Age of Consent
1. The age at which a person may consent to engage in sexual relations with another person shall be 16.  The following exceptions are made:
(a) A person between the ages of 14 and 16 may consent to have sex with another person of the same age;
(b) A person between the ages of 15 and 17 may consent to have sex with another person of the same age;
(c) A person aged 16 or 17 may not consent to have sex with another person over 18 if that person is in a position of authority over the 16 or 17 year old;
(d) In order to partake in group sexual relations, all participants must be at least or older than 18 years old.
2. Any person who is 18 years old or older that has sex with any person who is between the ages of 14 and 15 years old shall be guilty of statutory rape; they shall be sentenced to no more than ten years in prison and may be subject to rehabilitation and counseling sessions as determined by the jury.
3. Any person who is 16 years old or older that has sex with any person who is 13 years old or younger shall be guilty of child molestation; they may be liable to a term of life imprisonment depending upon the severity and frequency of the violations.  Persons 18 years old or older who violate this law will be sentenced to no less than ten years in jail and may be subject to rehabilitation and counseling sessions as determined by the jury.
4. "Group sexual relations" (as referred to in Clause 1(d)) is defined as sexual activities consisting of three or more people.

Section 4: Bestiality
The act of bestiality, which is defined as gross sexual imposition, sexual assault, or the committing of a deviant sexual act with an animal that is not a human being, shall be illegal.  Any person found guilty of bestiality shall be sentenced to no more than one year in jail and/or shall be fined no more than $2000.

Section 5: Penetration of a Human Corpse
1. Sexual acts relating to necrophilia shall be illegal.  Any person found guilty of sexual acts relating to necrophilia shall be sentenced to no more than one year in jail and/or shall be fined no more than $2000.  Appropriate penalties relating to restrictions on cemetery visits and in particular contact with the family of the person whose corpse has been defiled may be applied by juries as they see fit.
2. "Sexual acts relating to necrophilia" is defined as:
(a) a person intentionally performing an act of penetration with a part of his or her body or anything else,
(b) what is penetrated is a part of the body of a dead person,
(c) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what is penetrated, and
(d) the penetration is sexual, and in particular not for medical, scientific, forensic or investigative reasons.

Section 6: Incest
1. No two people or group of persons who are closely biologically related may engage in sexual relations with each other.  Any person found guilty of willingly violating this law shall be sentenced to no more than one year in jail and/or shall be fined no more than $2000.
2. "Closely biologically related" is defined as to restrict sexual actions between a person and his or her biological mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, first cousin, niece, nephew, daughter, son, granddaughter, grandson, great-granddaughter, great-grandson, great-grandmother, or great-grandfather.

Section 7: Pornography
It shall be legal for persons of 16 years of age or older to buy, possess and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older.
___________________________________________________________

Sponsor: Sen. MasterJedi

[Keystone Phil]

I will not support this bill unless the age of consent and the age to access pornography is raised to 18.

[MasterJedi]

I would like to announce that I have made a mistake. I was supposed to introduce the Medicare Reform Bill before this. I'm thinking that I should just leave this up and introduce the Medicare next since I introduced both anyway. I can change this if there's anybody who has a huge objection to this.

[Speed of Sound]

While I'll still support it either way, I would prefer to see a consent rule put on necrophilia. I understand that sexuaal fetishes are not voluntary, and that consent can be given before death, l;ike in organ donations, so I fail to see the problem with allowing legality through consent.

[Gabu]

While I'll still support it either way, I would prefer to see a consent rule put on necrophilia. I understand that sexuaal fetishes are not voluntary, and that consent can be given before death, l;ike in organ donations, so I fail to see the problem with allowing legality through consent.

Wouldn't there kind of be health issues relating to having sex with rotting corpses, at the very least?

[jerusalemcar5]

I will not support this bill unless the age of consent and the age to access pornography is raised to 18.

You like sending teenagers to prison and slapping them with large fines?  The pornography age is questionable as it stands in this bill, but 18 is ridiculous.  So we deny sexuality until 18.  That is not natural.  How does this help society? Sexual repression causes bad things to happen. Personally, I'd suggest pornography at 14, and consent should stay at 16.  We don't want to pull a crazy Santorum because soon we'll start only allowing sex between married couples who write and video tape consent and are both above the age of 21 with pornography illegal.

[Jake]

You want your legal titty mags don't you?

[Keystone Phil]

  So we deny sexuality until 18.  That is not natural.

What? How does putting an age on consent make something unnatural?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Putting an age on consent isn't repression. I love how you can say 16 for consent and that's fine but 18 is repression. Couldn't any set age be seen a repression?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've proven to be so immature here. Luckily, you'll never serve in the Senate. I do love the "We don't want to pull a crazy Santorum" line though.

[jerusalemcar5]

What? How does putting an age on consent make something unnatural?

By denying one's nature... Care to clarify?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was speaking about the age of consent on viewing pornography, not sure if you were talking about the age of sexual consent.  For sexual consent, it isn't repression because this bill allows sex between minors.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha.  I love the burning hatred that seeths from your posts.  I wonder how it's immature?  I'd love to debate this if you had anything substantial I could debate.

Btw, thank you, I thought it was a good line.

[Keystone Phil]

By denying one's nature... Care to clarify?

Don't get smart with me. We're denying nature by setting an age on sexual consent? Wouldn't the ages you proposed be unnatural, too?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Isn't setting an age on viewing pornography "unnatural?"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, my hatred for that comment is on the same high level as your complete stupidity. It's immature because you have to resort to silly name calling. We're "Santorum-ing" something. Oh wow, very cool! I'd love to debate, too, but you have nothing substantial to debate.

[jerusalemcar5]

Don't get smart with me. We're denying nature by setting an age on sexual consent? Wouldn't the ages you proposed be unnatural, too?

Isn't setting an age on viewing pornography "unnatural?"

I'm not getting smart, I actually wanted you to clarify the question.  I was using puberty as my guidelines for the urge to have sexual relations.  It is unnatural for prepubescent children to have sexual urges.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As if calling me "completely stupid" is not immature name calling.  Do you have a need to be a hypocrite? What do you think we are doing right now as we talk about this bill?  Are we not debating? And I was simply mentioning Santorum's notable record for being rather conservative on sex issues.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm not getting smart, I actually wanted you to clarify the question.  I was using puberty as my guidelines for the urge to have sexual relations.  It is unnatural for prepubescent children to have sexual urges.

So you have 14 for porn access, correct? Isn't that repressive since many people experience puberty before that age?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm going to call you completely stupid when you start with the immature name calling and there's nothing hypocritical there. This isn't debating; this is you throwing around stupid labels like "Santoruming" when that has nothing to do with the Atlasian Senate.

By the way, being conservative on sex issues doesn't mean being repressive.

[jerusalemcar5]

So you have 14 for porn access, correct? Isn't that repressive since many people experience puberty before that age?

You have to draw the line somewhere, and 14 is a hell of a lot better than 18.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be nearly impossible to debate in Atlasia if you couldn't debate the basis of Atlasia, which is the United States.  Atlasia has been around for about two years so anything in the U.S. pre-2004 should be fair game.  Santorum's record on sex issues has been around since long before that and I agree being conservative doesn't automatically mean repressive, it is only in some cases.

[Jake]

So you have 14 for porn access, correct? Isn't that repressive since many people experience puberty before that age?

You have to draw the line somewhere, and 14 is a hell of a lot better than 18.

In your opinion.

[jerusalemcar5]

So you have 14 for porn access, correct? Isn't that repressive since many people experience puberty before that age?

You have to draw the line somewhere, and 14 is a hell of a lot better than 18.

In your opinion.

Well, in the opinion of nature actually.

[MasterJedi]

So you have 14 for porn access, correct? Isn't that repressive since many people experience puberty before that age?

You have to draw the line somewhere, and 14 is a hell of a lot better than 18.

In your opinion.

Well, in the opinion of nature actually.

Your opinion (and anyone's for that matter) is just that, your opinion. Stop trying to make it out to be more than it is.

[jerusalemcar5]

So you have 14 for porn access, correct? Isn't that repressive since many people experience puberty before that age?

You have to draw the line somewhere, and 14 is a hell of a lot better than 18.

In your opinion.

Well, in the opinion of nature actually.

Your opinion (and anyone's for that matter) is just that, your opinion. Stop trying to make it out to be more than it is.

Well according to the National Institutes of Health (American institutes that were absorbed by Atlasia), "The hormones also cause secondary sex characteristics and interest in sex." "When a healthy child is somewhere between 9 and 16 years old, he or she will enter puberty."

Look Here

So I think 14 for pornography is a reasonable compromise.  16 is the extreme end of sexual urges.

[Jake]

Should be 9 then. Don't want to repress anyone's sexuality here.

[Speed of Sound]

Should be 9 then. Don't want to repress anyone's sexuality here.

Sounds good to me. Like they'll want to look at porn at that age anyway. If they do, why shouldn't they? I like the 9 idea.

[jerusalemcar5]

Should be 9 then. Don't want to repress anyone's sexuality here.

Sounds good to me. Like they'll want to look at porn at that age anyway. If they do, why shouldn't they? I like the 9 idea.

I'd support that, but I don't think it would pass very easily.  I'd estimate 80% of Atlasia's male population would break that law by 16.  That's why I think 14 is more appropriate, possibly 13.  Since under the current bill a 15  yr old and a 17 yr old could have sex, but the 15 yr old couldn't then look at porn

[Speed of Sound]

Should be 9 then. Don't want to repress anyone's sexuality here.

Sounds good to me. Like they'll want to look at porn at that age anyway. If they do, why shouldn't they? I like the 9 idea.

I'd support that, but I don't think it would pass very easily.  I'd estimate 80% of Atlasia's male population would break that law by 16.  That's why I think 14 is more appropriate, possibly 13.  Since under the current bill a 15  yr old and a 17 yr old could have sex, but the 15 yr old couldn't then look at porn

IIRC, a 14 yr old may have sex, but not look at porn. This is truly the biggest flaw in this legislation. Now that I think about it, that is terribly hypocritical.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, we do it just fine without bringing up Senator Santorum. Thanks anyway. We'll call you when your commentary is worth anything.

[jerusalemcar5]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, we do it just fine without bringing up Senator Santorum. Thanks anyway. We'll call you when your commentary is worth anything.

But you don't know my number! . Haha.  By the way it is 1-315-382-5968.  Call whenever!

[Speed of Sound]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, we do it just fine without bringing up Senator Santorum. Thanks anyway. We'll call you when your commentary is worth anything.

But you don't know my number! . Haha.  By the way it is 1-315-382-5968.  Call whenever!

I wouldnt do that. Last time a member posted thier phone number here...........   >_>

[jerusalemcar5]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, we do it just fine without bringing up Senator Santorum. Thanks anyway. We'll call you when your commentary is worth anything.

But you don't know my number! . Haha.  By the way it is 1-315-382-5968.  Call whenever!

I wouldnt do that. Last time a member posted thier phone number here...........   >_>

It isn't actually my phone number.  It is a message.