Schutzalter aus psychologischer Sicht?
Betrachtet man nur solche Rechtsordnungen, in denen das Schutzalter dem Schutz der Psyche des Kindes/des Jugendlichen dient(e), so schwankt es nach Ort und Zeit immer noch mindestens zwischen 12 und 18.
Die Frage, die sich mir deshalb aufdrängt ist, ob es wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse dazu gibt, die bei der Festlegung eines konkreten Schutzalters helfen können.
Z.B. Studien, die durch Befragung über vergangene Sexualerfahrungen herauszufinden versuchen, bei welchen Alterskonstellationen der beteiligten Personen ein psychischer Schaden entstanden ist oder auch nicht oder Ähnliches.
Ist euch da wissenschaftliche Literatur zu bekannt?
(2 votes)
Loading...
This depends in principle on the being and not on the age.
But the legislator must make it dependent on age, otherwise it is not possible. Even with 18 not everyone is grown, yet the legislator has set the age of full.
That may be so.
It is, in principle, arbitrary.
It is important to have legal certainty and to avoid injustice as far as possible.
In Germany there is now the (something silent) § 176 StGB Abs. 2 StGB (possible adjustment with low age/development difference), while there are clear age gap tolerances in Austria and Switzerland (as well as in Switzerland possible settings).
I find the latter better – from both points of view.
The German system is ill with the problem that it makes a court very difficult to impossible to set up a procedure, even if the court considers this to be necessary according to concrete knowledge of the facts.
And it depends on it alone.
No, individual. For example:
An evaluation only after age is necessarily linked to injustices – especially in an area that cannot be linked to age, but depends on the individual level of development.
This is also absolutely conscious of the lawyers.
On the other hand, an age-based rule simply creates legal certainty and facilitates the work of justice.
But there are theoretically and practically countless possibilities, such as the legal systems. Deal with it.
Bullshit.
Every person must be individually analyzed.
Everything else would be arbitrary.
it does not affect the actual effects but the social protection of children. An adult can also take psychological damage through sexual experiences. There’s no age where it’s safe or it won’t happen anymore. It is also about protecting children from themselves. For older people, a much greater freedom of choice is accepted in all areas.
Well, if there were no negative effects, you wouldn’t have to protect them either. The question of how high the likelihood of this (at what age etc.) is already a question that can be scientifically examined and can influence legislation. For example, in the case of the protection age for cannabis, it was considered in legal circles to fix it higher than 18 because the substance still has an increased potential for damage by 25. It has not prevailed, but has been debated.
Section 176 StGB.
Everything else is not relevant.
You didn’t understand the question.
Oh, are you mad that 12-year-olds are taboo for you and you have to have 14-year-olds?
You are the reason why there is the age limit