Debate Guide: Legal pragmatism

Here, so-called "legal pragmatism" refers to a series of legal and technical arguments for keeping the age of consent.

The AoC provides a firm line where one is needed; the public needs to know where they are. This also goes for the courts, since objective, simple legislation is technically superior to subjective interpretations. A few unfair convictions is no loss, when this law allows us to get the bad'uns.

A number of issues come to mind, all having a bearing on the viability of this argument:

• How common are these "bad" experiences really? Research may help us here, and would appear to suggest that the proponent's "exceptions to the rule" he is willing to sacrifice for the greater good (we assume he means female teachers who are caught with teenage boys) are deemed the only permissible "exceptions" because of his personal prejudices.
• What meta-ethical system are we using? Negative utilitarianism would appear to contradict this argument, since it tolerates suffering for the "greater good".
• What time scale are we talking of? "Legal-pragmatic" arguments might have some merit in times of sexual repression when experiences are likely to be looked upon with guilt. To avoid establishing a causal loop, however, we would also have to pursue reform of attitudes so that guilt can be reduced, laws changed and personal choice embraced.
• Can we afford to harm individuals who have been caught by arbitrary laws that do not take into account the positive nature of their relationships?
• In light of the variable nature of adult-minor (and indeed any human) sexual relationships, is an objective test in fact the most efficient in court? Can abuse (regardless of age) be identified more efficiently with a subjective test that takes into account lived experience?