Debate Guide: Legal pragmatism

Here, so-called "legal pragmatism" refers to an argument that concedes the possibility of unjust convictions, but remains in favor of maintaining Age of Consent laws above 16 or 18.

A legal age provides a fine line in the sand, where society needs it. In court, objective, simple legislation cuts out the need for subjective interpretations. A few unsafe, or unfair convictions are no loss, when it allows us to show zero tolerance to the predators.

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

• How common are predatory relationships really? Research may help us here, and would tend to suggest that we need a far more sensitive legal tool for separating abuse of minors from voluntary relations. For the proponent's argument to work, we would have to make a series of assumptions - for example, believing that student relationships with female teachers are the only potentially non-abusive exceptions. Ultimately, lived experience is subjective, and thus can only be inefficiently judged by objective legal criteria such as age and presumed authority.
• What ethical system are we using? Negative utilitarianism (prioritizing the reduction of harms/suffering) is usually applied in defense of consent laws. Yet the same ethical system may well contradict our proponent's argument, as he is causing considerable suffering for what he believes to be a "greater good" of harm-reduction. Under a negative utilitarian model, do the collateral harms caused by a broad-sweeping and punitive legal scheme have adequate offsets in that suffering among abuse victims is reduced, above and beyond laws that entertain the possibility of consensual relations?

• Further, are we not bringing about further harms, by establishing a causal loop in which puritanical attitudes bring about the same results puritanical laws seek to avoid? Research appears to suggest that self-perception, shame and stigma are very strongly associated with psychological harms.