european union sex offence legislation between protection and paternalism n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
European Union Sex Offence Legislation between Protection and Paternalism PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
European Union Sex Offence Legislation between Protection and Paternalism

European Union Sex Offence Legislation between Protection and Paternalism

161 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

European Union Sex Offence Legislation between Protection and Paternalism

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Helmut Graupner European Union Sex OffenceLegislationbetweenProtectionandPaternalism The 17year Old Child Conference Sexual Citizenship and Human Rights: What Can the US Learn from the EU and European Law? Austin, November 22, 2013

  2. I. Sexuelle Ausrichtung als Menschenrecht The Enlightenment 1789 French Revolution Forthefirst time in historydecriminalizationof all consensual sexual acts (vaginal intercoursebetweentheunmarried & betweenchristiansandunbelievers, oral and anal sex, homosexuality, masturbation, prostitution etc. ) „Human Beingsarebornfreeandequal in rightsandthey do stay so“ „Freedom consists in therightto do all whatdoes not causedamagetoanother“ (Declarationof Human andCivilRights 1789, Art. 1 & 4)

  3. Sexuality- A Human Right • Human Rights → central idea: human dignity → human dignity = uniqueness and autonomy of the individual →German Constitutional Court: human being must never be a means to an end, but always the end in itself (Kant) → Jewish saying: if you are destroying a single person you are destroying a whole world, if you are saving a single person you are saving a whole world → exactly what human rights are about: uniqueness, autonomy & self-determination of the individual

  4. Human Sexual Rights → fundamental rights in the area of sexuality → should protect human dignity → manifestation of a basic principle of sexual autonomy and sexual self-determination → Correctly understood: two sides → right to wanted sexuality → right to be free and protected from unwanted sexuality (sexual abuse, sexual violence) → both sides of the coin must be given due weight, neither neglected → only then: human sexual dignity fully respected → overemphasis of one side to the detriment of the other: violation of human rights

  5. Task of Lawmakers → find a reasonable balance → between both sides of the coin „sexual autonomy“ → noble task & overhelmingly important → i.e. in respect of young people → to whom we should pass on our ideals & values → respect for dignity & individual autonomy

  6. European Court of Human Rights: • Very essence of the convention is respect for human dignity and freedom • Notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of the right to respect for private life • Sexuality and sexual life are at the core of the fundamental right to protection of private life. State intervention interferes with this right; and such interferences are justified only if demonstrably necessary to avert damage from others (pressing social need, proportionality)

  7. • Attitudes and moral convictions of a majority cannot justify interferences into the right to private life (or into other human rights) • Incompatible with the underlying values of the Convention if the exercise of Convention rights by a minority group were made conditional on its being accepted by the majority (Dudgeon vs. UK 1981, Norris vs. Ireland 1988, Modinos vs. Cyprus 1993, Laskey, Brown & Jaggard vs. UK 1997, Lustig-Prean & Beckett vs. UK 1999; Smith & Grady vs. UK 1999; A.D.T. vs. UK 2000, Christine Goodwin vs. UK 2002, I. vs. UK 2002, Fretté vs. France 2002, L. & V. v. Austria 2003, S.L. v. Austria 2003, Alekseyev vs. RUS 2010)

  8. Member States obligated • to effective protection against sexual violence and abuse • to employ the criminal law (strongest weapon of the state), if necessary for effective deterrence → to guarantee that state agencies intervene whenever necessary for the protection of vulnerable persons (Söderman v S [GC] 2013; Z. & Others vs. UK 2001, E. & Others vs. UK 2002, M.G. vs. UK 2002; X. & Y. vs. NL 1985) as well as • to effectively secure the freedom to wanted sexuality (L. & V. vs. Austria 2003, S.L. vs. Austria 2003; A.D.T. vs. UK 2000) • not restricted to adults S. L. vs. A: EUR 5.000,-- compensation (plus costs and expenses) to an adolescent, who (between 14 and 18) was barred from entering into self-determined sexual relations with adult men (par. 49, 52)

  9. • German Constitutional Court • A minor with increasing age is protectected by the right free development of personality in connection with the right to respect for human dignity, and this protection intensifies with increasing age (BVerfGE 47, 46 (74) = NJW 1978, 807) • The right to self-determination of a minor increases mirroring his/her ability to self-determination gradually superseding his/her need to be educated (same decision) • A discerning minor should be able to decide autonomously especially on those rights which are highly personal (central to personality) (BVerfGE in NJW 1982, 1375 [1378])

  10. Sexual Consent in Europe • Striving for the best balance • European states: • minimum age limit („age of consent“) for sexual relations • between 12 and 16 years (only exception: Northern Ireland; MBA critique) • most jurisdictions: 14 or 15

  11. Consensual Sexual Contact (out of a relationship of authority, out of prostitution and pornography) legal at the age of 14: 48% (28 out of 59) 15: 70% (41 out of 59) 16: 98% (58 out of 59) Europe

  12. • States with 16: more flexible system with ample opportunities for screening out (love relationships & other non-harmful consensual contacts) • States with 12-14: more stringent law enforcement policy (limited powers of discretion for law enforcement agencies, little attention to the will of the victim)

  13. Sexual Consent & Criminal Liability • essential requirementofjustice: soundandconsistentlaws (ECtHR: X. & Y. vs. NL 1985; B. & L. vs. UK 2005; X. et. al. v A [GC] 2013) • appliedtominimumageforsex • shouldbethe same as theageofcriminalresponsibility

  14. • if you punish an adolescent boy for raping a woman, you cannot on the other hand claim that he is too immature to consent to wanted sex with the same woman • if you consider an adolescent boy incapable of making mature and informed sexual decisions, and you consider a woman to abuse him if she engages in consensual sex with him, you cannot reasonably hold that same adolescent boy liable for raping the woman if she does not consent to sex with him

  15. age for criminal responsibility 14 & minimum age limit for sexual contacts (“age of consent”) 15 (or even higher): consensual sex between two 14-year-olds -> both sex offenders, both victims both perpetrators & victims vis a vis each other (!) at the same time. • no fair balance (unreasonable, absurd, and unjust) serious violation of human rights a rejection of the principles of individual autonomy and self-determination

  16. • vast majority of European jurisdictions: age of consent for sexual relations no higher than the age of criminal responsibility, and most set the same age for both • Child Pornography: same agelimit (reflectsgeneralnotionoftheterm „child“, depictionof a crime) • untilthebeginningofthe 21st century

  17. EU-Child PornographyFramework Decision(FD 2004/68/JHA 22.12.2003 on combattingsexual exploitationofchildrenandchildpornography) European Commissionporposal (2001) • „Child“: anypersonupto 18 years • Nodifferencesbetweencertainagegroups • 17 ½ yearoldyoung man: treatedthe same as a 5 yearoldchild • „Child Pornography“: • All kindsofvisualdepictions • sexual acts • involvingpersonsunder 18 • includes: „lasziviousexposureofthegenitalsorthepubicarea“ • Definition of „Child Pornography“literallytakenoverfrom § 2256 U.S.-Federal Criminal Code: US-Congress (1994): • not restrictedtodepictionsofnudepersons • neithertodepictionswherethegenitalscanbediscernedundertheclothing • Videos: genitalsandthepubicareaneed not bepartofthedepiction; lasziviousactsorexposure not required

  18. • Also covered: • virtual (not real) depictions • adultslookinglikeunder 18 • good deal ofregularstandardpornographyputundersuspicionofcriminality • Defnitiontakenoverfrom US-legislationcoverspotentiallythuscovers all imaginable kindsoferoticdepictionsdisplayingpersonsunder 18 (eveniffullyclothed) • „Sexual Exploitation“ • Contactsagainstmoneyorotherthingsofeconomicvalueor „other“ (non-economic) • Contactsunder „inducement“ ofthepersonunder 18 • Juvenile Perpetrators: • Noexceptions • Same sanctions (minimummaximumpenalties) • As victimstreatedaschildren, asperpetratorstreatedasadults

  19. • Obligation tocriminalise • 15 yearoldwhotakes a pictureofthegirl-friendof same age in a tightbikiniwhichletsbeseenthe „pubicarea“ (while not thegenitals) and in a „laszivious“ position • 14 yearoldwho, in hisprivacy, draws a nude 17 yearoldbeauty in a „laszivious“ position • 17 yearoldswhoexchangeintimatepicturesofthemselvesorwatcheachotherover a web-camandtherebyareepxposingtheir „pubicarea“ (oreventheirgenitals) in a „laszivious“ manner („Webcam-Sex“) • Adolescentswhotakethe initiative tosexwithotheradolescents („induce“ them) orgrantthem (non-economic) remuneration (loveafffection?) forintimatecontacts

  20. The Critique Sharp criticism: -> World Associationfor Sexual Health (WAS) -> Austrian Society for Sex Research (ÖGS) -> German Society forSocio-Scientific Sex Research (DGSS) -> German Society for Sex Research (DGfS) („moralcoloniasm“) -> German Society forSexology (GSW) -> European Region ofthe International Lesbianand Gay Association (ILGA) -> Lesbianand Gay Associationof Germany (LSVD) Expert-Hearings in the Austrian (2003) and German Federal Parliaments (2008): unanimousrejectionbytheexpertsheard (law, child- & youth-psychatry, psychotherapy, child-protection)

  21. • Points of Criticism: • „inducement“, „non-economic“ remuneration • economic „remuneration“ covers not just prostitution but also an invitation to the cinema or to a dinner • Criminal investigations (causality of an advantage?) do more damage to juveniles than good, puts adolescent sexuality under a suspicion of criminality • Criminalization of adolescent prostitution: obstructs low-treshold outreach social work with young sex workers • „youth-pornography (as opposed to „child-pornography“): depicts not a sex crime but legal contacts (even protected by fundamental rights) -> criminalization beyond commercial pornography even within private consensual relationships -> unproportionate interference with sexual autonomy (self-determination) • Marriage age 16 (Germany, Austria): even possession of a „lascivious“ (pornographic) picture of one´s own spouse is a sex-offence • Criminalization of possession of „lascivious“ („pornographic“) pictures of a fully developed 17year-old woman or a fully developed 17year-old young man (in A and parts of Germany entitled to vote; in A military-aged) not understandable • No language in the world ever has used the term „child“ for persons beyond their early teens • Compromise of an effective combat of sexual exploitation; waste of valuable resources needed for combatting real child-pornography

  22. • Council of Ministers: • „inducement“ deleted • „non-economic“ remunerationsdeleted • „remuneration“: must beofferedforthewillingnessof an adolescenttobereadyto sexual contact (elementofseduction)

  23. Exceptions Pornography: age limit of 18 and coverage of private relationships retained, but three non-obligatory exceptions created: • Adults:member-states may exclude adults who look like under 18 from the scope of the offence (Art. 3 Abs. 2 lit. a) • Sexual Consent: member-states may exclude: • production & posession • depictions of person above the age of sexual consent (D & A: 14 years) • with their consent and solely for their personal use (?) • not covered: showing of pictures to others • for instance not covered: adolescents who show „laszivious“ („pornographic“) pictures of themselves (alone or with their partners) to others

  24. Virtual images: • Council of Ministers reduced to „realistic“ (virtual) images • In addition member-states may exclude from the scope of the offence: • production and possession • exclusively for the personal use of the producer • if no depiction of a real (even adult) person is used in the production • and if there is no danger of distribution • 14year-old may(if his/her member-state makes use of such an exception) draw a 17year-old beauty in a „laszivious“ („pornographic“) position, but may not show his drawing to anyone • 17year-old may (if his/her member-state makes use of such an exception) generate and store on his/her computer a virtual „laszivious“ („pornographic“) animation of an adolescent but maynot use for that a depiction of her/his 16-year-old boy-friend and must secure the file effectively with a password (otherwise he/she commits a crimnal offence)

  25. Proposal for a new EU-Directive on combatting sexual exploitation of children and child-pornography (KOM (2010)94) Member-states must criminalize: • Erotic material with adult performers who (in the eye of the court) look like under 18 • Production and posession of virtual images in one´s privacy (14year-old draws a „realistic“ image of 17year-old nude beauty) • Consensual Webcamsex or production of pictures of a 19year-old with his 17year-old girl-friend, if the court does not recognize a „similar mental and physical development“ or (nevertheless) sees „implicit abuse“

  26. • Offences not restricted to pornography and no exceptions for arts, science etc.: • -> also movies covered (like coming-of-age films) or documentaries and sex-education material including simulated sex acts under 18, if the actors are under 18 • (unclear if also adult actors are covered) • Mere private posession for own personal use: minimum maximum sanction of 2 years • Mandatory reporting for anyone (!) if „reasonable suspicion“ (including lawyers, therapists etc. vs their clients) • Prohibiton of any frequent contacts with persons under 18 (custody, profession, private life, trains/bus/trams?) • Protection from child(!)pornography? • 07.10.10: 27 member-states agreed (in the Council), new offences to be adopted within 2 years

  27. -> Joint declarationofthe German speakingsexologicalsocieties (DGfS, DGG, GSW, DGSMT, ÖGS, DGSS) „Adolescentsand Young AdultsarenoChildren“ (13.02.2011) (sentto all membersofthe European Parliament -> DeclarationsoftheWorld Associationfor Sexual Health (WAS) & theEuropean FederationofSexology (EFS) -> DiscussionoftheCommission´sproposal (adoptedbythe Council) in theEuropean Parliament -> Directive 2011/93/EU (13.12.2011): all oftheabsurditiesproposedbytheCommission (andconsented in the Council) -> deleted

  28. Absurditiesprevented, but theproblematicareasoftheold frame-workdecisionkeep on -> EU-Arrest-Warrant:does not require double criminality. Arrest andtransfer must takeplace also whentheaskedmember-statemadeuseofoneofthepossibleexceptions (forinstancewebcamsexbetween 17year-olds). -> 7 monthsimprisonment (withoutprobation) forpossessionof 5 nudepictures (no sexual acts) of„mightbeunder 18year-old“ youngmen (OGH 02.03.2010, 14 Os 73/09), -> expert opinion:one in ten 18year-olds looklikethese 5 men -> evidenceproofingthe (adult) age not admitted

  29. Convictionas a sex-offenderincreasinglymeans: -> no pardon -> longerprobation time -> longer time forextinctionfromcriminalrecord -> automaticlossofjobforpublicsector employees -> prohibitionsofcertainprofessions & activities -> noelectronicallysupervisedhouse-arrest -> sex-offenderregistry • Acquitted: -> practicallynorefundofdefense-costs

  30. Shiftofburdenofprooftothedefendant: -> for adult ageofpersonsdepicted Criminalprosecutionsof 16year-olds fordistributingnudepicturesoftheirown Attempts tocriminalizethedefense -> forprinting out front pageof legal websitewithdisclaimerastotheageoftheperformerstoprovetheir adult age

  31. Very problematic developments -> in especially as they compromise the important effective combat of real child-pornography