Well, I have completed my readings of the Federal Constitution and the Statute of the Child and Adolescent. So what else is there to do? Well, now comes the really difficult part, which is to build a bridge between the scientific articles and books I have and the laws. In fact, from what I have observed, the ban on child sexuality conflicts with the rights guaranteed to children and adolescents. Then one may speak of vexation, humiliation, and oppression. I have a lot to read and write before the final text (codenamed the Lolipill) is finished. I like to think of it as my “informal masters dissertation.”
A friend of mine gave me two advices: to write about the age of consent within the context of the minor’s sexual self-determination and to write with lawyers and judges as target audience. And that was where my previous text, the Statutory Rape, was failing. It had no target audience in particular. We know that, after all, laws are enforced by the judiciary. When one law conflicts with another, the judge must decide what to do. Considering that there are judges who absolve relationships engaged before the age of fourteen, it would not be entirely alien to believe that it is possible to strengthen the legal arguments of defense lawyers hired by a defendant. As I said before, there are three ways to eliminate a law, one of which is the implosive way. If the law does not convict or has difficulty convicting, what is its use?
Although I can not legally tell you to break the law, it is not illegal, as far as I know, to help you defend yourself if you are about to face trial, especially if you are underage. True, law enforcement is not my area, but reading the laws is not even that hard and I do not think I’m stupid to the point of not having understood anything I’ve read. So, although I can offer arguments, their validity depends on the judge. This is going to be fun. Let’s see how far we can go with this idea!