It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Debate the concept of Romeo and Juliet-based laws.
Consider that, within a country, states and provinces often have varying laws on ages of consent, much like how (in The United States, for example) state-wide legislations work to legalize things such as marijuana, and occurs thusly on a state-to-state basis. (i.e., as of 2017, Mississippi laws say age of consent is 16, whereas in California age of consent is 18)
Consider if age of consent should be higher or lower, taking into account society, culture, as well as biological and anatomical differences in maturity, in times past in which laws were established, compared to present. Consider the average potential for intellectual, emotional, physical, socioeconomic maturity and experience (& et cetera) to be gained by our new generations which may affect your general answer.
Consider statutes and their effects, and if revision could be necessary to better enforce the law.
Why, largely, aren't these laws consistent throughout a country? Should they be consistent, or should it be up to each state?
Would difficulties be posed if such a potentially big change occurred as a shift towards consistency? If so, on a large scale, small scale, or both?
Think of jurisdiction and how criminals could use it to their advantage, and how citizens may feel limited by however the laws work in the state/province they reside in. On another hand, consider how the laws changing in each individual state/province may indicate a healthy adjustment more useful to one particular region than another, or indicate a change that was decided upon with too much leeway (if the laws should've been stricter, essentially, and were changed to be less limiting to otherwise potential criminals).
Are the laws in place essentially fine as they are, or do you feel as if changes could be made, although with some difficulty in regards to how to approach and find solutions?